Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. The situation with this part of the bill Part 2 relates to situations for employers who are put in the position having gone through either the health and safety assessment process that has been the tool that's been available to date or using the new tool that this legislation creates—for employers who find themselves in a position having gone through all those options of looking at alternative work redeployment encouraging employees to get vaccinated but at the point where none of those options are available and an employer is forced to terminate the employment of the employee who is unvaccinated this part of the bill comes into effect. As David Seymour was saying it creates several new burdens upon the employer each of them costly each of them adding to the lack of productivity that comes from a Government that really doesn't understand business and thinks that businesses have an infinite capacity to pay. Well that's not the case; they don't have an infinite capacity to pay. But this part of the legislation places further costs and obligations upon them. Now we've suggested on this side of the committee that if an employee who chooses for whatever reason not to be vaccinated and a termination is required the employer having gone through due diligence and process using either of the two options that are available now to them—if they go through that and they determine that the job needs to be terminated then that should be the end of it. That should be the end of the risk and obligation to the employer because it is unconscionable really that this piece of legislation specifically provides that further legal action will be available to that terminated employee by way of personal grievance. But what the legislation doesn't make clear is that if during that four-week stand-down period and there's some debate over what the term of that should be referred to—is it an entitlement; is it a paid leave; is it as a stand down or whatever? But it's going to cost the employer four weeks of leave. If the employee changes their mind partway through that process what happens? And what happens is that the employer then has to look and see whether there has been any unreasonable impact on their business and if there hasn't been unreasonable impact on their business and we don't quite know what unreasonable impact on their business" might be then that employee gets to come back having had potentially nearly four weeks of paid holiday leave—we'll call it what you will.But there will be people who will try that on for sure—almost certainly that will try that on for sure. So we say on this side of the committee that actually once that process has been done once it's been completed there shouldn't be a further risk a sword of Damocles hanging over the head of the employer relating to personal grievances. And if halfway through that process an employee decides "Well I'm out of here and I want to resign." still then there is the potential for litigation relating to constructive dismissal. That's also a risk to a business that I don't think should be placed on the business going through this process. So there are questions to be asked about what is reasonable and fair to employers who are actually trying to do the best as they are statutorily required to do under the health and safety at work legislation. They are required to provide a safe working environment for other staff members and if they have an unvaccinated member of staff then they have to weigh the balance of the impact of that unvaccinated staff member's role in their business against those that are vaccinated. And then they also have to take into account the obligations that they have to provide safety for people who they do business with—for their customers for their stakeholders for their suppliers and for their contractors—and that too places a burden upon them. We will speak further in this debate about some of the specifics of it but I'm keen to know from the Minister why it is that he thinks that employers should have this further risk sword of Damocles hanging above their head when they've gone through a very careful thorough process to determine that an unvaccinated employee should be exited from that business. Why then should they be further at risk of litigation of further cost of drawn-out experiences that are not of their making?"