Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I don't want to spend too much time talking about the benefits of a trans-Tasman bubble because they have been well iterated for the House by previous speakers from both sides. The tourism benefits as the Minister of Tourism explained to the House are well known but I actually believe that in time it will be the human benefits that we will look back on when we talk about the events of 2021 and the human cost of not having a bubble in place for the last year. There have been friends and whānau and family separated in some cases for many months across this border between New Zealand and Australia—mums who haven't seen their babies dads who haven't seen their kids grandparents who haven't seen their grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I for one am looking forward to going to Australia and seeing one of my best friends who's just given birth to twins in Sydney. People will I believe look back on this period and say Thank heavens we've got the bubble open now." and the human hardship has been immense. But in my contribution I want to talk about how we got to this point. I want to talk about some of the excuses given by the Government and I want to talk about the implications of having the bubble in place. Firstly how did we get here? The idea of a bubble was first talked about in May last year.Hon Louise Upston: When?CHRIS BISHOP: After the lockdown in May. And I think people rightly said back then "It would be great to have the bubble up and running. We don't have to have it straight away because we've just done the lockdown and we've gone through the various levels." and you know the world was pressing in on New Zealand. But the idea of a bubble was a good one.Then the negotiations started with the Australians. I want to make the point that the Government's negotiating strategy has been poor. The reason I say that is they went for a joint decision-making framework. My understanding is that what was actually sought by the New Zealand Cabinet was a treaty that would be signed between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of Australia—almost like a Closer Economic Relations a CER-type arrangement. It would be a formal treaty with all the i's dotted and all the t's crossed around what would happen in the event of an outbreak. It would be a formal treaty. It became clear as months went by that that was a mistake. We don't know exactly what happened in the negotiations—and I've lodged an Official Information Act request to the Government and the Prime Minister to find out exactly what happened and I hope that we will now have that information released because the decision has been made and to the extent that it's possible without prejudicing the international relations of New Zealand I hope that we will get to the bottom of exactly what happened in the negotiations—but we wanted a joint decision-making framework.Then what happened in October is the Australian Government just said "Well New Zealanders can come." It is true that at various points various states put in place restrictions for New Zealanders to come. There was a flare-up in New Zealand and that various states would administer the border. But the general rule was that New Zealanders could go to Australia quarantine-free. And so then in December last year we had the announcement from the Government right at the very tail end of the parliamentary year that the hope was a bubble would be up and running by the first quarter. So that's the month just gone the end of March 2021. Professor Baker said actually it was possible then—we're talking about December remember—but the hope was we'd get one up and running by the end of March. But in February this year the talks broke down after 11 rounds of talks and I want to tell the House what I think happened. What I think happened is Australia shut its borders temporarily to New Zealand after we had the Valentine's Day cluster. This is the Papatoetoe cluster that everyone got very worried about for a couple of weeks. Australia temporarily closed the border and the Prime Minister criticised the Australian Government and said "We're not very happy about that. They shouldn't have done that. We're doing a great job managing COVID in New Zealand." etc. etc. And I think the Australians' point of view at that point was "Well hang on a minute. You're sitting in here in the joint decision-making framework with us arguing that you should retain the ability to close off the New Zealand border when there's a flare-up in Australia and now here you are Prime Minister criticising the Australian Government for doing precisely what you are arguing for in the negotiations." And I think the Australians said "Well that doesn't really make a lot of sense actually." and they'd be right. So then the talks broke down.It became very clear at that point that what should happen is what has eventually happened which is a unilateral decision-making framework for want of a better phrase by both countries. In other words the Australians do what they want to do as their sovereign country as they've done since October last year. They've said that New Zealanders can come to Australia quarantine-free and it's incumbent upon you New Zealand to sort out what you do with your border because you New Zealand are a sovereign country. And that's when Scott Morrison came out and said "Well I'm happy for Australians to go to Queenstown and"—and I'm pleased he said "Wellington" my home region and he listed a few other places. He said "I'm very happy for Australians but it's up to New Zealand." And that's what put the pressure alongside the petition launched by the National Party for the Government to move. I do want to respond to some people who say—[Interruption] Well members over there laugh but I can tell you something for free Miss Boyack. The officials only got their A into G after that petition got launched and members opposite started being flooded with emails from people saying "Why is the Government not moving on a trans-Tasman bubble?"Hon Stuart Nash: Oh rubbish!CHRIS BISHOP: It's absolutely true Stuart Nash. I know that for a fact. But I do want to respond to some people out there who say: if there's a flare-up and Australia closes the border temporarily the National Party will be out there saying "What a disaster. You know the Government's been terrible. What a disaster and they should never have done it." We will not do that. Even Jimmy Neesham you know a great cricketer—Simon Court: "Little Jimmy Neesham"!CHRIS BISHOP: —off to the Indian Premier League—did he say "Who's Jimmy Neesham?" You know who Jimmy Neesham is. He's a great cricketer. We should get him for the parliamentary cricket team; we're going to need him on Friday. But Jimmy Neesham said "Oh National will criticise it." And I just want to say to Mr Neesham and to others who have illuminated this view or amplified this view: we will not do that. The reason is that we believe both countries Australia and New Zealand should manage our borders flexibly. And it may well be that there will be a flare-up in Australia in the same way there may well be a flare-up in New Zealand and it will take a bit of political nose-holding by both sides of the Tasman but also both sides of the House in New Zealand to get through that period. It will do that and we're not going to criticise—I'd just note the caveat—unless we think there is real culpability on the Government; for example an avoidable mistake at the border or an avoidable series of events that leads to some culpability. But in the event that there's a minor outbreak in Auckland and the Australians say "Well if you come from Auckland to Sydney you can't come for a week." we're not going to get stuck into that and if I do members opposite should feel free to lay into me.All these excuses were given by the Government: the airports weren't ready. Well they were signed off in October. They said "The airlines need more time." Well of course they need a bit of time but if you give them a date they'll make it happen and that's what we've now done. I mean Air New Zealand is selling flights to Sydney and even Hobart of all places and I know that Ben McKay from the Australian Associated Press is very excited about people going off to Hobart. Then they said "Oh what about the tracer apps?" Well you know the logical thing's happened. We'll use the Australian ones while we're over there and Australians will use the New Zealand ones. Then they said "Well what happens in the event of an outbreak?" And again the logical thing has happened which is that it's flyer beware caveat emptor—you might get stuck and people will travel with that knowledge. If you treat people as adults then they will make up their own mind. And then they said "Oh well Australians can't leave." because the Australians had this rule in place that said Australians basically can't leave without a visa. And we said "Well once New Zealand opens its borders that will go by the wayside." and actually even before New Zealand opens its borders Scott Morrison and the Australian Government as a sign of good faith I suspect dropped that. So there have been a whole bunch of excuses. Just finally on the implications: this frees up a lot of space in managed isolation and quarantine. Yesterday the Prime Minister said "We've now discovered that a small number of facilities are only suitable for low-risk passengers." which raises a lot of questions: what are these facilities and why have there been people from high-risk destinations in facilities not suitable for high-risk passengers up to this point and when will they be closed down? And there's a whole bunch of implications from that. But of course now we've got choices and optionality around Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme workers and split migrant families and critical workers that Judith Collins and other members on this side of the House have commented on. This is a good day. It should have come sooner. We do welcome it. Let's get on with it and bring the Aussies to New Zealand."