Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I just want ask about clause 3 of the new Schedule 3A that Schedule 4 of this bill inserts into the Employment Relations Act 2000. In clause 3 it says The termination of an employment agreement for failure to comply with relevant duties or determination". And then it then goes on to say this clause "applies to the following employees:" so the people that can have their employment terminated. I note the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety said the point is not to terminate people. I agree with that; it's terminating the employment agreement that we're trying to do. And that gives me real worry when the Minister's rushing this kind of legislation about people's rights through the House and he is talking about being the Terminator.Anyway I think it's important that they're terminating the employment agreement not the person. And that can happen if they have a duty imposed under this Act not to carry out work unless they are vaccinated required to undergo medical examination or testing for COVID 19 or otherwise permitted to perform the work under a COVID-19 order. Now the thing is in that clause where it says they're required to undergo medical examination or testing now I just wonder—you know people are going to potentially lose their job based on whether or not they were adequately tested. I asked the Minister for COVID 19 Response earlier. I said "Look what's the story? Is this legislation about vaccination mandates and only vaccination or is it vax or test?" And the Minister got up and said "Oh no no no. It's OK. We're going to make regulations. You'll be able to be tested or vaccinated." And we thought well that's kind of a good thing because you hear about 2 percent of all DHB workers quitting because they don't want to be vaccinated. And I just—I guess we all have to repeat we're in favour of vaccination of course. But the question is: why do we agitate people to the nth degree and lose people from the workforce when actually a lot of them would probably be happy to get a test and be fine? But there's issues around that.So I asked the Minister in the Part 1 debate what's the story with the frequency of testing and what kind of testing? Because I think it would be fair to say that the Government has had a pretty difficult time around test methodologies. I remember back in February I asked the Prime Minister if the Government was open to using saliva testing. She said "No no no no. We're using PCR testing." Obviously unaware that saliva testing is a way of collecting a sample to run through a PCR test. And then of course there's been the long-running spat as I call it between Rako Science and the Ministry of Health over saliva testing. Then there's this question of rapid antigen testing which if you live in a free society like I don't know Australia you can actually just go to a pharmacy and buy a COVID test off the shelf for a couple of bucks. I mean it must be glorious freedom living in Australia being able to do that. Here the Government has actually banned rapid antigen testing and only a select number of approved importers are allowed to use rapid antigen testing. But this stuff's really going to matter because now whether or not you keep your job in this legislation appears to depend on whether you've fulfilled a test requirement. If you're somebody who doesn't want to be vaccinated you have got to get tested instead. And do you keep your job or not? This stuff's quite important and the legislation is suspiciously silent.I asked the Minister in the Part 1 debate—you know there's lots of definitions in the interpretation section the glossary of this law. The glossary of this law says you know that there's lots of definitions around vaccination but there's no definitions of what it means to be tested. God knows what a medical examination for COVID-19 means. But there's certainly no definition of what sort of frequency of testing what sort of testing technology and who does the testing. Can it be a point-of-care test where it's done here right in front of you or would it have to be a test where you send the test away to a laboratory and they do the examination and give you the results? And then there's the question: are you testing for antigens; i.e. the actual COVID-19 virus in your body? Or are you testing for antibodies? Because a world-leading very impressive New Zealand firm experts out of the University of Auckland—great place I might add—called Orbis well they've been developing antibody testing or immunity testing and they've been snubbed by the Government as well. So really the Minister needs to say if you can get sacked for not being tested where in this legislation does it describe what testing actually means? Because at the moment it appears to be nowhere and I think people would love some clarity on what the Government means by "testing"."