Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): In my first reading speech I talked about the risks inherent in hasty legislation being passed and the lack of a select committee process and I note already we're not through the second reading and we now have a Government Supplementary Order Paper on the Table that has made minor amendments to the bill. My question really is the degree to which further amendments might be needed either before the bill is passed or more concerning after it.I also expressed concern at the lack of rigour around its preparation and I've now had an opportunity to review the departmental disclosure statement and those concerns actually rather than be alleviated they were concern. When we look at the regulatory impact analysis—well actually we can't because there wasn't one. There were no regulatory impact statements provided to inform policy decisions that led to the bill. Has further impact analysis become available for any aspects of the policy to be given effect by this bill? The answer is no. For the policy to be given effect by the bill are the potential cost-benefits likely to be impacted by the level of compliance or non-compliance? The answer obviously is yes. If people don't pay their bills there will be an impact. The question then is to what extent will the policy objective be undermined if people don't meet their obligations. The answer to that question is: that depends and it depends (a) on how much they're charged and (b) how much non-payment is made.Well the answer to the question is almost certain to be: not very much. Because as my colleague Erica Stanford has just pointed out we are approaching a billion dollars of cost and this bill seeks to recoup about $10 million of that cost.Erica Stanford: Chicken feed.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It is chicken feed; absolutely Ms Stanford. I was fascinated to note the comments from Mark Patterson of the New Zealand First Party whose party actually supported a more comprehensive charging regime. Well I say to Mr Patterson: join the National Party—no sorry I'll rephrase.Erica Stanford: He already did that.Dan Bidois: It didn't work out well.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yeah that's right. We've been there. Join with the National Party in supporting amendments in the name of Gerry Brownlee that will do just that. I noticed that the New Zealand First Party has been very diligent in unhooking itself from the coalition over the last few months. It wants to portray itself as separate from and different to the Labour Party and the Government. Well this is a really good opportunity Mr Patterson because this is actually what the New Zealand taxpayer wants. They want a more comprehensive charging regime and the Government isn't giving them one. The member's party is part of the Government in coalition; so this is an excellent opportunity to both do the right thing and create the very separation that his leader desires.I want just to touch again on the question of the section 11 powers that are being amended by this bill because I do want to express further concern at what—and this is one of the reasons why I wanted to have a look at the departmental disclosure statement because clearly the Government has had some advice that either the section 70 powers under the Health Act or the section 11 powers that we've already passed and that we're now amending and tinkering with are not sufficient to require a person to undergo a medical examination or test and to provide that an order might be required to satisfy that criteria. I don't agree with that; I'm quite comfortable that not only section 11 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act provides that section 70 of the Health Act also did and that there was no need for the hasty passage of certain sections of the Act that we're now amending again. But we don't know what that advice was; we haven't seen the advice because the Government hasn't released it and that's consistent with a pattern that has been right the way through the COVID response from the Attorney-General from the Minister of Health and now from the Minister of Housing which is effectively Trust us; we know what we're doing. We're basing this on advice but we're not going to disclose it." And once again this most open and transparent Government is anything but.So I maintain the concerns that I expressed in the first reading. I am worried that we're already getting to the point where we're making amendments to a bill that hasn't been embarked on with sufficient scrutiny and I worry that when it is passed we'll be back here—obviously not in this term of Parliament but at the earliest opportunity. When the National Party leads Government actually we'll probably dispense with it altogether and do what was necessary which was to actually change if needed the Health Act because that Health Act has endured. It was there to prescribe for what needed to be done in the event that there was a public health emergency or pandemic outbreak. Section 70 was in my view sufficiently robust to be able to provide for that and if it wasn't amend section 70. But we'll have that opportunity to do that in October and November and I look forward to it."