O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Mr Chair. The committee can decide whether or not I'm wanting to make a valid contribution or just have five minutes with my mask off. Look I want to actually speak to Part 2. I'm looking at clause 22 which is inserting New Schedule 3A. It's possible that the Minister has addressed some of these but I think we need to get absolute clarity.The first is picking up on a little bit of what the Hon Michael Woodhouse said and it's around businesses who choose to not use the tool. Basically to put it in plain English can businesses employers choose not to use the tool without fine and without penalty?Hon Michael Wood: Yes. Yes.SIMON O'CONNOR: And if yes is the answer then in a strange way what is the whole point of doing this? It becomes a little bit strange.Second is the use of the tool itself. We're dealing here Minister with a rather—I think he would agree—complex issue which is going to be quickly and simply defined through a tool. There's a dissonance there that so much reliance has been put on a tool and I'm wondering what analysis has been done and what surety can the Minister give the committee that this tool is going to be able to address every situation sufficiently.I ask that because worryingly to me he used the word subjectively"—the Minister that is—earlier to describe the tool. The thing about things which are subjective is that they're open up to multiple interpretations. Why that becomes even more important in relation to Part 2 is the tabled amendment of my friend and colleague Scott Simpson which is trying to close off a real problem here that we could end up in a very litigious environment between employee and employer that is an incredible cost. So again how much reliance does he have on the tool—and I might just point to other tools the Government has put forward; I'm thinking about heating one's home and how complex and disastrous that was—to give us confidence there?I'm interested too if he might—and I think David Seymour and others have been touching on this—tell us why there are not testing options as well. It's great and good for people to be vaccinated—go vaccination; jolly decent—but actually there are other options and New Zealand should you would think be following this. Why has that not been incorporated into this New Schedule 3A that an employee can go through the nuisance if you will of daily testing as required? And that's particularly around elements of proportionalism which again this Part 2 and new schedule is not addressing? And these are the final two questions. When we are talking about the ending of a person's livelihood their ability to feed their families pay their mortgage why would we not give an option—vaccination or testing. So then the final question's a simple one: what analysis if any in relation to the provisions in New Schedule 3A have investigated the advantage of the higher vaccination rates beyond potentially 91 percent to actually the enormous damage that's going to be done to those particular New Zealanders?So again I want to be really clear: vaccination is a good thing but actually the proportionate consequences to those New Zealanders is huge; it's absolutely massive. What analysis has been done to show that that enormous cost to those Kiwis is going to see a significant advantage to the health aspects of New Zealanders? Because my suspicion for what it's worth Minister is that the health benefits of further vaccinations will be wanted but the health benefits are almost negligible in comparison to the absolute pain which is going to be caused to those New Zealanders losing their jobs. So I know an array of questions there and if I might I'll just leave that to the Minister.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): We are getting to the point of the debate where members are filling time and not actually reading the legislation at its most basic level. If I can just point very specifically—and I want to address the question that the member raised here because it would have required about 20 seconds of reading—new section 33AB(1) makes it very clear that the vaccination tool can be utilised to come to a conclusion that either vaccination or undergoing a medical examination or testing for COVID-19 can be required. So we specifically dealt with that question; it's there in black and white in the legislation."