Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to join Mr Seymour in acknowledging the Minister's attempts to address at least some of the questions and I agree that it's not what he answered; it's what he didn't answer that's important. I think that as we try and tease out what these regulations might look like—because all we've got is another bill to create a regulation-making power the details of which we are unaware—I'd remind the Minister that as far as I can tell he didn't answer the question of which classes of work will be required to have a worker vaccinated or vaccinated and tested. We didn't get an answer to that and I've found it fascinating that he spent more time in his answers addressing the National Party's Supplementary Order Papers than he did on answering substantive questions on the bill as if he's as busy as Dr Webb is—a bit busy and important to be bothered with the sort of technical details—and he just needs to be somewhere else. Well I'm afraid we need better answers than that Minister.I want to continue the line of questioning from my friend the Hon Louise Upston and for me it relates to section 11(3)(h) which inserts a clause requiring persons to permit individuals to enter a place or receive a service whether or not those individuals are vaccinated". So the majority of the bill is actually about preventing certain things and constraining people's freedoms if they are not vaccinated and then we have this mysterious clause in here which basically says "Oh by the way for some individuals they're going to have to just let an unvaccinated person come into their place of work."Now we have that already albeit actually vaccination status isn't yet a barrier and it will be by Friday week. So actually everybody can go and get a haircut down my way; by Friday week they won't be able to. Everybody can go to the pharmacy. I presume this is what this clause is about Minister but it would be quite good to have a better clarification about who is intended to be affected—Hon Chris Hipkins: Which clause is this? Remind me which clause?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: This is clause 6(3)(h) amending section 11(g) on page 5. It's basically saying that even if they're not vaccinated they can come in. Now for a private organisation I think that's a really big reach into the autonomy and decision making that a business may make not to allow an unvaccinated person to come on to their premises. Now it may have what the Minister believes is good intent. It may relate to a healthcare setting for example but even then I think we need to know what we're empowering the Government to do. Take a GP practice. A GP practice may make a decision not to allow unvaccinated people on to the premises. Maybe they'll do consultations by Zoom. Maybe they'll get blood tests picked up by an authorised test-taker. The hospital I used to manage in Dunedin has already issued a policy that says that patients must be vaccinated before they are admitted. Visitors can't come in unless they are vaccinated. Now that's a pretty big step. I'm not sure I would have taken it quite so black and white. But is the Government now going to pass a regulation that forces them to accept an unvaccinated patient or an unvaccinated visitor? Does it apply to the pharmacy? Does it apply to the supermarket?At the moment supermarkets or dairies or whichever convenience store it might be haven't been prevented from having an unvaccinated person—service stations. We have no idea what the reach of this regulation-making power is. We don't know under clause 7 new section 11AB who is going to be specified as needing to have been vaccinated vaccinated and tested or tested and we equally don't know what the Government intends to do in respect of requiring people to be accepted even if they're not vaccinated. We've got to tease this out. We've got a few short hours to get the best understanding about what the Government is intending and these are important questions."