Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I want to concur with a fair degree of what the Minister has just said and thank him for the work that he has done in the portfolio. My own experiences have been that certainly when we had the Northland outbreak he took my phone calls and we were able to collaborate a constructive pathway forward. I think many of those written questions will be with my colleague Chris Bishop. I was fortunate to have some myself. Mostly they were answered in a fashion and a time that gave me the information I was looking for. The Minister mentioned election night. You know this is something that may well come out in what we hope will be a commission of inquiry at some point in the future. I think the Minister expressed in select committee that further examination of all of this is certainly not at all out of the ballpark. Now when he says he was notified at around about 7 o'clock on election night we are interested in the early exchanges at 1.06 a.m. on election day suggesting that there was some indication that there was a positive test in and around and the pathway from then to that notification. But that's a body of work that currently sits with the Ombudsman and a number of others. I think looking back at the Alpha outbreak there were certainly things that were done well by this Government and I and we have said as much. I think it got a bit tatty as Delta came along around about August 17 as I recall and then things became more challenging with Omicron. So I certainly want to give credit where credit's due but of course we're also here to try and take what may well have been a good response and make it a great response. That's our responsibility as an Opposition. The order that we have in front of us today the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 was last extended six months ago and it does a number of things. It is the primary legislation for things like managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) pre-departure testing the traffic light framework and vaccination requirements. And under sections 9 and 11 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act is the ability to create orders orders such as the public health response protection framework which has been reported back from the Regulations Review Committee. Two parts that have interested them relate to exemptions under the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework) Amendment Order (No 9) 2022 one which talked about mask wearing and entertainers—I won't go over that but the social distancing entertainers would need to have. The other was around exemptions from mask wearing. The report that the very hard-working Regulations Review Committee has sent back to the House raises the question around the punitive actions for breaching the COVID order more particularly the infringement offences. The concern here is that the much more serious non-infringement offences seem to be part of the order which are really only kept for very serious offences when in fact just ordinary infringement offences would suffice. So they write here that they've written to the Minister on 1 June seeking clarification of this. So we don't have the answer to that here today but I'm sure at some time that will be reported back to the Regulations Review Committee as they're requesting.The Act itself National will not be supporting. We will be opposing the Act. It's not vastly different. In fact it is much the same from where it was six months ago and we fundamentally maintain some of the issues we maintained then. The Act is a blunt tool. It's a blunt tool in an environment that is now as the Minister has just said a widely vaccinated environment—quite different to what it was six months ago. If we look at some of the things that have changed—the Act provisions MIQ. MIQ is no longer required or needed and has been moved away from. Pre-departure testing is gone. The traffic light framework was modified last week to five levels and the vaccination requirements are quite different. We're now a relatively highly vaccinated population as I've said and just last week under the Medicines Amendment Act we authorised the fourth vaccine or the second booster. So things have changed quite a lot and yet we're just repeating and extending the very same Act—we're extending it. How that reads is that the Act had a life of 90 days unless it was provisioned further. That's what we're doing here; we're provisioning it for a further six months. What we're not seeing is any work from the Government around provisioning our COVID response into business as usual. That's the sort of work we'd be looking to see but it does seem to be missing at this point in time. I guess the question is we could be extending this Act here today or we could maybe be using legislation that already exists. Maybe legislation around maritime and air borders for example might cover the purposes that we're wanting to achieve tonight. So in summary National will be opposing this motion. We're opposing it because we see this Act as a blunt tool not taking at all into account our current environment. We continue to call for the Minister to describe a pathway for mandates a pathway for when they might complete and what the requirements might be for that to happen. So on that basis National will be opposing this Act tonight. Thank you.