Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I do have a series of questions. Just looking at one of them—well a series that relates to reputational damage; the other one is consistency with the coalition agreement and then just around the Treaty.I wanted to pick up on a journalistic piece by Guyon Espiner from RNZ who talked about Ministry of Health documents that were sent to the Associate Minister of Health in which those papers talked about the risk to reputational damage that we could potentially face particularly because of legislation that the UK and the US are pursuing. So I'm really interested first in—because I note that in the departmental disclosure statement one of the other entities that was consulted—and I did ask about the Ministry of Social Development education and Whaikaha particularly in reputational damage which I haven't asked yet.I'm keen to understand if in the external consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade or any other entity there had been feedback about the risk of reputational damage to New Zealand—or even trade impacts for example—as a result of this piece of legislation. I'm particularly as I've indicated in my previous contributions keen to see if the Minister would be willing to table some of that advice or for example to table the papers that were obtained by RNZ. Again normally we would have access to those papers as a result of select committee processes. While I don't agree I can accept that urgency works in the way that it does in the sense of the time frames that we're working with. But I don't see the need for the Minister to lower the robustness of the evidence and information that we have available to carry on this debate. So I would invite the Minister to table those papers from Health New Zealand.Now I'm interested as well in picking up the consistency with other agreements in the coalition. The reason for that is that the reason that the Minister has given us constantly and the members of the Government side have alluded to when we ask the Minister why is this bill going forward is that it's in the coalition agreement. But in the coalition agreement there's also stuff in relationship to using the best available data and evidence. The best available data and evidence that we have actually suggest that there will be harm that will come as a result of this bill and so I'm keen to understand whether there has been any work done around making sure that this bill is actually compliant with the coalition agreement because if this Government is taking this coalition agreement seriously and it's using it as an excuse to pass bills under legislation I would hope that the bit about data and evidence isn't just lip service and that actually robust work is being done with this piece of legislation to ensure that it actually matches this.In the article from RNZ from Guyon Espiner the Minister talked about—well sent a statement basically just disagreeing with the—she said I do not accept what Health officials have said about our Treaty of Waitangi obligations but it's not appropriate to talk further about that while the claim is before the [Waitangi] Tribunal." I mean sure she may not agree with that but I'm keen to get a sense of the engagement she would have had in relationship to the Waitangi Tribunal. In that RNZ statement she didn't really speak in response to what the Health New Zealand documents showed particularly in relationship to reputational damage and more than anything about the harm it would have—disproportionate harm that this legislation would have according to Health New Zealand papers—in relationship to Te Whatu Ora papers around the harm to Māori women which the piece on RNZ specifically alludes to.So I'm asking the Minister that if she's not going to engage in substance when put those questions by the media I would hope that at least she would honour the feedback that she's been given by enriching us in this debate about what her response is to those papers that raise concern around reputation damage. To surmise and collate I'm keen to get a sense around whether reputational damage was raised in any of the other agencies that there was external consultation with and if so whether she agrees with that and just to illuminate us as I asked previously on other external consultation feedback that would have been given by other agencies."