Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I'll run through a variety of the issues that have been raised so far and perhaps if I start with some of the general themes first.The provisions in this bill that relate to vaccinations very much follow a similar format—or effectively the same format—as the existing legislation which is that they are quite broad empowering provisions that do allow those questions of detail to be established through the orders that can be issued under the Act once it has been passed. And I would note that when the original legislation was passed by the House there was actually broad support across the House for that recognising that these rules are complicated and that in dealing with a global pandemic you are often dealing with a situation that changes quite quickly and that there are a lot of unknowns and you do need to be able to change and adapt. You do need to be able to fix things because almost everything related to COVID-19 has been done quickly—more quickly than would be done in a desirable set of circumstances—and therefore there will be areas where we need to go back and where we need to correct things or we need to change things because the circumstances have changed. So by having reasonably broad empowering provisions we create the flexibility to be able to do that.I'll run through some of the questions. In terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act the requirement for the Government to follow the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act we still have to do that. The obligations upon Ministers in implementing orders under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act do still continue and the same requirement exists in these provisions as for all other provisions in the Act. And I note that many of the orders already made under the Act have been supported by the Opposition and in fact in many cases over the last 12 months or so they have been demanding to know why we haven't been more limiting of people's rights in some of the provisions. I think about some of the debates we've had around managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) for example. I know they want to suddenly do away with it now but it was literally it feels like weeks it may be a few months ago now they were thundering demanding in this House why we weren't being more strict in our MIQ arrangements. So the existing provisions that apply to existing orders apply to the new orders.In terms of the empowering provisions for the vaccination certificates and the workforce mandate section 11 will be done as an amendment to the existing vaccinations order.In terms of the purpose of the Supplementary Order Paper to ensure absolute clarity for employers about how the paid notice of termination provisions operate it's to ensure that the payment is just for the notice and that there's no notice compensation on top of that. So it's a clarity issue.In terms of the Government policy statement—the statement that I tabled in the House referring to the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries—the members are correct; that does refer to an earlier version of the bill and those sections were decided to be not required. So they're not in the version of the bill that is tabled. So the version of the bill that is tabled is correct.I'll let the Minister concerned speak to the issues around a person conducting a business or undertaking—or PCBUs—that Michael Woodhouse has raised.If I run through quickly now because it is a good opportunity to do so the Supplementary Order Papers tabled by the Opposition and set out the Government's views upon those. The first of them is in the name of Chris Bishop and concerns changes made in the House under a different piece of legislation last week regarding COVID-19 testing consumables. I would argue that that is outside the scope of the legislation although that's not my decision to make. But I would say that it would directly contradict a decision made by the House just last week.In terms of the requirement suggestion by Chris Bishop again that the House of Representatives be required to review the Act of course the House is the master of its own destiny; it does not need a legislative requirement to do that. If the House wishes to conduct a review of anything it can do that. And if the select committee wishes to conduct a review of the Act it has the power to do that now. So therefore those provisions are unnecessary.In terms of Simeon Brown's suggestion that the vaccination provisions exclude religious places of worship I would note to him that actually some of the biggest clusters of COVID-19 cases that we have dealt with in the time that I have been leading the COVID-19 response have sadly involved places of worship. And in some cases people have died after contracting COVID-19 at a place of worship. So I would oppose that. In terms of within the traffic light framework people will still have the ability to attend places of worship if they are unvaccinated but there will be limits on the number of people who are able to participate in those services. And that applies to a number of the amendments that are proposed by Simeon Brown.He has also proposed that tangihanga be exempt from the vaccination requirements which I think is interesting from somebody who in this House has been questioning why the Mongrel Mob in their tangi didn't have to follow the COVID-19 public health response guidelines. He now suggests that that should be enshrined in law—that they wouldn't have to follow those guidelines. The Government does not believe those amendments would be in the public health interest.In terms of the remaining issues that I think Simeon Brown has proposed a series of amendments that relate to human rights as I've already indicated the Government continues to follow the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in making its decisions under this Act. In terms of the process questions that the member has raised the Government gets advice from Crown Law on every order that we make under the Act or every order that I make I get advice from Crown Law on that. And I also get advice from the Director-General of Health on every order that I have made under that. Crown Law advice as the members opposite who have been Ministers will be aware is subject to legal privilege.