Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. Can I start where the Minister for COVID-19 Response ended which is echoing what he said in relation to fewer orders hopefully coming to the Regulations Review Committee and then ultimately to the House. I haven't spent much time on the Regulations Review Committee recently but I think I'm right in saying—on behalf of Chris Penk the very erstwhile chair of the committee and the very hard working member—that fewer orders would be a good thing so they can get back to the extremely tricky task of examining the vires-ness of all the various complaints that they get. It's a very important committee and I know from my brief spell on the committee last year—and the start of this year actually—that they have been doing a very good job and working very hard. Some of the meetings have gone on for a very long time because there's so many of these orders so I agree with Mr Hipkins that it would be good to see fewer orders. I also want to say thank you to him for his appearances before the Health Committee.He noted in his contribution that he's appeared before the committee 10 times in the last two years which sounds good but when you think about the billions of dollars we've spent the extraordinary powers that the Parliament has given to the Government—wartime-esque powers the power to compel vaccination for people to participate in everyday life—frankly I think 10 appearances is on the small side and it would have been helpful to see more appearances.The other point I'd make given he raised it in his speech is that—Willow-Jean Prime: There was another committee.CHRIS BISHOP: What's that?Willow-Jean Prime: There was another committee remember?CHRIS BISHOP: Oh yeah there's been other committees but the problem—and this is the point I was going to go on to make—is that of course it's not just the Minister who has to account it's also the officials. And there have been repeated occasions when committees—plural—have tried to get senior officials in who have been stymied by the Labour majority. So given he raises that point I do just note in rebuttal that it has been deeply and immensely frustrating to be stymied at examining senior officials responsible for vast swathes of public expenditure and who have enormous power in the system—to not be able to ask basic questions of the officials. The fact that the last National Government wasn't crash hot at this either is not rebuttal to why the Government should not be better. It's just a point.Thirdly we do welcome many of the orders made that we are approving today because they represent the liberalisation of our response to COVID. The Minister noted the various amendments that have a liberalising effect that have a freeing-up effect—so vaccination requirements the removal of vaccine passes. I think most New Zealanders welcome these moves. Just a note or just a comment in relation to vaccination requirements to enter New Zealand: I am a person who has been quite vexed by the slowness with which the Government has moved particularly when it comes to unvaccinated permanent residents. We had this peculiar incident a few weeks or so ago when the Government kind of randomly put up online on a Friday night that unvaccinated New Zealand citizens would no longer have to go into managed isolation and quarantine. It seemed to take everyone by surprise—there was no ministerial press release there was no announcement even on social media channels. It just kind of appeared on the website. It's a pretty significant change nothing really to come of that so that was pretty strange.Then of course that raised the issue of well what about permanent residents? What about other visa category holders? And actually there was quite a degree of confusion out there amongst Kiwis amongst those people offshore and here in New Zealand. I was contacted by a number of people including one person who got all the way to the airport who thought they were going to be allowed on a plane back to New Zealand—she was unvaccinated—only to be told that she couldn't come because the rules were just so unclear. One person said one thing and health officials said another thing the immigration official said another thing and the website said another thing altogether. So it was a pretty to be honest pretty awful experience for a few people. We now have clarity in that unvaccinated permanent residents are allowed to enter New Zealand which is a good thing but it has taken a long time to get to that point. I for one will be investigating exactly how long it took and whether or not the restrictions on those people was proportionate to the risk that they provided to the New Zealand people here who are vaccinated. Frankly I find it hard to believe that they were such a risk that we couldn't liberalise the rules in relation to unvaccinated permanent residents earlier than we did.In relation to travel declarations that the orders we're approving introduce the travel declaration system I've had a lot of email correspondence about it—I don't know if other members have—particularly from seniors. It is quite a cumbersome process to go through. I've passed this on to the Minister so he's aware of what I'm saying. I think it could be possible to design an easier system. The other thing is that the spreading of the information out into the public domain as to what the exact rules are I think could be better as well. To share a personal story I rocked up at Brisbane Airport last Thursday to come back to New Zealand to be told by a Qantas staff member that I needed to show that I was vaccinated—which of course I am but of course that's not the law. I'm a New Zealand citizen; I can enter New Zealand without showing an international vaccination pass. I was duly told by the staff member that unless I showed it I was not going to be allowed on the plane. You know I'm not one to argue in those circumstances. I didn't want to you know. I did say to her That's not the rules." And she said "Well you need to take that up with the Government." So at that point I didn't say anything further although I was tempted. I duly showed my pass. But anyway I just tell that point in passing. It has nothing to do with me. But there was a gentleman behind me who had a similar experience who was very confused about life. So we need greater dissemination of exactly how the rules work.The other thing I would say is the time has come in our view in the National Party to get rid of pre-departure testing to New Zealand all of which is given effect to by these orders as well. The benefits of pre-departure testing to New Zealand now are so nugatory as to be pointless in our view. I would be very interested and I'm intending to take this up with the Minister tomorrow when he appears before the committee—I would be very interested in as to what the public health advice is in relation to a pre-departure test.Now it's quite interesting because when the National Party proposed pre-departure testing—members with medium-long memories will remember—the Labour Party told us in 2020 that they were pointless; that they didn't work; that you know they didn't add any protective mechanisms to New Zealand's elimination approach; and that they were a dumb idea. Then they sort of had an about-face and introduced them which was great. And so they made sense at the start of the pandemic because we had an elimination strategy—so clearly trying to minimise the number of people who have COVID and get on a plane is a good thing. That's all fine. But we don't have an elimination strategy anymore. We have a suppression strategy—for want of any other phrase—and COVID is running through the community and it's running through the community in Australia as well. So this idea that you have to go and get a negative rapid antigen test or a PCR within 24 or 48 hours before getting on a plane and coming to New Zealand—our view in the National Party is that the benefits do not justify the enormous cost and hassle that they provide. It does have a real impact on people. You sort of say "Oh well you just have to go and get a test." But of course that does have a real impact on people. It does inhibit people's desire to travel and it does inhibit people's desire to travel to New Zealand as well.You just think about it in realistic terms: a family of four wants to come to New Zealand for a holiday they've got to go and get negative rapid antigen tests. I think the last—well I had to get one the other day it was A$60. You know it's A$250 just before you even get on a plane. So it does have a real cost. And of course then there's the hassle of actually having to go and get the test in the first place. Again made sense at the start of the pandemic. It made sense up until very recently that we want to minimise the number of people with COVID entering New Zealand. But Australia has abolished pre-departure tests for New Zealanders—well for everyone—entering Australia. You no longer have to have a negative pre-departure test to enter Australia. Our view is we should do the same. I know the Government has signalled they're looking at it but they should really get on with it. The costs vastly outweigh the benefits of pre-departure testing. Time to get rid of it.But I've made my contribution. We will be supporting these motions and thanks to the Regulations Review Committee for their hard work."