Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Well thank you very much Madam Chair. This is going to be a very interesting debate because the Opposition has laid out some very interesting Supplementary Order Papers on the floor of the House and we're looking forward to a long and extended debate on the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2). And isn't it interesting what's not in this bill? I tell you what's not in this bill and that's the traffic light framework which starts at some point in the future: we don't know when. It's definitely after 29 November when the Government deigns to make another announcement about when it will start. So at some point post - 29 November I'm willing to put money on the fact it won't be 30 November although you never quite know with this Government. So I think it will be December—David Seymour: December 1.CHRIS BISHOP: Oh and I welcome my good friend David Seymour to the Chamber and I know he's got many things to say.David Seymour: Many many things.CHRIS BISHOP: Many many things. I think it will be December but the traffic light framework is not in this bill. And we find ourselves in this quite extraordinary situation where Parliament is belatedly going to pass through the second COVID-19 public health bill which does a variety of sometimes sensible things but is based on a fundamentally flawed premise which I'll come back to. But we find ourselves in a situation where the traffic light framework—or to use its formal title the COVID-19 Protection Framework—is not there. And the Minister I know will probably tell us that the House will consider that at some point in the future but I just make the point to the committee that that is not going to be very much time before it comes into effect. In fact I think it's already been signalled that the House will be in urgency to consider that and that is a terrible way of making law.We kicked this around at the select committee and we had a good discussion on a variety of issues at the committee. There's a couple of things that I want to flag up now that we're going to want to get into on this side of the Chamber. The first is the fundamental architecture of the bill which relates to the managed isolation and quarantine system—which is MIQ. And we now are in this bizarre circumstance where Parliament is layering further and further infrastructure around MIQ when fundamentally we should be doing the opposite—fundamentally we should be dismantling the entire regime [Interruption]. What's that? Oh there was a remark but not repeated. We should be dismantling. Oh she said you wanted to build it. Well we do want to build it. We want to build quarantine facilities that's the point. We should have been building quarantine facilities 12 months ago—MIQ to give it its vernacular title. Of course we should have been building purpose built quarantine facilities because for the last 14 or 15 months we've been—Hon Chris Hipkins: That's not what your policy said.CHRIS BISHOP: Well no the policy is to build quarantine for people with COVID.Hon Chris Hipkins: So MIQ.CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah yeah yeah yeah MIQ because—Hon Chris Hipkins: That was your policy.CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah that's right because if the Government had built purpose-built MIQ 12 months ago we would not have people with COVID in the centre of Auckland in the Crowne Plaza and that's how it eventually escaped into the community. But now we finally have full or at least a very high level of vaccination from people coming in through the border so it doesn't make any sense to have purpose-built MIQ but of course it still makes sense to have purpose-built quarantine facilities like the Australians have at Howard Springs and like the Victorian Government is still building or is going to build near Tullamarine airport in Victoria. Of course that makes sense because there are going to be New Zealanders who turn up unvaccinated and we're going to have to do something with them.One good thing we could do with them is make them do a period of isolation in a purpose-built facility. We find ourselves in this situation where people who have COVID for the better part of this year have found themselves in the centre of Auckland and that is a ludicrous scenario. But you know the Government has not done that although we do hear rumours round the traps in Wellington that the Government is still looking at a business case for purpose-built quarantine. So we'll wait and see what happens there.But I want to make the point at the outset that the fundamental premise of this bill is flawed. The fundamental premise of the bill is that New Zealand should remain a fortress for a long time to come because the bill extends the expiry date of the Act until May 2023 not May 2022 which is when the current Act expires but May 2023; a long long time away about 18 months away. What we say in Opposition is that it is impossible to envisage a scenario—I would hope it is impossible to envisage a scenario—in which we have this elaborate architecture and infrastructure around MIQ in May 2023. What does that say about our attitude to the outside world? What does that say about our attitude to opening up to the rest of the world? It says that we're so limited our ambition is so small and so reduced and limited that we will still be shut away in Fortress New Zealand" in May 2023.We find ourselves in this scenario where—I checked the numbers—there are 34 people with COVID in MIQ right now—34.Hon Member: Thirty-four seeding events.CHRIS BISHOP: Thirty-four seeds I think we hear. Here we go again. See this is the attitude that the Government Ministers—Hon Member: That's not what I said.CHRIS BISHOP: What did you say? I heard "seed" sorry.Hon Member: Listen up.CHRIS BISHOP: All I heard was "seeds". I accept the Minister didn't say that but she seemed to take some sort of alarm at the idea of 34 people in MIQ with COVID. So there are 34 people in MIQ with COVID and there's over 4000 people isolating at home with COVID or close contacts likely to get it around the upper North Island in Auckland and Waikato. So where's the relative risk here? Is it MIQ or is it actually out in the Auckland community?Now we find ourselves in the situation where Aucklanders from December 15 will be allowed to leave. The Government's argument prior to the announcements today was that we couldn't have people arriving into New Zealand and going into the community because they might arrive into Auckland which is the predominant major entry point to New Zealand fair enough and go into the community and they might spread COVID. Well now Aucklanders are going to be allowed to leave Auckland from December 15 and they have to be fully vaccinated which 98 percent of people coming into MIQ are or they have to have a test before they go. So Aucklanders are going to leave people are going to leave Auckland and they're going to spread around the country and they'll probably take COVID with them and in the Minister's own words "COVID's going to spread around the country."—he's admitted that.So the Government's one rationale for MIQ not being liberalised and deconstructed has fallen away because they've changed their own policy. So the real question—and it goes to the fundamental premise of the bill that the Government is asking the Parliament to consider again and to extend—is: is it really the intention of the Government that we will still have this elaborate infrastructure and architecture around MIQ as late as May 2023? Surely we should be more ambitious for this great little country down at the bottom of the world that makes its way in the world and makes its income in the world from its connections with the rest of the world. It is not just about trade it's not just about the agricultural exports. Those days have long since gone when New Zealand was just Britain's farm. It's actually more about the Kiwi entrepreneurs who jump on a plane and head up to San Francisco the tech entrepreneurs. It's about the Kiwis who and turn up in London and pitch a business idea. It's about the people who go and scout for foreign investment and go and scout for business ideas in China Paris London San Francisco Washington Africa Europe all around the world. We've got to be a country that is connected to the world and is globally open. There's no future for New Zealand with this autarkic approach that the Government is locking us into in relationship to this bill.So the question I want to ask the Minister goes to the fundamental premise in relation to the dates because it's the starting point of the bill to extend the existing COVID-19 public health Act and it is: is it really the Government's intention that MIQ will still be here in May 2023? And if it's not the Government's intention can we not wind the expiry date of the bill back? We'd be prepared to put some tabled amendments on the floor of the House to wind the expiry date back closer towards where we are now. And if the Government's prepared to do that and we're prepared to put them on the floor of the House we could get some consensus here and just make not a particularly good bill slightly less bad. Thank you."