Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Chair. I appreciate you giving me the call because I want to just pick up on a point that my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse made in relation to my tabled amendment relating to Schedule 4 clause 3(7) actually. Now as is often the case when legislation is being rushed through the House under urgency without the benefit of scrutiny at select committee or the input from stakeholders and others who would want to make a contribution to this legislation sometimes small errors can occur. In fact we actually had a Minister's Supplementary Order Paper before the debate on this bill even commenced and so that gives us the sense of how rushed and quick this is.But earlier today I did table an amendment to provide for cases where termination has occurred either using the tool or using the risk assessment option through the primary legislation or indeed some other method. But we think on this side of the House that once a process has been undertaken by an employer and a decision to terminate employment has been made that should be the end of it and we think that the employer should no longer have to face the risk of pending litigation.In my first amendment I probably made it a bit wide and that would have as the Minister rightly pointed out given cause to provide for no redress for personal grievance for any matter under the principal Act. That was not my intention. So what I've done is I've withdrawn that amendment and replaced it with an amended one that simply says that For the avoidance of doubt an employee is not entitled to bring a personal grievance or other legal proceedings in respect of a dismissal under this Schedule." which I think clarifies it appropriately makes it sufficiently narrow makes it very clear that my amendment would limit the ability to prevent a legal action that results from a termination in this case.Now I think it's important that we understand that with nearly 91 percent of New Zealanders vaccinated we're actually probably dealing with a relatively small number of people who have chosen for whatever reason to remain unvaccinated. Now some of those people will in the course of the next few weeks—I hope and I implore them to—take advice from trusted friends or professional advisers and get vaccinated because on this side of the House we are encouraging vaccination. But there will remain a small number of people who choose as I say for whatever reason not to be vaccinated.Now those of us that have been receiving emails and correspondence and representations from some of those people know that they are increasingly strident in their view in their determination to remain unvaccinated. That's not a position that I agree with or members on this side of the House agree with but that is a reality of the situation that I think the Government and we face as a society. So I'm convinced absolutely that there will be employees who go through this process and do have their employment terminated and not to put too fine a point on it they will want to make an issue of this. They will want to bring as much heat and attention and focus to their situation as they possibly can and they will use every tool that is available to them to make life difficult for their employer if they can and they find themselves in a position where their employment has been terminated under this piece of legislation.So I think it's only fair and proper and right that those employers who are putting the best interests of their other staff members of their customers of the wider community in balance against the rights and obligations of an unvaccinated employee—I think they shouldn't then have to suffer the potential sword of Damocles hanging above their head over further expensive protracted drawn-out litigation. So I'm suggesting to the committee that they adopt my amendment."