Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm delighted to talk again on the fix" morning we're having here on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Validation of Managed Isolation and Quarantine Charges) Amendment Bill. I just want to signal to the Minister that when he does assume chairing the committee of the whole House there'll be a number of questions about why on earth we have to do this. Members on this side of the House have raised questions about the relationship between primary and secondary legislation that I think are necessary to have answered.But I want to go back to the question that Chris Bishop did—speculating on whether there were two options here: we could either change the law validate it or we could actually refund them the money because if the Minister believes his own officials it was an unlawful levy at that time. The previous Government had to do that a couple of times. The choice was made that even with a reasonably substantial sum of money we refund it. Mr Bishop speculated that perhaps we couldn't find them. Well it's not that difficult to find people who may be due several thousand dollars in refunds. All you'd have to do is put an ad in the Herald the Dominion Post The Press and the Otago Daily Times and they'll come running. Only why on earth would the Government draw attention to their own failures by advertising that fact in major city daily papers? And actually they'd probably have to put one in The Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald as well because those people might be back in Australia by now.So rather than do the right thing and actually follow the law and refund the money because it would be embarrassing for them we're here on a Friday morning passing retrospective validating legislation to justify the money having been taken out of the pockets of those people unlawfully albeit that they're not even sure that that's the case because the general policy statement is pretty equivocal. It could be argued that there was no lawful authority to charge. Well argue it. They should test the question. I'd be interested to know from the Minister—whether or not somebody's actually asked for a refund on this basis—how it was drawn to the attention of the Government. Why? So that we didn't have so many questions and only found out about the details of this yesterday afternoon—a paucity of information.Did the Minister not think it appropriate to come and talk to other parties and say "Look this is the situation we had."? He had three weeks. I think there has been a track record of constructive dialogue on matters like this in the past and yet we have this popped up on a Thursday afternoon for debate on a Friday morning which frankly is a bit disrespectful of this place. And that's not like the Minister who's usually pretty good at engaging. He has responsibilities for the management of this place through the Business Committee and in this House and this I think falls below the standard that he has set for himself.So I am a bit disappointed about that. But nevertheless I think we can try and be as constructive as possible despite the cries of "Let's go home." wherever those homes are and "Let's get to the golf course or the beach." But actually we've got a job to do. It's called Opposition; it's called proposition and we're going to continue to do it."