Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Oh thank you Mr Chair. I appreciate Minister Wood's detailed response to the many questions that have been raised on Part 2 of the bill. Not all of them I agree with in terms of the quality or relevance but I think he has gone deeply into some of the questions thought carefully about the answers that he gave and I think that adds a little gravitas to a terrible process.I want to just touch on that last point because the question of the removal of grievance rights more generally in the Employment Relations Act was raised by the Hon Chris Hipkins in an earlier call in response to the tabled amendment by the Hon Scott Simpson somehow saying that that amendment would override all of Part 9 of the Employment Relations Act. Now I don't believe that's the case. Mr Simpson will seek a call to explain his actions in that regard. But there has been I think an amendment to that.I want to touch on briefly the Minister's response to my tabled amendment because in his reply he made it absolutely clear despite Mr Hipkins clouding the argument that the assessment tool is optional. The assessment tool is not required to be used; business is free not to use it as long as they have serious consideration of what the risk obligations they have under health and safety legislation are. And if that is the case then the Minister should have no concerns about my tabled amendment which is a belts-and-braces amendment that says if a business complying in all other respects does not use that assessment tool a personal grievance can't be taken. Now he's indicated or at least Mr Hipkins did that the Government will not be supporting my tabled amendment which further throws doubt about those statements.So for the record and for any employment lawyers that might be listening out there who represent business let me state what the Minister has said so that that can be used in any potential grievance process. And if the Minister is not being accurately reflected by my words he can take a call and refute them. But what we have been told is that not using the assessment tool as set out in Schedule 3 will not be a problem and therefore should not if all other obligations from the employer in respect of the schedule are met give rise to a valid personal grievance—the key word there is valid". Nobody can stop any employee who feels aggrieved for whatever reason from taking a grievance—Hon Michael Wood: That's what you're proposing.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —but it's not valid.Hon Michael Wood: That's Mr Simpson's amendment.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No no that's not what I'm proposing Minister. What I'm proposing is what the Minister has said and that is that the assessment tool is optional. If the assessment tool is optional it can't be grounds for a personal grievance if a business chooses not to use it. And those were the Minister's words—it's the bill's words because the words "may not" "must" are in the schedule. So I put it on the record now that that is what the Minister said and if the Minister doesn't think that's an accurate reflection of his view then he can take a call.My last point in respect of Part 2 relates to the—if I may find it; here we are Schedule 1 inserting new Part 3 clause 9(a) and (b). We've had a discussion through the committee of the whole House about what should be in primary legislation what should be in secondary legislation and what shouldn't be in legislation at all because it could be a valid guideline. Now quite inexplicably—I just think these guys just love passing legislation under urgency or without proper process because we've got in this clause the requirement for the documents that can be issued by the Ministry of Health "before commencement day must on and from commencement day be treated as COVID-19 vaccination certificates". And then they list them—(a) My Vaccine Pass: and (b) International Travel Vaccination Certificate."—as if that's it as if forever and all time these will be the only two documents that we need.Well we don't know what's around the corner. We don't know what further requirements might be imposed by overseas jurisdictions on New Zealanders travelling. We don't know what other variations of a vaccine pass might be necessary but if there are we're going to have to come back here and change it. Now I'm a big fan of due process good process but actually this is a case I think where these documents could have actually been scheduled in secondary legislation not primary. And I would like the Minister to explain why that hasn't happened. Because this is actually why secondary legislation is important because it is much more nimble than primary. I'd like an explanation for that."