Bishop Chris; Dean JacquiCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I was momentarily taken by surprise. I thought the Minister was going to spend a little more time outlining what is a reasonably unusual bill as the departmental disclosure statement notes. We are retrospectively dealing with something here. I refer members to page 8 paragraph 4.3 of the departmental disclosure statement: The Bill has retrospective effect and … [impacts] on matters that are subject to" a prospective court decision. So the Parliament is going to do two slightly unusual things here two things that we don't like to do as the Attorney-General will agree I'm sure which is legislate retrospectively or legislate with the effect of having a retrospective effect but also at the same time legislating for matters that are currently before the courts. There is as the regulatory impact statement notes a prospective court decision. Now it doesn't mean Parliament can't do it and actually we in the National Party agree with doing it. But I am slightly surprised we didn't hear slightly more from the Minister. Perhaps we can get into that in the committee of the whole House stage.National agrees with the need for this legislation and we'll be supporting it and we agree with the urgency for which it needs to be passed. The reason why we're debating it of course is the decision of Her Honour Justice Ellis delivered yesterday in the High Court in relation to relief sought by applicants essentially trying to stop the roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccine. Members may want to refer to paragraph 75 of the judgment which is I think the key one which is the paragraph in which Her Honour notes that it is "reasonably arguable" her words that provisional consent granted to the Pfizer vaccine was ultra vires the Medicines Act 1981.I've got to say having read the judgment and considered the legislative schema it's hard to conclude that she's wrong because on a plain language reading of the Act the now very old Act or at least 30-year-old Act "a limited number" of patients can't really be described as the whole country. That basically is what the case turned on because the Government has granted the Pfizer vaccine for everyone over the age of 16 who wants one and we agree with that. That's a good thing. We want everyone to go and get the vaccine. But of course it's provisional consent purportedly granted for a limited number of patients. The argument is very simple. If you're granting the vaccine for everyone that's not a limited number. When you want 3.5 million people to get it out of a population of New Zealand the 5 million that's not a limited number of people. And I've got to say you know you read the legislation and you think well that makes perfect sense. Notwithstanding as the Minister for COVID-19 Response has noted that has been the practice for successive years not just in relation to the COVID vaccine and vaccines plural but in relation to other things as well. But a plain language reading of the Act I think essentially dictates the outcome that Her Honour reached in the court case. I was always taught at law school that you start with the plain ordinary meaning of the statute. You look at the ordinary meaning of the words and the ordinary meaning of the phrase "a limited number of patients" can't mean 3.5 million people. That's not "limited" by definition. That is not.So I think frankly—David Seymour: How many people are there in the world?CHRIS BISHOP: Well indeed. I think the judgment is correct. It's hard to escape the logic of the judgment. But I also think it's worth noting Her Honour's conclusion at paragraph 73 around the margin of appreciation given to the Government is the right one as well. It's quite an elegant judgment in the sense that basically Her Honour says "Applicants have a point. It is probably true that the granting of provisional consent is ultra-vires the Act but I'm declining to order relief that they have sought"—which is basically stop the roll-out—"because of the massive impact that would obviously have on the country." We're well under way or at least tolerably well under way in terms of the Pfizer vaccine roll-out in New Zealand. The last thing I hope everyone in Parliament will agree is that we have to stop doing that and so Her Honour declined to order relief. I'm sure that constitutional scholars out there watching like Dean Knight from the Victoria University law school are going to love the idea that the margin of appreciation has yet again been entered into the High Court register of cases. We agree with the bill and we agree with the need to act with urgency and we'll support it but I do want to make a couple of points. I want to know from the Government and perhaps we can get into this through other speakers and potentially in the committee stage: firstly what was the Government told about the chances of this happening? And secondly when did they get told? Because I've got to say to you when you read the Act it is pretty obvious when you read the Act that "a limited number of people" is not going to be the adult population of New Zealand and any plain language reading of the Act dictates the outcome that Her Honour Justice Ellis reached yesterday.I'm willing to suggest that the Government got some advice at some point telling them that. And frankly if they didn't get advice telling them that someone is not doing their job properly in the Ministry of Health and/or Crown Law. Because I would have thought a sensible competent Government would have gone to the officials and said "We're really keen to get the Pfizer vaccine rolled out as quickly as possible. It's very important for New Zealand. What's the best way of making that happen?" And they would have been told "Well the Medsafe process is this and it's ABC and X Y Z and Pfizer has got to apply and then they've got to get provisional approval." I'm willing to bet at some point the Government was told there was a chance that that might be illegal. I'm willing to bet that that was the case. And it either came from the Ministry of Health lawyers or it came from Crown Law probably the latter and that would have gone to Ministers. I also reckon Ministers were told the way to make this absolutely clear to avoid any doubt is to quickly pass a bill through Parliament to make it clear that that can happen that what has happened which is the roll-out of the provisional consent for the Pfizer vaccine—quickly pass a bill through Parliament to make it clear that can happen. So basically what we're doing now which is tidying up the mess that's been created we could have done back in October or November or maybe even September—or maybe not September because we weren't sitting before the election but maybe straight after the election. I'm willing to bet Ministers were told that. The question for the Government is: were they told that? I reckon they were. And if they were told that when were they told that? Because if they were told that in August maybe when we started talking about the vaccines or maybe September or October when the first contracts were signed with Pfizer and the other companies then I've got to say that we'll support the legislation but that's untidy. You know we're now in May 2021 and if Ministers were told in September last year "Actually there's a chance that what you want to happen in the next few months is not going to work out for you legally. You should probably fix that up and you should probably go and legislate." that is untidy. It's not going to bring the Government down. I'm not claiming that you know the world is coming to an end and that Labour's massive majority is suddenly going to capitulate and crumble. No one's claiming that; I'm certainly not. I mean God knows if only it did—but that's not going to happen. But it's untidy and it's bad lawmaking and frankly it's bad governance. It really is. If you're told as a Government that it would be tidier to make sure that the law is in place to expedite the roll-out and make sure it's all legally done according to the law and you don't do it that's untidy.I want to know from the Government what they were told and I want to know when they were told. And I would encourage the Government in relation to its legal advice to waive privilege if required because it's in the public interest that I think we know that. I've asked the Minister for COVID-19 Response for the legal advice in relation to this and he's declined to give that to me on the grounds of legal professional privilege. That's the Government's right but it's also up to the Government to waive that privilege. I see the Attorney-General is here and I'd encourage the Attorney-General to waive that privilege. We need some answers from the Government.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to."