Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. As others have done I commend the bill to the House. Others have made comments about the nature of the bill also commented on the process. I haven't been part of that august body that is the EDSI committee as it's popularly known—and I do mean popularly—the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. I started that acronym expansion not knowing how it would end up but I think we got there in the end. That was dangerous stuff! The heart is racing! So there has been a lot of interest in the bill. And as others have noted—and indeed it's noted in the report itself—there was a lot of interest at very much the last minute—literally the eleventh hour actually—with some huge number of submissions. I think I read some 3600 between the period of 8 p.m. and midnight on the final night alone—so a huge amount of interest. And as a local MP I was contacted by more than one constituent asking for National's position asking if I was aware of certain provisions and their effects. I will say that of course whenever a constituent contacts an MP—well I would hope that that MP would take that very seriously make sure to understand the bill and its effects and its meaning and to be able to either share the outrage of the constituent and undertake to do something about it or perhaps as was the case in this instance to be able to gently assure the constituent or constituents that in fact the meaning and effect of the bill was not as they'd been led to believe.Others have referred to misinformation. Perhaps more kindly I think we might say that there was a degree of misunderstanding around what the bill was intending to do and is intending to do. Others have noted the purported connection between this bill and the COVID vaccine regime. It seems to me clear—and I've done my diligent best to understand and check—that there is no connection really in that regard. So fair enough of course to raise that but I think we're in a position as a House to say that we shouldn't attribute to malice that which can be explained in another way—and I paraphrase a famous saying there. And I do it respectfully but I think the genuine misunderstandings that have been allowed to come up around this bill are something that we should take seriously and take the opportunity as a House to reflect on and to place on the record our view and understanding of exactly what it actually does.So others have done that pretty well—or very well actually I should say—and I don't intend to rehearse the points that they've made. The Hon Judith Collins made the point I think very astutely that it will be changed in the future. It will need to be adapted it will need to be amended. That's common enough with Acts of Parliament. The law changes; practice changes. And of course the reason in this case we can say with confidence that there will be change is because the technology that underlies the legislation itself will change.I don't need to take much more of the time of the House I think. We're getting perilously close to the end of the evening's entertainment. And I use the phrase entertainment" rather loosely of course but others can be the judge of that. Anyway the key point really is that at its heart this is a framework bill—the clue's in the title. I think I'm right in saying that my colleague and friend Melissa Lee made this point in her own contribution: it's a framework it's a foundation it allows rules to be set under the primary legislation that this serves. And the way that that happens is a series of rules or regulations—and I use that phrase deliberately. The Regulations Review Committee—speaking of august bodies—wrote to the EDSI committee and made the point that rules could be made either by Order in Council or by the Minister. And the report does a pretty good job I think of explaining the distinction being based on the content of the rules. So that's I think enough from me—quite enough from me indeed. So with that I leave my contribution except only to say that on this side of the House we've made it tolerably clear we do continue to support the bill."