SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. It just so happens that Mr Hipkins and I did arrive at this place over 13 years ago at the same time and he looked much much younger than I did at the time. I must say given what he's had to experience over the last couple of years perhaps he's weathered a little more quickly but I know that that's what ministerial office does.The National Party is pleased to support this motion and I associate myself with nearly all of the comments that Mr Hipkins made. I'll come to one point where I have a slightly different perspective on it. But as he says this has had a relatively long gestation but I reckon it has landed in a really good place. And actually it was necessary I think to experience what was possible what was necessary and what continued to ensure that a vibrant democracy continues.As members will recall we were shut down for several weeks in 2020 and the substitute for that was the Epidemic Response Committee. Now that to me was no substitute for this place but it was a pretty good imitation for the time. I know it was looked at very closely around the world and as Mr Hipkins said the UK and Australian parliaments moved quite quickly to put in place the opportunities for remote participation—albeit I note that in Australia they weren't able to vote the pairing system still applied and so that could've been quite problematic for smaller parties particularly but even for the Government. And I expect that there were probably people travelling when it might not have been as safe to do so as was considered comfortable.Last year actually I raised this as an alternative to what looked like an extended suspension of Parliament and I referred to the UK and Australian experience. The initial response—and this is certainly no reflection on the Clerk—was that actually it was technically difficult quite costly and so it kind of went into a little bit of a hiatus for a few months before the Clerk came back and said Actually we've had a look again. We think we can do it. We think we've got the budget for it so let's have a look at it."Now the irony of that was that as the months have passed having raised it my own colleagues became rather—not so enthusiastic about it I think we'll say. And I think there was a context to that also. Remember that we were in level 4 at the time and there was again a move to suspend which we didn't support and I actually think that even when we were running this place between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. for about four or five weeks with a maximum of about 15 members it was still better than what was being considered in the alternative as a virtual Parliament which would have had no more than three people here to satisfy the Standing Orders—the Speaker a Minister and perhaps one member of the Opposition. I really hope we don't get to that point.Because my strong view is that this place is an in-present place a tactile place somewhere where we do have to debate and duke it out. So what we are passing here as a sessional order is the opportunity for remote participation not the opportunity for a virtual Parliament and that's where I differed a little bit in Chris Hipkins' predictions of the future. This sits alongside the COVID-19Protection Framework criteria that the Speaker of the House has put in place for how we can operate under the various colour systems. Even at red we are able to operate with a maximum of 60 members in this House and what I envisage is that when this is needed we will still have that and the ability of people as Mr Hipkins says sometimes in particular geographical locations able to participate remotely. I hope we don't get to the point where we have a very small number of people in this House and the majority participating remotely. I think that would be a problem. I certainly am not signalling that we wouldn't agree to it because what we don't know is what we don't know and we have I think by and large worked quite nimbly to make sure that democracy still happens.So I am signalling though my own view that we should at least have 60 people in this place—sometimes it would be at most—and the ability to remotely participate from time to time. Those alert members will have noticed that the order we are considering today is different from the one that was on the Order Paper for the last few weeks in the sense that it did have a number of ways in which it could be invoked—we have reduced that to one. So it used to have a motion in the House the Speaker in accordance with parts of the motion and the Business Committee. We have reduced that down to the Business Committee. I appreciate Mr Hipkins' willingness to look at that and to agree to that.I've been on the Business Committee on and off over the years and I know it works mostly in a very collegial manner. We have had our moments but that near unanimity that is required has nearly never been a significant barrier to doing the right thing and I'm confident that will be the case in the future. But I would remind both of the larger parties represented in that committee that the greatest beneficiaries of this motion will be I think the minor parties who will be disproportionately affected by members or their loved ones or colleagues being struck down with COVID and therefore their inability to come to Parliament. So in exercising in effect a power of veto Labour and National do need to be very cognisant of the fact that this could affect minor parties. We haven't seen one party for the last couple of weeks and I hope that if this was ever invoked they would take advantage of it because I think that's the most important thing that we all participate on behalf of the people who brought us here and whom we represent.So with those comments I'm very pleased to support this. Like my colleague on the other side I look forward to a—well a fairly bumpy start I expect. There'll be some teething issues when the TV screen gets up but I think it will work and it will be a really good addition to the tool box that we have."