SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I appreciate the answers that the Minister has given. I would just in reply ask for further clarification on two points that he made. One is on the definition of elimination". I am not confused about what the definition of "elimination" is albeit that it did change last week when the Prime Minister talked exactly about what the Minister said about zero tolerance. What I am confused about is what the Director-General of Health said today when he simultaneously said in the same media briefing "We have achieved our goal of elimination under level 4; it remains our goal under alert level 3." and then said "[To] clarify we haven't eliminated." which suggests that there is a different definition of "elimination" at level 4 than there is for level 3. I don't believe that's what he intended to say. As the Prime Minister said we're all having to dive into the language of epidemiology. I would suggest that actually it should be the other way round. Epidemiologists and the director-general—a very good public health physician—should be helping to translate from epidemiology to plain English. I'm afraid today it didn't go so well. The New Zealand public want to know what good looks like what they need to do to achieve it—I think we have—and how they can continue to achieve that in level 3 lockdown. That's where the confusion rises Minister not about the strict definition of what "elimination" means.Now secondly—and I do want some feedback on this—matters in respect of the Holidays Act because he described this as a legacy of the previous Government. So my question to him is this: has he had any advice from his officials that the previous Government were warned about the risks to the DHB balance sheets from the Holidays Act that the previous Government did not act on? Is it also the case that these issues date back prior to the 2008 general election and therefore one could argue are a legacy of the Clark Government? Indeed it was the Clark Government in 2003 that passed the Holidays Act into law against the warnings—including from me as vice-president of the Private Hospitals Association—that it would be a complete dog's breakfast. So if we're going to talk legacies Minister please advise the committee how far back that legacy goes because I reckon that for 17 years people have been underpaid on a technical reading of the Holidays Act. It wasn't known to the Clark Government. It wasn't known to the Key-English Government. The Minister smiles and shakes his head—that's my question to him.My challenge to him is actually to tell the committee what advice that previous Government got and why his own ministry as recently as May and June 2017 were still telling the previous Minister of Health the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman that there was no problem big enough to warrant a contingent liability being quantified on any of the DHB balance sheets. In fact they said they had undergone a diligent and rigorous examination of DHBs' compliance with the Holidays Act and there was nothing to report they confidently reported back. I know this. I was Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety on a committee that sent Chai Chuah the director-general off to ask those questions. Because I was also Minister of Police I knew that if Police had a $33 million problem DHBs would have an exponentially larger problem. And so it has transpired probably—what $700 million and counting—$750 million? Something like that.It was a question the previous Government asked and to say that it was a legacy of their failure to act is a disingenuous rewrite of history. So I ask the Minister to provide this committee with evidence to back up his claim that the previous Government had advice and did not act on it."