6. Question No. 6—COVID ResponseCHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 ResponseQuestion No. 6—COVID ResponseCHRIS BISHOP (National): Does he stand by his statement—SPEAKER: Order! To?6. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Sorry. To the Minister of COVID-19 Response: Does he stand by his statement—we've had so many interactions Mr Speaker. Does he stand by his statement And you see that in the fact that our system is always changing. We are always doing new things"; if so when if ever will the Government introduce mandatory daily saliva testing for border workers?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Yes. We continue to review our settings based on emerging information about the virus and emerging trends in test technology globally. However more work needs to be done on the comparison around the sensitivity between a saliva sample and a nasopharyngeal swab. It's important that we use the best diagnostic tools to suit our settings and context to ensure that the detection of COVID-19 is done as early as possible. We understand that experts in Australia have signalled similar concerns regarding the use of saliva samples in their context which is actually very similar to our own.Chris Bishop: Does the Ministry of Health accept that the SHIELD saliva test developed by the University of Illinois has been validated as just as accurate as the nasal swab test in a blind testing process conducted by Janet Pitman at Victoria University?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don't have advice on that particular product. I'm aware that there's a number of people in the market at the moment trying to sell their product and they all speak very favourably of them.Chris Bishop: When New South Wales has conducted more than 50000 saliva tests for COVID from December 2020 to February 2021 across 21 hotels in Sydney why has New Zealand done just 140?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think as I mentioned earlier in question time we began our roll-out of saliva testing in January. That roll-out was paused whilst the people involved in it were diverted to focus on the case investigations around the Northland case that we dealt with. We do have a limited workforce and we need to prioritise them to working on the issues that are the most pressing and the most pressing was investigating those cases to make sure there was no further spread of the virus.Chris Bishop: Is he really saying that the reason we don't have daily saliva testing now when it was recommended in September—in fact probably earlier than that—is because of the Northland cases just last month?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. There's a variety of reasons including us wanting to make sure we're validating the science and that we're going to get good reliable results. There are some workforce constraints. We're working through those to make sure that we can do saliva testing more widely. But there's a combination of factors. We will do saliva testing more widely at such time as it gives us the confidence that we need that it's reliable and that it adds something to our testing regime.Chris Bishop: Can he confirm that a saliva-based PCR test is acceptable as a pre-departure test for entry into New Zealand and doesn't this indicate that it should be rolled out more widely in New Zealand?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think it's important to remember what the pre-departure testing is all about. It's about reducing the possibility of COVID-19 coming into the country. It's not being used as a diagnostic tool. It is not 100 percent effective. There continues to be a risk—[Interruption] There continues to be a risk of people contracting COVID-19 on their way to New Zealand. Ultimately the pre-departure testing isn't actually part of our elimination strategy. [Interruption] It's part of our strategy to reduce the number of positive COVID-19 cases that come into the country in the first place. I'd point out that when it comes to our elimination strategy—Chris Bishop: Oh come on.SPEAKER: Order! Sorry I'm going to interrupt the member. This for many New Zealanders is something which is very important. There's been explanations of this point given in the House before. Clearly either members were absent or not listening; I can tell from their reactions. I want Chris Hipkins to finish this answer with the Opposition in silence.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It's important to remember that when it comes to our elimination strategy—so the testing that we are doing within the community and the testing that we are doing at our border—even a 2 percent difference in the efficacy of different testing methods can have a very significant impact. Unlike countries who are dealing with mass numbers of COVID-19 cases where 2 percent is actually relatively immaterial in the grand scheme of things to New Zealand 2 percent can be the difference between having a big cluster of cases develop and not.Chris Bishop: Isn't it correct as the Prime Minister accepted yesterday in response to the Leader of the Opposition that any diminution in accuracy as a result of a saliva-based PCR test can be more than made up for by the constant repetition of doing it daily?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If your testing methods have been validated.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Mr Speaker members are often rebuked by presiding officers for bringing the Speaker into the debate including during question time. Can I ask you to consider when you reflect on this question time whether the extraneous comments you made because of the interjections actually did the reverse where you were bringing yourself into the debate? There is a risk that the commentary that can come with some of your rulings does do just that.SPEAKER: Well I thank the member for his comments. I was considering making mine very carefully for two or three supplementary questions beforehand because of the loud noise. My comments were made quite deliberately and I want to reinforce the fact that I think that most New Zealanders want to be able to hear what is happening here. And when we have a hubbub on my left and they can't then I end up with the complaints. The members don't get them; I do.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point Mr Speaker that wasn't the comment that I was referring to. You are perfectly entitled to rebuke those for the amount of noise and interjection that was going on. It was the reference to the quality of the question and the fact that you believed that Mr Bishop had not been listening to previous answers. The question was still in order and deserved to be answered even if it risks some repetition.SPEAKER: Sorry can the member remind me of which intervention he is referring to?David Seymour: Mr Speaker?Hon Michael Woodhouse: I'll just answer the question. I can't remember the exact words but there was a reference to the fact that clearly Mr Bishop could not have been listening and then there was a judgment on that. I'd need to go back and have a listen to the Hansard but I want you to reflect on—SPEAKER: Well sorry. I'm happy to go back and look at it. It wasn't meant as a deliberate reference to Mr Bishop. It was meant as a reference to members generally because if they had been listening they would have understood already the point that the member was about to make or trying to make and was being shouted down. David Seymour—point of order?David Seymour: Yes speaking to that.SPEAKER: Well no. Mr Seymour there's not currently a point of order on the floor. I have dealt with it. We'll go back to the business. David Seymour: Well it's a fresh point of order.SPEAKER: I want to make absolutely clear to the member that this is to be a fresh point of order on a different matter. If it is on the same matter it is out of order because I've dealt with it.David Seymour: Well Mr Speaker it is a comment on the matter that has not been raised and I think is worth raising and it's this. It's quite possible that members understood what was being said but were indignant about what was being said. And the effect of your reflection was to colour their behaviour as ignorance when they have every right to be indignant at the answers they were hearing as I certainly was and I—SPEAKER: OK right. The member will resume his seat. He is going over the matter again. I have never ruled against ignorance in this House because that would be stupid."