Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Mr Speaker and can I just start my contribution by beginning where the Minister finished which is in relation to the ongoing operation of the Act. May I say that Mr Hipkins may well go down as the first Minister in the lifetime of this Labour Government or indeed Labour Governments in the last few times to abolish portfolios and reduce the size of Government. That I would say is a good thing because what we just heard from the Minister is that he is going to signal that we may well indeed replace or at least repeal and replace the public health COVID-19 Act and we would welcome that on this side of the House. We look forward to engaging with the Government as that process continues. I think I'm right in saying that the next motion we have to pass to continue the Act comes I think in early June so it's not actually that far away. So we may need a—Hon Chris Hipkins: Probably one more and then I think we'll be done. CHRIS BISHOP: Probably one more he says—yep that's exactly what I was thinking. We may need a short extension but I just would encourage the Minister—and I hope the Government are thinking about this—that on a few occasions we've had to very quickly rapidly pass extensions and amendments and things like that and I think that if people were honest with themselves they would accept that the process has been not optimal. I think the Minister is actually on the record as saying that and I'd agree with him. So it would be good for the Parliament to have a bit of time to get its head around the various amendments that may be required. We in the Opposition are very happy to play a constructive role in that. A good amount of time at the Health Committee I'm sure with Dr Liz Craig and the Labour team there will provide opportunities for National members to make a contribution. It's not always the case but I'm sure she will do that. We would welcome the chance to do that because I think it is true that we won't need the tools we have now and we on this side of the House welcome some degree of normality returning to the place. Maybe it will be the case that when we do indeed repeal and replace the Act the COVID-19 portfolio will no longer exist and Minister Hipkins can go back to being just the Minister of Education and the Public Service State services Ministerial Services and the Leader of the House and all of the other portfolios. Hon Chris Hipkins: Don't dangle that in front of me—that's just mean. CHRIS BISHOP: Don't dangle that"—well indeed it's not your call. It's not the Minister's call who is the Minister of various things as indeed it's not my call what portfolios I have. But anyway we move on. I do want to make a couple of points in relation to the orders and I start of course by saying thank you to the Regulations Review Committee. When I was in sort of purgatory I was on the Regulations Review Committee for three or so months and it was a—Dr Duncan Webb: Oh don't disparage that. CHRIS BISHOP: Oh that's a little bit mean. But when I had my time out of my current role I was on the Regulations Review Committee. It's a great committee. They do a great job and they're very well chaired by Chris Penk. It's got some excellent members like Rachel Brooking on the committee and Vanushi Walters as well. It helps to have lawyers on the committee I've found. But they do do a good job and they've done a good job assessing all of these orders. I want to make a couple of points about a few of the orders. The first is in relation to—I've got to get the name right here—the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework) Amendment Order (No 4) 2022 (SL 2022/62) which is the one to do with kids' vaccination requirements in schools. There's been a bit of public commentary around this. I do want to say that I think we went too far as a Parliament and the Government went too far in extending some of the vaccination requirements to children in and around schools and the order that we are approving essentially is an acceptance of that point. I like many MPs in this House would have have had correspondence with members of the public raising what I would say were unfair applications of vaccine requirements in schools—13-year-olds finding it difficult to participate in after-school ballet classes for example or rugby practice. It was not so much cricket practice but rugby was the one that particularly came to mind. You do just have to weigh up the costs and benefits and say "Is there really a huge risk of young people participating in sport"—David Seymour: Costs and benefits—what? CHRIS BISHOP: —"and do they really have to have vaccine requirements?" and I see David Seymour is saying "Costs and benefits—what's that?' and I'm sure he's going to make a very similar point to me. I think this order is an acceptance of the fact that we probably went too far. The other point I would make is that the order and the various rules and regulations have had an impact on children outside of the classroom because it wasn't just about kids participating in sport at school but also about general sporting activities in clubs for example. Lots of kids don't just participate in sport and in the extracurricular activities at school and in and around the school grounds but they also participate outside school as well in clubs and societies. It is definitely true that the vaccine requirement rules have had a negative impact on young people's participation in civil society and I think that that was wrong. So we welcome this order. There are a few people out there who have said to me things online like "You know the vaccine requirements—they've got nothing to do with the traffic light framework. They've got nothing to do with the protection framework." and this order actually proves that argument completely wrong because of course it is true to say that the vaccine requirements that have been imposed on some young people are to do with the traffic light framework. They're an integral part of the traffic light framework and of course we are now moving away from that and we welcome that. The second point I want to make is in relation to the various public health response air border orders which is in the interim report of the Regulations Review Committee. The Minister said something very interesting in his contribution. He said that this allows unvaccinated travellers to enter New Zealand without entering managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) and he corrected himself and said that it's just about New Zealand citizens. Of course that is the critical point because just a couple of weeks or so ago randomly on a Friday night—and we're yet to get to the bottom of exactly why it was announced unobtrusively on the Unite against COVID-19 website without a ministerial press release. But a couple of weeks ago the Government quietly changed the rules and said that unvaccinated New Zealand citizens were allowed to enter New Zealand. Now we welcome that but it only applies to New Zealand citizens. It doesn't apply to New Zealand permanent residents of which there are a considerable number—thousands—in New Zealand. A huge number of people are New Zealand residents and they are prohibited from entering New Zealand unless they are vaccinated and the Government's position as outlined by the Minister on Tuesday in the annual review debate was that there is legal advice that the Government can't discriminate against New Zealand citizens who are unvaccinated. The question is therefore is it acceptable to discriminate against New Zealand permanent residents who are unvaccinated—because New Zealand permanent residents can vote. Not all countries allow permanent residents to vote but New Zealand allows permanent residents to vote and there are extraordinary privileges given to New Zealand permanent residents. The Government position is that they cannot allow anyone other than New Zealand citizens to enter New Zealand if they are unvaccinated. If you are a New Zealand permanent resident sitting offshore right now you have no right to enter New Zealand and I just put it to the House that I think that is wrong. I do not think that is correct and I tell you what it is producing very invidious circumstances. I have been contacted by people offshore who are unable to enter New Zealand. They have got to the airport they have been told differing pieces of information by the folk at MIQ the immigration department and the people who run the airlines—who thought they could—and they have actually got to the airport and got so far as to get to the boarding gate and have been told that they should turn around and go away because they won't be allowed to enter New Zealand if they get on the plane and the airlines don't want to have liability for the passengers. So that has happened. There are New Zealand permanent residents around the world who are trying to come home to New Zealand and they can't enter New Zealand because they are not vaccinated. The weird situation is that up until a few months ago they could enter MIQ because MIQ was for all and that was OK. If you were vaccinated you could go into MIQ if you were unvaccinated you could go into MIQ and everyone was sort of treated the same. But there was a pathway to come home to New Zealand. Nowadays MIQ's been done away with—this order does away with it; the one we're talking about—but if you're a New Zealand permanent resident you have to be vaccinated to enter New Zealand and I think that that is wrong. I think the way we are treating New Zealand permanent residents—these are not tourist visas. These are not international students. These are not even people on work visas of particular types—essential skills visas. These are New Zealand permanent residents. They can vote in New Zealand they've paid tax in New Zealand and the New Zealand Government's position towards them is "You have to be a citizen." Apparently that's based on legal advice. I for one would want to see that legal advice. I asked the Government to waive privilege in relation to that legal advice. But I find that bizarre and I think it's wrong. New Zealand permanent residents who are unvaccinated should be allowed to enter New Zealand in the same way that New Zealand citizens can. The current situation is disgraceful. Thank you."