Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Chair. I listened very carefully to my colleague Chris Bishop who I think raises very good points because I had written down here Traffic Light Legislation Bill" so there's a degree of synergy in terms of what this legislation should be called. Part of the problem for the Government over the last 18 months or so is that most New Zealanders who wanted to be responsive and positive and encouraging about reactions to the COVID pandemic have actually almost been now numbed into confusion by mixed messages words that all sound very similar and actually most New Zealanders I think now are literally rolling their eyes wondering: what does it all mean? There is widespread confusion about the vocabulary that's being used the mixed messages that are coming out of the Beehive the way that the conversation is now being framed because initially I think New Zealanders did understand what the Government's plan was they did understand what the communications meant and they did understand the vocabulary that was being used. But when we have a piece of legislation of this sort introduced under urgency being rushed through the Parliament in less than 24 hours and it's called—I even have to go back and refresh my memory—the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill most New Zealanders would not have a clue what that entailed and the whole purpose of a title in a bill is that it should be by definition I think somehow explanatory of what the contents of the bill actually are. And this bill the name that has been given to it by the Government just speaks volumes about the confusion and the state of anxiety and uncertainty that the Government has amongst their own ranks and that officials have in terms of advising them what the title should be because actually it's meaningless. It's been rendered meaningless and confusing to ordinary New Zealanders who have to try and understand and get their heads around it. This is a piece of legislation that's actually really important and it speaks to some control some restrictions and some fairly hefty burdensome obligations particularly on the part of non-vaccinated people but also employers of those non-vaccinated people. But there's no hint or suggestion of any of that in the name in the title of this bill. And so I think that the Government would be well advised to take the advice of my colleague Christopher Bishop and take some of his suggestions. Another suggestion for the title of this bill because it's going to absolutely mean this to businesses—maybe it could be called "Another Cost to Business Legislation Bill" because that's effectively what it is: another cost to business. And again once again businesses are being burdened with the weight of Government policy and it's businesses that are having to bear the responsibility and the cost. None of that is mentioned in the title of the bill. And so I'm hoping that others of my colleagues—and on this side of the House I know that there are representatives from other parties who want to take a call on this and I'm going to be looking forward to their sense of whether they agree with me or not about the widespread confusion and misunderstanding of what the Government's plan is not helped at all by a bill that is referred to as the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill. I'd be interested to know from the Minister how many other pieces of legislation and regulation and rules and proclamations have emanated from the Beehive and from this Chamber in the last 18 months that actually start off with "COVID-19 Response …" and then—fill in the gaps—because I suspect the number of the pieces of regulation the pieces of legislation now is getting pretty much out of hand and to a layperson frankly the title is meaningless. It means nothing to someone who is trying to grapple with the implications of the legislation contained in this bill and what it might mean for them for their families for their communities and for their businesses. So I think this is a situation where if the Government was very keen on plain language legislation and to actually walk the talk of plain clear language then wouldn't they do that? But to name a bill of this sort the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill adds nothing to the content of the bill or to a layperson's understanding of what it might mean to them."