Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. That's the hard-working Government we've come to know and love. All they want to do is go home and put their feet up because they feel a bit tired.Chris Bishop: Yeah back home to Waiheke!Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That's right—will that be Waiheke or Dunedin? Quite quite interested to know which direction the member is moving after the House lifts. I'm delighted to see Messrs O'Connor and Mahuta here because they are—well let's just say they've been around this place for quite a while and they must be chuckling at this debate because they know that if the shoe was on the other foot and if a National Government had introduced two pieces of legislation in Budget urgency to correct mistakes that a National Government had made we'd be here till Monday. I was here 12 years ago last week when out of a fit of pique a Labour Opposition put up 36000 amendments to a bill that they didn't like and then they voted in English and Māori and we were here till doomsday. So for them to sit there and Dr Henderson and Ms Leary to say Oh gosh isn't it terrible the Opposition is actually questioning the Government on their mistakes?" is kind of like a parallel universe.I think there are some significant questions to be asked. We got three minutes from the Minister for COVID-19 Response and we'll be quizzing him more in the committee of the whole House I think because there are some really serious questions to ask.Hon Simon Bridges: Mmm.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Mmm yes there are. But the staggering revelation that we got from Mr Hipkins—and these were the words that he said—the fact that Australians are granted a residence class visa on arrival at an international airport is "not made apparent to the Government". It's the Government that runs the immigration system. It's the Government that actually decides who comes and goes and under what circumstances. That was a damning indictment on the Minister of Immigration Kris Faafoi who would've been sitting around the Cabinet table in COVID time saying "This is what our visa system does." The other thing he hasn't explained—and it's not explained in the departmental disclosure statement; it's not in the purpose and explanatory note of the bill—is whether or not actually the Government was as it says issuing a visa to people who were allowed to come into New Zealand when there was the COVID lockdown or whether it was a form of permission to enter that didn't constitute a visa because Australia is essentially not a visa-free country; it's a visa on arrival country and that visa is a residence class visa. But prior to that no other entry permission is required unless one might have a conviction or a character issue that would warrant them testing their eligibility for coming to New Zealand.The other question is: why are we even doing this because for the number of people the 600 or so—and it's amazing that we don't even know—that would be affected by this change is that he said "Well you know New Zealanders returning home permanently or New Zealanders coming home for 90 days"—and then it got changed to 180 days or more—"wouldn't be charged." But the high-skilled chief executive of a company who's an Australian citizen who's about to take up a role at a tech company in Dunedin who couldn't even find a space in managed isolation and had to work from Melbourne for six months but who is dedicated to coming here permanently—why would that person? Is it fair that that person actually gets to pay the managed isolation and quarantine fees when a Kiwi who's coming home for a holiday for three months and one day isn't—may not have been in the country for years decided to hunker down stay here for 91 days to avoid managed isolation fees and they get to do it for free.The last thing that hasn't been explained is if the extension of time from 90 days to 180 days for Kiwis was not required to have a change to primary legislation why is this? This is a simple commercial transaction. It's an offer and acceptance. If you want to come in to managed isolation in these circumstances you have to pay and in other circumstances you don't. The broad levying powers were already given under the emergency powers. So why are we here at 10 o'clock on a Friday morning fixing another mistake by the Government when actually primary legislation might not have been the vehicle for this in the first place? Far too many questions that haven't had answers for the Minister to stand there for three minutes and say "Nothing to see here. We're just going to charge 600 people that we didn't have the legal power to charge and that'll be fine."The Greens are fine with it. Greens don't want to support people with minimum family tax credit increases but they want to actually charge Australians who are coming here. I mean that is the most confusing issue of all.But there are way more questions that I have. Yes we will get through this but don't think that this legislature is a plaything for the Government to fix up its mistakes without question."