Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Minister Faafoi. I'm pleased you've raised the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) issue. It is an issue very dear to my heart and actually the Minister really hit it right on the head: it actually is about speed and moving it through. So I'd have to ask the Minister: why did he not then deal with RSE workers last year under these provisions when it was a real problem and people were in Central Otago waiting for their special directions so they could go and earn a living in Marlborough? With the stroke of a pen the Minister could do it; he dragged his feet for weeks. So it's all very well having these powers; we have little confidence that the Minister moves with the pace that this bill allows. It's all very well to have that but Minister you have to back that up. I think it's quite rich—it was very interesting that 13500 number—and it seems very clear that this hasn't been thought through. We had the Minister in his Cabinet paper seeking this to have no time limit at all. Then he got knocked back by his Cabinet colleagues to two years. Now we're hearing a whole lot of shifting sands as to why these two years are needed. First thing it was essential because of COVID—and this is my question to the Minister: what is the definition then of COVID? COVID is out of the box or out of the laboratory now; it's with us for ever. It's not going to be eliminated like other diseases I deeply suspect and I think most of the scientific community agrees with that. So what is the definition of when COVID isn't with us? As per section 50(4B) However the Minister may not make a special direction under subsection (4A) unless satisfied that (a) doing do is reasonably necessary to manage the effects or deal with the consequences of (i) the outbreak of COVID-19; or (ii) measures taken under this Act or any other enactment to contain or mitigate the outbreak of COVID-19 or its effects; or (iii) any other measures (whether in New Zealand or elsewhere) to contain or mitigate the outbreak of COVID-19 or its effects;". So is this COVID only in New Zealand? Is this COVID-19 overseas? What are the numbers? How many visas—what's the maximum number or the minimum number that you would say as Minister is OK for your department to actually cope with? Because we're hearing different things from you: it's all because of COVID; it's all because we don't have the capacity; we can't process the visas—so very much a shifting sands thing. I think actually this has not been thought through. I think if we go right back to the RSE issues I started on it is a Minister that is not moving very quickly not across his portfolio and he's trying to make this up as he goes along. This was absolutely necessary last year. It's necessary now but I'm not convinced and the Opposition is not convinced that it's necessary for two years. In addition to that we have of course ADEPT and I'd like to hear from the Minister about ADEPT which is a programme that will process visas much more quickly. When that kicks in—and it will be later this year I understand—won't that take all this pressure off? Why is it two years Minister? I think you're trying to have a dollar each way on this one and I think the Cabinet paper was very very revealing. Clearly the Minister did not want to give up any of this extraordinary power. I don't think the Minister actually understands what he's actually asking for. He says it can only be used for good. Well I'm sure there are lots of authoritarian Governments that have said that very thing. That's not the point Minister. The point is we have these laws and we don't have "Henry VIII" powers just because you're a decent bloke and you're not going to use them inappropriately. That's not the point. Every action that the Minister has particularly when he has these special directions powers will have some effect. It might be positive—it might only be positive—but they will have an effect and that is why we normally have processes. Otherwise we would have only good laws that the Minister could make and change as they chose as they went along. That's not how our system works and quite frankly Minister to get the powers that you're seeking we have not heard a convincing argument yet. All we've heard is a whole lot of bluster about things that aren't backed up by numbers or facts. I think even your officials aren't looking that confident there and I think that says it all quite frankly. So I'm very interested to hear your response."