Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well thank you Madam Chair. I hope we get through the committee of the whole House the opportunity that we haven't had through the regulatory impact statement or the select committee process to tease out what it is the Government is actually doing with effectively a piece of legislation that gives them a huge amount of regulation-making power. There are a number of questions about what those regulations are going to look like. I think it behoves the Ministers who are responsible for this bill to make sure that we at least know what is being planned.Now one of the things that staggered me through the last eight to 10 months of this process is the almost complete ignoring or overlooking of a very important piece of legislation that I was the responsible Minister for and that was the Health and Safety at Work Act. It really surprises me that the Government hasn't taken the opportunity to remind persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) of their obligations under that piece of legislation. Instead they have effectively run over the top of it with this bill and many others I have to say. But I want to remind the committee before I ask my questions of the Minister or Ministers what the primary duty of care under the Health and Safety at Work Act is that is for the PCBU to ensure as far as reasonably practicable the health and safety of the workers who work for the PCBU and whose activities in carrying out that work are influenced or directed by the PCBU. In paragraph 36(3)(g) that the health of workers"—the health of workers—"and the conditions at the workplace are monitored for the purpose of preventing injury or illness of workers arising from the conduct of the business or undertaking." and the fact that the Government has completely overlooked this I think speaks to the low level of trust that they have in business to do the right thing.One of the things I think having been the Minister that ran the gauntlet for 18 months in the passage and introduction of the Health and Safety at Work Act is that not a single word of that Act has actually been changed by this Government in the four years they've had the opportunity to do so. Indeed the previous Minister has said that it was actually in very good shape.Now here's my first question and I should add and the Minister was quite rightly pointing out that he's responsible for parts of it even in Part 1—but the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is available I note and I would encourage and welcome a response through a call from the seat that the Minister's in rather than being in the formal chair if that's appropriate. But in clause 4 "Section 5 amended (Interpretation)" the definition of an "affected worker means a worker who was employed or engaged by a PCBU to carry out specified work". And that key word there I think is "engaged" because the definition of "a worker" under the Health and Safety at Work Act includes a contractor or an employee of a contractor. So I'm assuming and I need this confirmed that the affected-worker clause in this bill means also contractors and employees of contractors and subcontractors. That's important because what we're then setting a regulation potentially to do is to extend the reach of a workplace beyond one's own employees and into the employment relationships of other businesses. So my question is: is that what's intended and if so what is the expectation on the requirement for somebody to be vaccinated and then be effectively put off. Because it's easy to say "Well I don't want that subcontractor in my workplace." but it's another thing altogether to then have some kind of obligation for a four-week notice period and a payment of compensation.The second question in this call is relating to proposed new section 11AB "Orders that can be made under this Act" and this is where really we've got to get to tin tacks. "The Minister may … make an order for 1 or more of the following purposes: (a) specifying work or classes of work that may not be carried out … unless the affected worker is vaccinated". Then in subclause (b) "specifying work or classes of work that may not be carried out by an affected worker unless the affected worker reports for and undergoes medical examination or testing for COVID-19 …". So we've got a class of workers where they must be vaccinated and a class of workers where they could be vaccinated or tested regularly. What I'd like to know I think the committee would benefit is: what would the jobs—[Time expired]"