Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Thank you Madam Chair. If I run through a variety or as many of the questions as I have not already answered. A number of members have questioned about whether or not the bill allows for a vaccination or test requirement and yes the answer to that is: it does. So it's not specific on the context in which a vaccination or a test requirement should be required. It allows the orders to determine though that a test requirement could be put in place in lieu of a vaccination requirement. So the legislative framework that the Parliament is being asked to pass now absolutely allows for that. So that as the orders are drafted if the decision was to allow in a particular context people to be either vaccinated or have a test an order made under these provisions that Parliament's being asked to enact would be allowed for there.In terms of Louise Upston's question the Government has been very clear that no person would be excluded from a Ministry of Social Development Work and Income office on the basis of not being vaccinated. That falls into the category of effectively what we're calling loosely life-preserving services" where a vaccination requirement should not be in place. So that also includes supermarkets healthcare services pharmacies and so on.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Private healthcare services?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Any healthcare services health and disability services broadly defined where people rely on those they should not be excluded from those by a vaccination requirement.In terms of Melissa Lee's questions around privacy provisions do I stand by my statement? Yes I do stand by my statement. They were very good statements in fact. And in fact the position that I put forward was that people have asked for additional clarity and just additional certainty. That was absolutely the case when we passed those provisions last week. The reason that we're inserting additional provisions in this bill is because we're inserting additional requirements and so we're providing additional reassurance there.In terms of David Seymour's question around what the purpose of the legislation is a tip for the member he'll find that on the front page of the bill under the "General policy statement" "The amendments make vaccination a more prominent part of New Zealand's COVID-19 response framework." I am being a little facetious to David Seymour and I think he knows that.But the wider questions that he had around this particular topic around for example what level of testing would be sufficient to provide people reassurance that it was a satisfactory alternative to vaccination the answer to that question is it very much depends on the context and on the frequency of the testing and that that situation can actually change as the situation we're dealing with evolves. So the frequency for example of our border worker testing has recently changed as a result of the changed risk profile that we are dealing with there.In terms of his comments around announcements of policy and he quoted the oft-referenced Fitzgerald v Muldoon case. I think it's worth remembering in Fitzgerald v Muldoon Muldoon was making an announcement with no reference to Parliament or no delegated ability by Parliament to do that and in fact he was doing so whilst not allowing Parliament to even meet. So I think the Government is a long way away from that threshold. The Government that—David Seymour: How is this different? It's not different at all.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well we're here in Parliament debating the empowering provisions that will allow the Government to be able to issues orders around vaccination around testing and so on. So that is exactly the purpose of these provisions."