Woodhouse Michael; O'Connor GregPart 2 Queen Elizabeth II Memorial DayHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. May I firstly say how reassuring it is that the Chair is back in the Chair and the Minister is in the chair beside the Chair if that makes sense. It's the first time since COVID restrictions were lifted.I have two questions for Minister Wood and I trust they won't tax him too much. Firstly on behalf of the good people of South Canterbury the bill does appear to be—though reassurances have been provided the bill does appear to be a little vague about how the reconciliation between their own anniversary day and this public holiday will go. Is that set out by inference in subclause (3) of clause 7? And if so by what method will an employee—sorry firstly will the day have to be set as a single day for the whole province? Or as happens in Otago quite frequently will employees and employers be free to negotiate and agree the day on which they can observe their anniversary day? Otago anniversary day is I think 23 March and it's very common for businesses to tack that day on to Easter and acknowledge Otago anniversary day on the Tuesday after Easter. So how rigid is this going to be for those employees and employers?My second question is in relation to the costs as set out in the regulatory impact statement—and I have to say this is about as woolly as a cost estimate gets for a single day: either a positive benefit of $28 million or a negative cost of $137-odd million. It really does fall somewhat short of the degree of accuracy that I think the committee needs to have in order to understand what either costs are going to be imposed or benefits accrued. I cannot imagine that there will be a benefit and that's not a reason not to support the bill but why is it that the estimate of the financial impact of this day is so wide?Hon Michael Wood: Mr Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Michael Woodhouse—Michael Wood sorry.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): It was bound to happen Mr Chair. In response to the member Michael Woodhouse's first question the provisions of the Holidays Act means that local government has the agency to determine upon which day the relevant regional public holiday is celebrated so it is not actually a matter for this particular piece of legislation. But I recognise the point that the member is raising. It will be up to local authorities in the South Canterbury region to make a decision about that. I understand that some might be considering shifting it to a different day and that will be a matter that rests with them.In response to the member's second question the range of costs which are presented are similar to the range of costs which have been presented when the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment has conducted analysis of this nature in respect of other public holidays such as Matariki. And that simply relates to the fact that the estimation of these things is not an exact science. By definition officials have to assess a very wide array of economic activities that might or might not happen as a result of a particular decision being made. That leads to the range that has been provided. I'm confident that it's a range that gives us some guidance and it's the best information that officials can provide us with. Again I note that it ranges between a net positive economic impact and a net economic cost.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Scott Simpson.