Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Speaker. Slow and late—slow and late—that has become the hallmark of this Government in their response to the Delta outbreak that now besets our nation. Nine months ago when the vaccine programme was first being rolled out—slow and late compared with other countries of our sort—they should have been considering some of the aspects of the legislation that is now before us tonight under urgency which is without the scrutiny of a select committee and without the input from stakeholders academics businesses and people who have a role in considering the constitutional matters that are going to impact on the lives of every single New Zealander once this legislation becomes law.There was a time when the Labour Party used to speak proudly about constitutional democracy and the efficacy of select committee process and the shamefulness of legislation that was passed quickly and without scrutiny by our democratic processes but not today—not today. They have long ago forsaken those lofty principles that they once held so dear and that they once aspired to because these days they have an absolute majority in this Parliament and they are determined to make the most of it and put to one side all the checks and balances that go with our historic processes in this Parliament and benefits that come from that analysis and interpretation and scrutiny.So this piece of legislation as one academic has said is a constitutional embarrassment—I think was the exact term Mr Bishop. It was a constitutional disgrace I think the academic has said and part of the reason for that is if members choose to have a little look at the rather thin material that accompanies this piece of legislation the Ministry of Health has prepared a departmental disclosure statement. Well it doesn't take long to read and it doesn't contain much.Most of the elements of the departmental disclosure document refer to things that haven't happened. One of the questions is about the regulatory impact analysis. Were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this Bill?" Answer: "NO". "Extent of impact analysis available … Has further impact analysis become available for any aspects of the policy to be given effect by this Bill?" Answer: "NO". "For the policy to be given effect by this Bill is there analysis available on: (a) the size of the potential costs and benefits? NO (b) the potential for any group of persons to suffer a substantial unavoidable loss of income or wealth? NO" and so it goes on. The level of detail is practically non-existent.I want to concentrate on the matter in the bill that relates to workplace relations and the ability for this piece of legislation to provide a tool. I'll be fair: I think it's a useful tool that employers and businesses will probably welcome because the process that has been available to them to date is a little bit complicated and it's a little bit cumbersome but it's a process none the less. That's using the existing workplace health and safety risk assessment process and some of our bigger firms have actually already done that—organisations like The Warehouse are using it.But for many small businesses—and remember we are of course a nation of small businesses—they have been grappling with the conflicting issues that they find themselves in in terms of what to do if they are a small employer and they've got say 20 staff members and one of them chooses for whatever reason not to be vaccinated. That then puts the employer in a very challenging situation because under the workplace safety legislation that we have in New Zealand they are required to ensure a safe working environment for their employees and their customers and other stakeholders. So the question that they then need to confront is: "Is having a non-vaccinated employee in my business a risk to the other employees in the business who have chosen to be vaccinated? Is it a risk to my customers? Is it a risk to the people that I trade with the suppliers the contractors the people who ensure that the services that my business need are going to be safe and secure as well?"So the tool that is provided is I think at least a start along the way but it should have been in place and been thought about months ago—months and months ago. Here we are—as my colleague Chris Bishop has said—with only six sitting days of this parliamentary year yet to go this legislation will become effective for businesses in 10 days' time and they are only today being given the details of it. If nothing else it's a completely disrespectful and also hopelessly shambolic process.The analysis done by the Ministry of Health goes on to say that in relation to the provisions regarding the Employment Relations Act "Amendments are also being made to the Employment Relations Act 2000 to provide for reasonable paid time off for employees to be vaccinated." Well most prudent employers would I think already be doing that. It would be a very unreasonable employer in my view that wasn't allowing an employee paid time off to be vaccinated. But it goes on and it says "In addition a four-week termination notice to be provided if the employer requires vaccination but the employee is unvaccinated."Now members on the other side might choose to dance on the head of a pin about what that is called but it is effectively paid leave. It is a period of grace paid for by the employer in which time—four weeks—the unvaccinated employee can then have a good think about whether they want to be vaccinated or not.But the real detailed problem in this legislation is that questions remain unanswered about what happens if halfway through or three-quarters of the way through or even on the very last day of that four weeks of paid leave paid and funded by the business owner and operator—who let's face it is already struggling under incredibly difficult economic conditions—that employee then decides "Oh well I'll get vaccinated after all." three weeks and four days into the paid leave. Oh well it's all OK except that there is a provision that says that's unless that decision creates an unreasonable impact on the employer's business. Well that's going to be deeply problematic and—as a previous speaker in the first reading debate made the point—it's going to be an employment lawyers' field day.Not only are there issues and questions to be answered about what happens in that four-week paid leave period but this bill provides for legal ramifications that are effectively a sword of Damocles hanging over the head of the employer. If they make a decision using either the tool or the workplace health and safety risk assessment model and they decide to actually exit an employee from a position that employee can still under this legislation take out a personal grievance case. If the employee decides halfway through the process that "No I'm not going to stick around. I'm going to resign." well that means that there is still an action around constructive dismissal that will be available to them and again it'll be the employment lawyers who are smiling all the way to the bank over this piece of legislation.What will it mean for the poor employer? Well what it means is more time more resource more energy and more focus distracting from the core business and into legal matters that will have to be litigated either in the Employment Relations Authority or the Employment Court and then probably on to higher judicial authorities as well for further judicial interpretation and a decision.That's going to be deeply problematic because the 9 percent of people who at this stage have chosen not to be vaccinated are probably people who have now had an opportunity to give their personal position very careful thought. They are probably increasingly feeling that they are locked into a position that they feel they have to defend and if it means for them that they are going to lose their job well some of them will be prepared to make that sacrifice. It's not a choice that I think that they should be making because I would actually like them to be vaccinated. But some will choose not to and when they don't it has consequences not only for themselves because any decision we make as individuals—whether it's about vaccination or not—has both consequence and responsibility and those consequences and responsibilities actually go far beyond us as mere individuals.So this is a piece of legislation that is a bit like the curate's egg. It's good in parts but in terms of the process and in terms of the parliamentary scrutiny it is an abysmal failure and one that we do not support and will not support."