Bishop Chris; Hipkins ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Mr Chair. And can I start by echoing the words of the chair of the Health Committee in saying thank you to all of our managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) Defence police workers nurses—everyone out there at the front line of the health response—for a really tough two years. And we do thank them as a Parliament for all the work they've done.I have a series of questions for the Minister. Perhaps I'll start with one and then if he'd like me to read more out and take them in sum happy to. But maybe start with a question that I know affects a small group of people out there but a not insignificant minority of people which is unvaccinated permanent residents of New Zealand who wish to return.People out there listening will know that unvaccinated citizens have been allowed to return to New Zealand for the last three or so weeks. That was announced sort of late at night one Friday without any Government announcement sort of surreptitiously—well that's a little bit unfair but sort of without much public prominence placed on the COVID website. But that privilege of returning to New Zealand does not extend to unvaccinated permanent residents and it has actually caused quite a degree of confusion out there. Now I'm aware of for example a couple of people who have turned up to the airport and have got differing instructions from Immigration New Zealand the airline staff the MIQ people and the various COVID officials about whether or not they're actually able to enter New Zealand. And so my question to the Minister is: what is the current status of unvaccinated permanent residents? Why is there a distinction between unvaccinated permanent residents and unvaccinated New Zealand citizens? And can we expect to see some change to that situation in the future?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I'm very happy to answer that for the member. At the moment the legal situation is that the New Zealand Government cannot discriminate against New Zealand citizens on the status of vaccination and therefore they have been allowed in. We've not yet made decisions around the ongoing status of vaccination requirements at the border. It is something that we do keep under review and therefore you know we will look at what the ongoing—well not look at; we've been looking at it all along. But we'll make further decisions around what the ongoing requirements for people coming into the country around vaccination are in due course. I note that a lot of countries still have requirements in place but—like the testing requirements—the international sands are shifting quite rapidly on that and we continue to review all of the evidence around that and all of the international experience.CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm pleased the Minister mentioned testing because that was going to be my next question. I was in Australia on the weekend. I took advantage of the reopening of the border and I duly got my pre-departure rapid antigen test (RAT) 24 hours before I left and I duly got my pre-departure RAT in Australia to come back to New Zealand. I did find myself sitting there saying Is there much utility in this process?" I don't want to say "Woe is me" too much but it was quite a hassle and Australia is actually getting rid of pre-departure testing from 18 April.I suppose a couple of questions go to that: when will Cabinet consider pre-departure testing next for New Zealand; is the issue of whether or not we actually need it at the border under consideration; and is there any health benefit now in a world in which Omicron is on both sides of the Tasman—in particular for Australia? So what's the latest on pre-departure testing?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Again I don't want the member to feel I'm fobbing him off here but we haven't made specific decisions on this at this stage. Do I envisage that we will have the current pre-departure testing requirements for all countries on an ongoing basis for ever? No; I don't. I think we will reach the point at some stage—maybe at some stage soon—where it becomes more targeted. So it may well be for example that there continues to be a pre-departure testing requirement for those countries where there is a significant escalation in COVID-19 cases—significant outbreaks new variants etc. So it is one of the tools that will remain in the tool kit for some time yet to come I think but will it be right the way across the board indefinitely? No; I don't think it will. But we haven't made specific decisions around the timing for when we might shift up the requirements.CHRIS BISHOP (National): In a similar vein can the Minister perhaps advise the House as to whether or not the Government is giving consideration to the bringing forward of the—I think it's step 5 of the reconnecting pathway which is non - visa waiver countries. People from non - visa waiver countries are allowed in from October. There's no specific date but from October is the current understanding and of course many people who wish to travel to New Zealand are from non - visa waiver countries. I think the Minister signalled previously that the Government would look to bring that time line forward. Does he have an update for the House on whether or not that's still the plan and if so what that time line might look like?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Again there are two Ministers with the responsibility for what happens at the border: me in the sense of—well there's multiple Ministers but in terms of this particular topic there's me in terms of the public health considerations and then there's the Minister of Immigration. Actually now at the border the primary driver of decisions around timing now are immigration decisions not public health ones in the sense that a visa waiver country visitor versus a non - visa waiver country visitor the risk profile for them is more or less the same from a COVID-19 perspective. The public health profile is more or less the same; therefore the considerations there now largely become ones about immigration about immigration processing and so on rather than public health considerations.CHRIS BISHOP (National): Turning away from the border for a little bit: a couple of questions in relation to the actual health response. The first is: does he have any more advice on when Paxlovid or molnupiravir—but particularly Paxlovid because that seems to be the more effective of the two—will become available for use in New Zealand? I note that Australia is now rolling it out and other countries are well ahead of us. It's clearly not a substitute for vaccination and no one would suggest that it is. But it's clearly a treatment that we would want to have access to so do we have any further update as to when that will become available in New Zealand? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I'm happy to get a breakdown for the member of the various antiviral and various therapeutic treatments that are available for COVID-19 in New Zealand and the number increases regularly. In terms of Paxlovid it is available in New Zealand now. What I would say though is that our technical advisory group have been giving us some relatively frank advice that some of those early treatments that showed early promise aren't showing so much promise now. CHRIS BISHOP (National): So is he saying that health practitioners can prescribe Paxlovid right now? Because I mean I think that would be news to people. Is that the Minister's position? Because I accept that in the case of molnupiravir for example I think the Minister is right to say did show really big promise but has proven to be I think less effective against Omicron than people perhaps thought it was. But my understanding—and I'm happy to be advised wrongly—is that Paxlovid was not yet available where I think we were expecting it in April but we're now in April. So I suppose it's a question of whether or not it's available yet.The Minister is looking at his notes so maybe I'll just ask another question which is the issue of vaccine mandates. Some of the heat in this debate has obviously been taken out by the decision of the Government to phase out mandates—well it's a misused word "mandate" but phase out the requirement to have a vaccine pass and therefore a requirement to be vaccinated in order to work in a place like a cafe for example. But there are still mandates in place for border workers prisoners and health and care workers. Is it the Government position that those mandates will be phased out in time? And if it is the Government position that they will also be phased out what is the timeline for that?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): In terms of the therapeutic treatments sorry I didn't bring the list with me—you know what's here and what's not. But I'm certainly happy to come back to the member specifically on Paxlovid as to whether or not it is here or not. I'll get a more specific answer on that.In terms of the ongoing vaccination requirements we haven't made decisions about those three remaining workforces that the member mentioned as to whether or not those requirements will continue until we're past the COVID-19 peak or you know past the COVID-19 pandemic stage or whether there might be vaccination requirements there on a longer term basis. We haven't made that decision yet. We'll get good robust public health advice before making any further calls there."