Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. The National Party will be supporting the motion to approve the orders and I want to echo the remarks of the Minister for COVID-19 Response around the collegial and proper way that these orders are dealt with and also explain to the House my deep sense of pride and happiness at being a new member of the Regulations Review Committee for this Parliament. I started my life—Hon Chris Hipkins: Once more with sincerity!CHRIS BISHOP: Ha ha! No no I mean that very sincerely. I started my parliamentary career as the third Government backbench member on the Regulations Review Committee and coming from a quasi-legal background into the Parliament—David Seymour: Pretty legal!CHRIS BISHOP: Ha ha! Yeah that's right. Some would say pretty legal. Coming from a public law background into the Parliament it was explained to me—I think I've told the Parliament this before but indulge me sir—at the time that the Regulations Review Committee was regarded as the dreg committee—the dregs of the parliamentary committee system.David Seymour: No it's the highest of the high!CHRIS BISHOP: That's right—the highest of the high says Mr Seymour. And it was explained to me—I can't remember who said it to me but I think it was a long-serving member. It may have been from the Government of the day or it may have actually been from the Opposition and they explained to me that the Regulations Review Committee was the bottom of the bottom and the only way you could go was up. And I was also on the Finance and Expenditure Committee at the time so it was a slightly strange comment.But regulations review is a critical committee partly for the reasons that the Minister has outlined but basically we conduct an interrogation an investigation into the legality of subsidiary tertiary instruments passed by entities that Parliament has given essentially rule-making authority to. And that sounds incredibly boring but it's actually critical to the rule of law. The committee functions a bit like a court in that sense. And actually a lot of people sometimes take judicial review actions—and that costs a lot of money and ties up a lot of court time—that could easily actually be dealt with by the Regulations Review Committee. I'm getting the signal to come back to it so before I continue my soliloquy about the Regulations Review Committee I will just say that they do do a good job. In relation to the three orders I agree with the Minister in relation to the third order which is the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 8) 2021. And just in passing I note we've got to find a better way of getting the nomenclature right around these orders because we're now up to No 8—David Seymour: The regs review committee could do that!CHRIS BISHOP: Potentially the regs review committee could do that. We're up to No 8 for the air border order in 2021 so we probably need to find an easier way but I agree that that's a no-brainer.In relation to the first one which is the vaccination order we will support that. We do just note the length of time it took to pass the order in relation to the ports in particular for example. So the reality is 35 percent or so—and that's the last data I have and it's a couple of weeks old so it's probably say around 30 to be generous to the Government. So around 30 percent of frontline port workers are unvaccinated. And that is a real concern—it really is. The Prime Minister said in February—or late January actually I think it was—that it would take two to three weeks to do our frontline border workers. Well here we are in August and 30 percent of port workers are unvaccinated. And I acknowledge there are issues with vaccine hesitancy amongst some and I acknowledge that they're a private sector workforce but I think it's not unreasonable to make the point that we should have moved faster and sooner in relation to this order. So we support it but it has taken too long.I also want to flag now that I think the time is quickly approaching in which the Government and the Parliament will have to turn its mind to vaccine mandates or vaccine orders in early childhood education (ECE) where 87 cases of our current Auckland cluster are children aged under 9. And so I think quickly or at some point in the future there is going to be a call for teachers in early childhood to be vaccinated. I don't think it'll be too long before we get to that point. Delta is particularly contagious amongst the young and so I think people will start to think about that for ECE—so I hope the Government is turning its attention or its mind to early childhood education vaccine mandates.And then the second thing is aged care. As I mentioned to the Minister during my question this afternoon in the House in question time around 80 percent of aged-care workers are vaccinated but of course that leaves about one in five 20 percent who are not. My understanding from talking to those involved in the sector is that the rates in South Auckland are lower than 80 percent—somewhere around the 50 to 60 percent rate which is obviously concerning given the outbreak that we currently have in Auckland and South Auckland more generally. So I think the time is soon going to come in which the Government will have to mandate vaccination for those working at aged care. Vaccine rates amongst residents is really good and that's great to see but there are also workers in these clinics.Finally just on this order I think we need a good public discussion at some point around the concept of vaccine mandates for private sector workers as well. As the rates of vaccination coverage go up and that's a wonderful thing—as I said in the general debate the best thing people can do for the future of this country is go out and get vaccinated—but at what point or is the Parliament and the House comfortable with private sector employers saying for example that their workers have to be vaccinated? Or to take a slightly more extreme example what about a private sector business saying that only people who have been doubly vaccinated are allowed on my premises."? Now it's illegal to go out and say "People under or over a certain age can come on to my property." if I'm selling goods or services—that's illegal; it's illegal under the Human Rights Act. It's illegal to say "Only men are allowed in my shop." That's illegal as well.Is it the current legal position that shop owners can say "I'm only allowing you on my premise or into my bar or club or my concert"—for example—"if you've been doubly vaccinated."? And these conversations have happened overseas already because they've got such a high level of courage. We are going to get to that point thankfully by the end of the year and so the conversation I think is quickly going to turn around the legality of that. I'm not expressing a view either way I hasten to add—I'm not expressing a fixed view either way. I'm just saying we have to have a conversation as a Parliament and as a country around that because it's a tricky one in which the health and safety obligations of employers intersect with the human rights of citizens but also intersect with the broader rights of the collective in New Zealand to be kept safe as well. So those are tricky legal issues and my colleague Scott Simpson attempted to ask the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety about it in the select committee last week. They had quite an interesting conversation but I think it would be fair to say the Minister was not particularly interested in having the conversation and I think it's quickly going to be time in which we're going to have to start talking about that stuff.I agree with the Minister that the second order we are amending is pretty straightforward although it's really good to hear—and I note in the report from the Regulations Review Committee the report notes that the officials are taking the opportunity to review the principal order to identify how it can be simplified and improved and that's a good thing. And I hope that they are beavering away and considering how we can make it slightly more easier and I'm sure that they are doing that. So with those remarks I just say thank you to the Minister for presenting these to the House expeditiously. I'm sure they are but three of many still to come this year. Thank you sir."