Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I do just one final time want to come back to a couple of the points. As I said before I do think we have traversed them but I might be able to find a bit more clarity to satisfy some of the questions that have been raised again by members opposite.The first one I do want to come to is to return back to this issue around the vaccination assessment tool. The member Michael Woodhouse asked the question—it's a different question to the one that was asked before and sort of the opposite. The question that was asked by one of his colleagues was effectively why wouldn't we just put it in primary legislation? He's effectively asking why have it even in secondary legislation? Why not just leave it at the level of guidelines? The response to that is that we have had very very clear feedback from the business sector and actually from unions as well. There's been a lot of agreement between the two of them about wanting to have as much clarity and as much simplicity in the way that employers can make these decisions and come to reasonable assessments that will be legally robust. So part of the reason about embedding it within secondary legislation is that employers will be able to have a high level of confidence that it has clear legislative backing rather than simply guidelines coming from the regulator and that there are some clear and as close to possible objective measures that they can make very simple assessments against.I just draw the member's attention to some of the comments that have been made for example since that announcement yesterday from Business New Zealand from some highly respected employment lawyers who have commented that this vaccination assessment tool will create much more certainty and clarity from employers in terms of how they apply that tool. It'll be much simpler than using broader health and safety risk assessments but to be clear—and I want to underline this—if businesses still choose to use health and safety assessment processes they will be able to do that. We've seen for example Countdown make announcements in that area today. In respect of his question about if an employer goes through that process and then for various reasons determines that maybe they don't want to then proceed with the decisions that they've made that is a matter that we intend to address through the order that will be created to provide clear and legally robust guidance around that particular question. The other point that I want to come to and again it's coming back to the question about boundaries. Again I think the specific concerns around the current Auckland boundary do fall a bit outside of this debate. But actually to be really clear the broad effect of section 11 in this bill actually is not a broadening of powers around boundaries but effectively a clarification of how section 11 orders can work and actually in some respects it will somewhat ease up on the current situation that we have—by for example making the link between boundaries and the operation of the COVID protection framework much clearer. The member's questions about alert levels 3 and 4 decisions are not actually a part of this piece of legislation and the Government has commented on that separately. So again I think that probably clarifies some of the points that have already been discussed in debate but I hope that that is of some benefit to the committee.