Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I don't know where to begin. Let's start with Rachel Boyack. This was a contribution that basically said Oh you know nothing's perfect. Sometimes we make mistakes. We've got to go back and tidy things up." You know what this Government's done? It's normalised mediocrity. There is an absolute pattern emerging here of very very poor legislation being introduced and passed and coming back. These poor luvvies on the other side don't want to be here and they're blaming us. Well I've got a message for Labour backbenchers: if they want to blame anybody for being here on a Friday morning in Budget urgency blame their own Government—they moved the urgency motion. We're doing our job. The fact that they don't want to be here is not our problem. We've got an opportunity and it's for the very reason Ms Boyack actually stated that we should: because there are too many mistakes.One of the members who's just returned to her seat I think she said there's no playbook to COVID-19 but there's actually a playbook for writing good legislation and there's actually pretty good precedent for doing so. It's a pity they don't follow it because what we are considering is a piece of legislation that the Government is not sure if it's unlawful no one complained and even if it was unlawful the amendment shouldn't be by primary legislation. By the Minister for COVID-19 Response's admission it should be an amendment to the regulation only he wants to be open and transparent. He doesn't think the $2 million that the Government may have unlawfully levied should be fixed by a—Simon Watts: $3.5 million.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: $2.5 million is it?Simon Watts: $3.5 million.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: $3.5 million—goodness me! It's a bit more. Thank you to the accountant from North Shore. There's some kind of virtue in actually doing this amendment under primary legislation only what's the point? Nobody got consulted on it; certainly not the Opposition and I think it would be a sign of respect for the shadow Leader of the House and our COVID-19 recovery spokesperson to have at least been given a bit of an insight. There was no contribution by officials by the look. This is a totally totally inadequate disclosure statement. No regulatory impact statement. We know for the first time—I'm sure the $3.5 million figure isn't written down anywhere. It'll be in Hansard now. The figure of 600 to 650 affected Australians wasn't written down anywhere. The reason we're even here and the answers to the questions that I still have over the difference between a resident and "normally resident" which the Minister attempted to explain but he was unconvincing in my mind—and I won't be surprised if we actually get back here to fix it up again because we've inadvertently cast the net too wide so that Australian citizens who aren't New Zealand citizens who could be resident but who lose that status on their departure from New Zealand are caught in the legislative net that we've just cast by this legislation. We'll be back here again tidying up normalising mediocrity and probably doing it in a really shabby fashion.I agree with Mr Watts that actually we should be debating more aspirational post-Budget legislation that gave a break to small business that supported middle New Zealand and that had some kind of ambition for this country. Instead we're fixing muck-ups—that's with an "m" for the Hansard staff. We are fixing mistakes once again. I'm getting tired of it."