Hipkins Chris; Rurawhe AdrianSecond ReadingHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I move That the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill be now read a second time.Let's just quickly recap what this bill is about. It does two things: it allows for the introduction and the use of vaccination certificates and it provides greater certainty for businesses who are looking to impose vaccination requirements on their workforces. It makes it clear who can and who can't by allowing a very clear framework to be put in place for that something that businesses have been asking for and now they are getting it through this legislation. They wanted greater certainty. They've been very clear they want greater certainty. This legislation provides the certainty that business has been asking for.The only thing people who have been following this debate will be confused about is exactly what the National Party's position is on it because on the one hand they think that vaccination certificates should have been done by now and then on the other hand they're opposed to the legislation that allows for them. On the other hand the member opposite—Simon Watts was it?—said that we lacked a sense of urgency and then devoted most of his speech to opposing urgency to bring this legislation before the House. The members opposite have argued that employers need greater certainty around the introduction of vaccination mandates and that's presumably the reason why they're voting against giving those businesses that very certainty that they claim they need! This particular bill does many of the things that the Opposition have been arguing for. They're voting against—again; not for the first time in the last few weeks—their own policies in the House. So I think members of the public following along might be a little confused about what the Opposition's position on that is.So let's be clear about what the bill is all about. It's about saying that vaccination matters—that vaccination is how we can turn down the risk as COVID-19 spreads through the community—because Mr Bishop himself in his contribution earlier made the very accurate point that COVID-19 is with us and it is going to spread across the country and it is going to find its way to those who are unvaccinated. The more we can do to slow that spread the more we can do to ensure that our case numbers stay manageable the more we can do to reduce hospitalisations then the better everybody will be.Now for those who say it's all about personal choice let's just talk about that for a moment because we've got about 9 percent of eligible New Zealanders as of now who have at this point made the choice not to be vaccinated. So for the 91 percent who have been vaccinated you could take the view of the Opposition and say Well the 91 percent they have made their choice and now the 9 percent live with the consequences of not choosing to be vaccinated." Except the 91 percent who have been vaccinated and all those who cannot be vaccinated because they are children do suffer the consequences if COVID-19 starts to spread amongst the unvaccinated and therefore is more likely to be spreading amongst the vaccinated as well. And that does mean that those personal choices have an impact on other people.So the regime that we're putting in place here says "Yes actually we should be able to say that there are some things that unvaccinated people can't participate in the same as a vaccinated person in order to reduce that risk for the whole population." That is appropriate and that is what this legislation allows for because unvaccinated people can still spread the virus they can spread it to children who can't be vaccinated and they can spread it to those who are vaccinated who can then spread it to others. Vaccination turns down the risk of people ending up in hospital but it's not an absolute guarantee and therefore the more unvaccinated people there are the more risk there is.And then we could say "Well what if the consequences are in terms of health only amongst the unvaccinated people?" Well when someone shows up at hospital to get treatment that is completely unrelated to COVID-19 and finds the hospital is full of unvaccinated COVID-19 people it will have an impact on other people as well. So people's personal choices not to be vaccinated have an impact on others and that is why the Government is saying "If people make those choices that's their choice but there are consequences of those choices." And one of those is that they won't be able to participate in those events that could see them contracting COVID-19 and spreading it to others and spreading it in such a way that it would become uncontrolled in the community.Unlike the Opposition—who seem to think that we're reaching the point with COVID19 now where we should just give up fighting it and let it rip—the Government is taking the view that all New Zealanders vaccinated or unvaccinated are still going to be better off if we seek to suppress COVID-19 as much as we can because COVID-19 is still a deadly virus. COVID-19 has not gone away. COVID-19 has not stopped mutating; that's what viruses do. There is still a risk. There is still a global pandemic. The pandemic is not over despite what members opposite might like to think and so we still have to act responsibly. The Opposition get the luxury that they can change their position every week as they do in this House and of course there's never any consequences of that because they've never had to implement any of the multitude of positions that they have taken since the global pandemic began.I stand behind the Government's record on this. We have seen one of the lowest rates of hospitalisations one of the lowest rates of mortality one of the best economic recoveries some of the fewest restrictions of any countries in the world. The results speak for themselves. This is the next step in our COVID-19 response. It is a sensible step. It is a measured and managed step that will ensure that we can transition to an environment where people do have more freedom where people do see the benefits of high rates of vaccination but not at the expense of our health system and our health workers and not at the expense of our children.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to."