Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I also have some questions for the Minister the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway about three and they actually build on the questions that have been asked by Messrs Smith and Seymour. The first one relates to health and safety which we are probably as focused on right now as we have ever been in a workplace situation. The response so far has been to shut everything down. Now we're coming out of that and WorkSafe and the Health and Safety at Work Act does have a very important role to play in so far as employers are required to take practicable steps to keep their staff and the people who interact with their workplaces safe.I'm particularly interested in two things. One is the availability or non-availability of protective equipment particularly in the healthcare setting—which are also persons conducting a business or undertaking and the question I have is twofold. One is if a workplace following the personal protective equipment (PPE) guidelines that are being articulated by the Ministry of Health does or does not supply PPE following those guidelines even though WorkSafe may believe that it would be a practicable step to take what is the liability on the employer? Secondly if a staff member particularly in the healthcare setting acquires an infection in the workplace as a consequence of exposure to COVID-19 are they eligible for ACC cover either as a treatment injury—if they were a patient they would certainly be eligible for treatment injury cover. But will a worker who acquires COVID in the workplace be eligible for ACC?I want to agree with the Minister and his comments about pay equity but I must confess that I'm very confused because the words and the actions of this Government don't seem to line up. The previous Government had passed that first reading of what I believe—of course because I was the architect of it—was a very good pay equity bill. Ms Logie and Mr Lees-Galloway may very well disagree with that and that is entirely their prerogative but the obligation and the encumbrance on the Government was to do something different. And I note that the Equal Pay Amendment Bill languishes seventh from the bottom of the Order Paper having been reported back by the select committee 11 months ago.Chris Bishop: How many?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Eleven and a half months ago Mr Bishop. So while I agree—and I expect the Minister is keen to see this—my question is: why has that progress not been made? Frankly there was plenty of time in the calendar to advance this important piece of legislation. I think there's some fundamental flaws in it but let's at least get to a start line which is the bill enacted. So why has it taken nearly a year from the report-back date to have that bill have even its second reading?My third question is around immigration. Mr Smith and Mr Seymour raised two very important questions around the Government's consideration firstly of variations of conditions that would enable overseas workers to go from one place or one role to another in this scenario and that's previously been quite strictly adhered to. Mr Seymour talked about Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme workers and the ability to get them in particularly if they're from COVID-free countries. I have a broader more strategic question which is: what discussions have Cabinet and the Government had about immigration policy going forward?I should also underpin this with conversations that I and my colleagues Jacqui Dean Sarah Dowie and Hamish Walker have been having with the mayors of the southern regions from Waitaki to Invercargill over the looming crisis particularly in the Queenstown Lakes area of the thousands of people who are now stuck. Despite the tub-thumping rhetoric from the Government's support partner New Zealand First on turning down the tap—and actually it was the Minister's rhetoric in Opposition—and this strict cut to immigration that they campaigned on actually the opposite happened and indeed that was entirely appropriate with the growing economy. The economy is coming to a screaming halt and I do understand that the Government needs the wisdom of Solomon to balance the competing needs of those people—who are here and need support in the short term—with the Government's overall objectives to put Kiwis to the front of the job queue. So I don't want an answer to the question—I think that would be unfair at this time—but I am interested in the Minister just articulating what early thinking has gone on about how it's going to position itself in that very important question.