Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Madam Chair and I thank the Minister genuinely for that engagement. Just in relation to one of the points he made in relation to my colleague Louise Upston's argument the Minister just said that the Government's been very clear that there's a range of life-preserving entities and settings where people will not be required to be vaccinated—and I'm assuming he's relying on clause 6(3) which says After section 11(1)(g) insert (h) requiring persons to permit individuals to enter a place or receive a service whether or not those individuals are vaccinated have a vaccination certificate" which is fine; that's great. That gives the Government very broad power. My question is: would it not be better for Parliament to specify the range of circumstances that those orders should be made to? That would be Parliament spelling out for the Government the powers with which the Government should act and also giving some direction to the Government around which scenarios the House thinks that people should essentially be able to access.That is also the second question I have which relates to the legality of what the Government proposes to do once the bill passes. The Minister earlier on in his remarks made mention of one of the judgments to do with mandatory vaccination at the border and he made mention of one of the judgments of Justice Cooke. I've gone and read those judgments—or I read them a while ago but I've now re-read them—and the critical point that Justice Cooke made in relation to the border mandates was that he found that they were in the legal parlance vires. So he found that they were legal—Parliament had authorised them—but that was not a slam-dunk argument. That was not something that the court found definitively. In fact if you read it carefully he's quite worried about them. So at paragraph 76 he says that the applicant's arguments are not ultra vires but at 77 he says "I note … that this is not a self-evident conclusion. It is perhaps of some surprise that such an important aspect of the response to the risk of COVID-19 has been implemented through a section that makes no express reference at all to vaccination."Now the critical take-home point from that is that the courts are saying to Parliament: "Parliament you must be very clear with what powers you are giving the Government and the Government has to follow the law that Parliament lays down." And the Government has turned up here with new section 11AA and 11AB—and the Minister made reference to that before. And I accept that those new provisions will make it easier for the Government to impose vaccination requirements for some industries later. But here's the critical point: I am worried about the overall legality of the framework. And I can't see in the legislation that is before the House right now the empowering provisions that allow the Government to firstly impose the various restrictive settings at each traffic light colour for want of a better phrase—red orange and green. And then secondly I come back to the point I've made before which I haven't really had an answer to and I think we deserve one which is: what is the provision in the legislation that allows the Government to set in place a rule that you have to be a vaccinated worker or employee to work at a place where vaccination certificates are required?So to use the vernacular if I'm a hairdresser and I use vaccine certificates to say that you have to be vaccinated to come and get a haircut at my salon what is the bit of the legislation that allows the Government to say "To also work at that salon you must be vaccinated." It's a very very important point because if the bill doesn't allow the Government to do that then the Government's got a massive legal problem on its hands because the whole framework and the architecture that they are purporting to establish will fall down. So we need to know what the provision is and if it turns out that a Supplementary Order Paper is required and the Government's overlooked something well then we'll have to have a look at it but we need to know what the answer is."