Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Thank you Mr Chairman. I'll respond to some of the questions that have been put. One was around section 11(1)(a)(viii) of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act and the amendments that have been made there. They have been made to make it more clear that its meaning is not changing as a result of the amendment and it makes sure that it also aligns with similar powers in section 70 of the Health Act.In response to a question that was put by Erica Stanford the second change in relation to section 11 is to enable and require people to have a booking in a managed isolation or quarantine facility before they arrive in New Zealand. So this is the system that we've been talking about for some weeks now where we will be making sure we're having complete alignment between demand and supply by setting up a system where people will have a place already assigned to them in a managed isolation and quarantine facility before they arrive in New Zealand and this will be a critical tool that we do to ensure that we are keeping our managed isolation and quarantine facilities just that: managed.Also under the Minister of Health's works order under section 11 they must be satisfied that any limitation on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is justified and this was a key requirement added to the bill. So this is one of the things that we have to make sure that we've got proportionate and justified—limitations on the normal kinds of rights that would be there.There were also some questions around clause 9. Clause 9 inserts new section 33A(4) and this is the provision which is aimed at preventing cost recovery regulations being overturned just because they allow a decision maker to exercise a discretion or do not set any criteria for exercise of the discretion.A question was put around whether I'd received any advice around the cost of collection of the fees under the regime that we're looking at standing up. The answer is yes. The advice that I've had to date and I've spoken about this publicly is that the cost of the regime that we're standing up in terms of collections will be around $600000 a year. In terms of the complexity of administering the additional waiver and exemption scheme that will need to sit alongside that obviously that will be much lower because this scheme will not be charging those New Zealanders who are returning home permanently. What I've also spoken about publicly is the $30 million - odd that it would cost to stand up a scheme more akin to the scheme that the Opposition are talking about as set against the kind of modelled recoveries of somewhere in the low scenarios of around $125000 that would be under the scheme that the Opposition are talking about.Then the member asked me to respond to the Hon Gerry Brownlee's Supplementary Order Paper in terms of seeking cost recovery from those who abscond from our managed isolation and quarantine facilities. This is an area that I have received advice on and something that we did explore with officials. There are a couple of components to the answer to this. The cost of policing and the cost of making sure that the police are bringing back escapees of course are enforcement activities and are part of the existing Public Service and hard to separate out and we're not anywhere proposing user-pays policing; it's not something that we see as a way to ensure the security and safety of New Zealanders in any realm let alone when it comes to making sure we're keeping COVID out of our country.What there is is already provision under section 26 of the principal Act which makes it a criminal offence to escape from a managed isolation or quarantine facility and that includes a fine of up to $4000 or six months' imprisonment and the advice that to seek further cost recovery because someone had absconded would actually constitute double jeopardy and would not be something that legally could be done.