TUESDAY, 23 NOVEMBER 2021
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
KARAKIA/PRAYERS
DEPUTY SPEAKER: E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kuīni, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.
[Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the Queen, and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]





PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
CLERK:Petition of Eathan Stevenson requesting that the House ensure that politics is available as an optional subject in NCEA levels 1, 2, and 3petition of Patrick Szetey requesting that the House pass legislation to ban any vaccine passport system in New Zealandpetition of Kenneth Orr requesting that the House reject the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Billpetition of Save Women's Sport Australasia requesting that the House urge Sport New Zealand to extend the consultation on the Draft Guiding Principles for the Participation of Transgender Players in Sport (April 2021).
SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.
CLERK:Tupu Tonu Ngāpuhi Investment FundAnnual Report 2020/2021Statement of Performance Expectations 1 February 2021 to 30 June 2021 and 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022Statement of Intent for 1 February 2021 to 30 June 2024Te Hiringa Hauora Health Promotion AgencyStatement of Performance Expectations 2021/22Genesis Energy Ltd Annual Report 2021Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill.
SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK:Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the Plant Variety Rights Billreport of the Environment Committee on the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Using different processes to protect marine environmentsreport of the Justice Committee on the Rights of Victims of Insane Offenders Billreports of the Petitions Committee on:the petition of Cancer Society New Zealand andthe petition of Mark Rossreports of the Regulations Review Committee on:the complaint about E-Scooters (Declaration Not to be Motor Vehicles) Notice 2018 andCOVID-19 Public Health Response orders andreport of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill.
SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The report of the Controller and Auditor-General and the reports of the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.
CLERK: Taxation (COVID-19 Support Payments and Working for Families Tax Credits) Bill introduction.COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations Legislation) Bill introduction.
SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance
1. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government has provided significant support to businesses and workers in response to the Delta COVID-19 outbreak. I received a report yesterday that told me that we have paid out over $6 billion through the wage subsidy scheme and resurgence support payment since August, when the outbreak began. Under the wage subsidy scheme, 1,116,851 applications have been approved, totalling a payout of $4.3 billion. For the resurgence support payment, the payout has been $1.76 billion. We know that it has been particularly tough for those businesses in Auckland, and as we move to the new COVID protection framework we will ensure that we provide support to businesses through this transition.
Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Statistics New Zealand reported that seasonally adjusted retail sales fell by 8.1 percent in the September quarter, due to the Delta outbreak and higher alert levels. The decline in spending affected all categories other than groceries, while Auckland experienced the largest fall by region. On an annual basis, however, retail sales rose 8.6 percent. ASB's economist said the fall was not as sharp as had been feared, and it highlighted the New Zealand economy's resilience. Westpac's economist noted that, while retail spending did take a knock in September, the slowdown looks temporary. They pointed out that spending has recovered since then and that they expect it will firm heading into the Christmas period.
Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on the impact of the recent change in alert levels on retail spending?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Auckland retail sector experienced a boost in spending with the easing of restrictions at alert level 3, step 2. Kiwibank reported that the number of credit card transactions in Auckland rose 35 percent over the first five days at step 2, with the value of spending rising 62 percent. The BNZ reported that for the week ending Tuesday, 16 November, card spending rose 27 percent on the previous week, which brings it 7 percent higher than pre-Delta levels. Economists say the lift we have seen in retail spending indicates that a solid rebound in activity will occur as the country moves into the COVID protection framework in the next few days.
David Seymour: Has the Minister of Finance seen any reports about New Zealanders increasingly concerned about the cost of living in New Zealand; and, if so, what is he doing to get inflation under control?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Throughout my entire time in politics and in this Parliament I have seen people concerned about the increasing cost of living. On this side of the House we have continued initiatives throughout our period of time to support low-income New Zealanders particularly, and I look forward to the member's support for any upcoming minimum wage increases.




Question No. 2—Environment
2. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he consider that trees in our cities and towns are appropriately protected; if so, why?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I agree that the protection of mature and ecologically significant trees in urban areas is an important consideration and the Government is actively considering this as part of the reform of the Resource Management Act (RMA). It's also important that protections don't create excessive compliance costs for routine pruning or the removal of smaller trees. I'm advised that prior to the changes to the RMA that occurred under the last National Government, there were an estimated 4,000 to 5,000 resource consents required to prune or remove trees per year, which is around 10 percent of total resource consents issued. In addition, many people thought the rules requiring consents were sometimes absurd and ignored them, bringing the RMA into disrepute.
Hon Eugenie Sage: From a climate perspective, is he concerned that in the Waitematā Local Board area alone, at least 12,879 trees were removed in the 10 years from 2006 to 2016?
Hon DAVID PARKER: From a climate perspective, no. You know, a few hectares of trees elsewhere would more than offset that.
Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he consider that increasing housing density and protecting urban trees are complementary changes that enable liveable cities?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes.
Hon Eugenie Sage: Will he commit to urgent action to protect urban trees on private land as denser housing is developed, so people can enjoy the benefits urban trees provide, including sequestering carbon, creating shade, reducing the urban heat island effect—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The member's got quite a few questions in there.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, those decisions are delegated under the Resource Management Act for councils to take. Sometimes they have to take difficult decisions. When they go through a process and they consider it and then they give an authorisation for a tree to be felled—for example, for a new housing development—then that process should be respected.
Hon Eugenie Sage: What tools is he considering providing councils to enable effective urban tree protection on private land and how is this work being prioritised?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The work is being progressed as part of the reform to the RMA through the Natural and Built Environments Bill, which we propose, and I'm working with Minister Twyford on that issue as an Associate Minister for the Environment. The ministry is, I'm aware, working with councils not just in Auckland but also across the land to try and land this in the right place.




Question No. 3—Prime Minister
3. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government's statements and actions?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the Government's plan to carefully reopen while continuing to protect New Zealanders' lives and livelihoods. New Zealand will move into the COVID-19 Protection Framework from Friday, 3 December, with Cabinet confirming the settings for each region on 29 November. As we prepare for the introduction of the COVID-19 Protection Framework, the free NZ Pass Verifier app to scan and verify My Vaccine Passes is now available to download. For customers entering a business requiring proof of vaccination status, their My Vaccine Pass can be scanned by the verify app. The verify app will show a green tick recognising the official QR code that is embedded in the customer's pass. 
The Government has also announced a simplified vaccination assessment tool that will be able to be used mid-December to help employers decide if they'd like to require or believe they need to require vaccination for different types of work. Employers and employees have been asking for certainty on what roles may need to be done by vaccinated workers under the COVID-19 Protection Framework. This tool provides a clear legal framework to help businesses make decisions about vaccinations in the workplace and it builds on the guidance provided by WorkSafe and has had input from Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions.
Hon Judith Collins: Why, from 15 December, will a New Zealander be able to fly from Auckland to Wellington with just a vaccine pass, but a Kiwi who wants to fly from Queensland will need to win a slot in managed isolation and then spend a full week in managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ)?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We've indicated that before the end of the year we will be making further announcements on the way that we intend to change the arrangements at the border. We have indicated that MIQ and the requirement to see through an isolation period in the Government facilities we do expect and will be changing, and we will be focusing first on citizens and residents. But the second point that I would make is we are making significant changes at present domestically. I know that there is actually considerable anxiety about some of those changes, and it is upon us to make sure that we get those right domestically whilst also then very carefully stepping through changes at the international border, as well.
Hon Judith Collins: Is she aware that Auckland has more than 4,000 active cases of COVID in the community while the entire state of Queensland has four?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I refer the member to my previous points: that we will be making changes to the way that we're operating at our international border. But I would make the point to the member that, of course, it's not just about picking off individual states at any given time. Queensland intends to open its borders to the rest of Australia. So I don't think it's fair to just simply say one state can be seen as their own individual entity at this current juncture, when they will be reopening themselves to other parts of Australia.
The second point I would make to the member is we do need to think about the entire group of New Zealanders who are currently offshore for whom we need to set out the plans and expectations for their ability to come home. That does not represent just single individuals from Queensland, but actually represents between 40,000 and 50,000 people who will be looking to return home. So we need to do that safely.
Hon Judith Collins: Why are travellers from Queensland, a state with just four active cases and closed borders with the rest of Australia, still taking up space in MIQ when we now have more than 4,000—in fact, 4,614—New Zealanders right now in the community with COVID?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I again refer the member now to my two previous questions. Again, I would highlight that my recollection is that Queensland is opening up to the rest of Australia on—I believe it's 17 December. So that will no longer be their status as a closed state to the rest of Australia. The second point that I would, again, highlight for the member is that we do intend to change the way that we're operating at the border, but we will continue to have in place measures to ensure that we have checks, because we know that with some of the modelling that's occurred around cases that are likely to come in from offshore, even with pre-departure testing, vaccination checks, and even with a period of self-isolation, modelling suggests that we will have a not insignificant number of cases seeded as a result of that.
Chris Bishop: How many?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: And as Dr Verrall—up to 60, potentially, Mr Bishop—that's with those protections. So yes, we have risk tolerance, but we still need to be cautious because, as Dr Verrall has said, just because you are managing a domestic fire doesn't make it OK to go around a forest lighting matches.
Mark Cameron: Does she believe it acceptable conduct of a Minister in her Government to label tens of thousands of New Zealanders attending Groundswell protests as a "mixture of racists, [and] anti-vax," and how does this not fit into the proposed definition of hate speech—that is, to use words that are threatening, abusive, or insulting and likely to excite hostility or ill will? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reject the premise of that member's question. 
Mark Cameron: Will she agree to meet the Groundswell organisers this Thursday, when they deliver their petition on behalf of tens of thousands of New Zealanders to Parliament? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I conduct and will continue to conduct regular engagements—in fact, some of the most regular engagements I have are with Dairy New Zealand, Beef and Lamb, our horticulture representatives, and Federated Farmers. I will continue to meet with those representative bodies, as I have done throughout my time as Prime Minister. 
Hon Judith Collins: What is her response to the managing director of Flight Centre, who said today, "It's been over 100 days since the Government released its plan to reopen New Zealand. Since then, there has been absolutely no guidance on when the reopening might commence."—when will she provide that guidance? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, we said it at the time: in August, we set out our plans, and we've actually followed through on each of them. We said that we would undertake a self-isolation pilot. We have done that, and we are doing that. We have said that we would look at shortened MIQ from 14 November. We have done that; MIQ is now shortened. We said from the first quarter of next year that we intended to move towards self-isolation. We have committed to that, and, as I say to the member, I look forward to sharing more details of that before the end of the year to provide greater certainty for New Zealanders offshore. 
The other point I would make: this is not a zero-sum game. There is no country around the world that has opened borders and had no consequences. There are choices. If you make choices that you're going to operate your borders in that way, then you will have greater domestic restrictions. We are working towards a very fine balance in New Zealand, where we have the fewest restrictions possible in our domestic environment whilst, of course, moving towards allowing New Zealanders to return home, and that is what we are working towards. 
Hon Judith Collins: So what does she say to Air New Zealand, which has cancelled thousands of flights and explained that "our hands are tied until border restrictions ease, and we receive further clarity from the New Zealand Government."? When does she expect to provide that clarity? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Air New Zealand, of course, had bookings from 1 December through to 30 December, and, of course, we have indicated that we expect in the first quarter of next year to have self-isolation, which will enable some of the congestion we've experienced at the border to change. So, obviously, Air New Zealand has made decisions based on the signals we have given, and we intend to give even further clarity from there. 
Hon Judith Collins: What are the criteria for a region to move from red to orange to green under the traffic light system? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We've already indicated that at this stage for the transition, the most important factor will be vaccination levels. Obviously, the member will also be aware that because we've indicated that Auckland will also go into red, that clearly the outbreak in Auckland is also a factor in a number of cases, and also readiness and the ability of the health system to manage cases as they arise—so predominantly health measures, but that's not solely the factors we'll take into account. 
Hon Judith Collins: When does she expect to provide New Zealanders with clear criteria, rather than just "predominantly" as part of the answer she's just given? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Clearly, the member's discounting everything I said in the answer to that question, including the reference to high vaccination levels. We've said those that are sitting well under those goals of 90 percent can expect to go into red, which, I would add, is very similar to the status that most parts of the country are experiencing right now in level 2, but with vaccination passes added. We'll be talking in more detail about the process for further assessments on 29 November. 
Hon Judith Collins: Does the South Island currently meet the green traffic light criteria of "limited community transmission and COVID-19 hospitalisations at a manageable level"?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I can see that that the member, despite saying she wasn't clear on the criteria, actually has the criteria, which she just read out in the House. What we have already acknowledged, so that there is certainty and people can anticipate what we will do on 29 November, is, yes, that is what we expect to be the status for those that are able to be in green or move into green. However, we are in a transition. We have acknowledged that at this point, where we have a hard domestic border around an outbreak that is being lifted, it does not make sense for parts of the country during that transition to be in green, because they are likely to have to move. So in order to have a bit more stability, we've already said that while we're in a state of transition, we will not have any part of the country in green. 
What I would say, specifically about the South Island—and I said this when I most recently visited—fantastic levels of vaccination there. One of the benefits of high levels of vaccination, and the potential of being able to move into orange, is that, actually, the restrictions that are currently being experienced at level 2 of gathering limits go, and so you'll see a lot more freedom to be able to hold those events.
Hon Judith Collins: When will she release individual sector guidance for the traffic light system that businesses will be operating under next week?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member seems to ignore the fact that the framework itself has been available since October. In fact, in designing it, we had outreach with different sectors—specifically, for instance, hospitality, retail, and so on, in the design of the framework. Some of the specific details that are relevant to some parts—like, for instance, sport, where there are finer details to get into—those will be released this week, but we've had upfront consultation, even in its design.
Hon Judith Collins: With seven months since Delta was detected in MIQ, and three months since Auckland has been in lockdown, why the hell hasn't this been sorted—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! No. The member will ask the question again.
Hon Judith Collins: With seven months since Delta was detected in MIQ, and three months since Auckland has been in lockdown, why are New Zealanders still being played like a fiddle and told we could wait till next week before we find out the answers?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member didn't actually ask a question that I could not answer, so that demonstrates that, actually, for the most part, the most significant elements of this framework have been provided. The second point that I would make to the member: point to me anywhere in the world that is currently proposing a framework like this that we can just adopt off the shelf that actually is adapted to New Zealand's circumstances and goals. Point also to a country in the world that has, currently, the vaccination rates that we have at the moment, and the outbreak numbers that we have at the moment. Key to our response has always been that we've designed something that is suitable for New Zealand's circumstance, based on what we're seeing in a pandemic where there was no playbook. The result has been some of the lowest hospitalisations, death rates, case numbers, and some of the lowest unemployment, solid growth, and an economy that continues to be resilient. So I'd be happy to look at an alternative example, but many point to New Zealand.




Question No. 4—COVID-19 Response
4. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What recent decisions has the Government made on New Zealand's transition to the COVID-19 Protection Framework?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Yesterday, Cabinet confirmed that the whole country will move into the new traffic light system at 11:59 p.m. on Thursday, 2 December, making next Friday the first day that the traffic light system will be operational in New Zealand. That's 10 days from now and it's important that everybody gets prepared. Members will be aware that we signalled that soon after the 29 November Cabinet meeting, the country would shift to the new framework. Setting this date now gives people, communities, and businesses time to prepare, to move safely and smoothly into the new traffic light system. The hard truth is that Delta is here and it isn't going away, but New Zealand is very well set to tackle that because of our high vaccination rates and the latest safety measures that we've put in place, including the traffic light system and the vaccine pass.
Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: When will decisions be made on where regions will move to in the framework and what factors will determine this?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Decisions on which colour each region will move into the framework will be confirmed when Cabinet meets on 29 November. In making these decisions, we'll be looking at a range of factors including vaccination rates and certificates and the general case rates of COVID-19. As we've previously said, Auckland will enter at red and the Prime Minister has confirmed again today in the House that no region will start at green while we are transitioning and managing the current outbreak. We recognise the fact that we're in a transition environment and we would like to avoid regions being in a position where they're yo-yoing between the levels.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Just keep them all red! Silly argument.
Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What can New Zealanders do to prepare for the transition to the new framework?
SPEAKER: Order! Before the member goes—I know Mr Brownlee hasn't spent a lot of time with us recently, but there have been some new rules in the last four or five years—
Hon Members: Ha, ha!
SPEAKER: —Order!—about not interjecting while questions are being asked.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. While life will feel relatively normal under the new system, which is simpler and safer than the alert levels, it is time that we prepare to move. The number one thing that New Zealanders can do—and every New Zealander over the age of 12 can do this—is to get vaccinated. If you and your family are due for your second shot, get it as soon as you can. Vaccine passes will operate in the traffic light system, and if you aren't fully vaccinated, you'll find that you may not be able to access a range of places like bars, gyms, and restaurants from 3 December when proof of vaccination will be required. Eighty-three percent of eligible New Zealanders are now fully vaccinated, and, armed with their vaccine pass, 3.5 million Kiwis could soon start to enjoy the freedom of the summer season.
Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What further work is the Government doing in preparation for the commencement of the framework?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Cabinet has also decided that to ensure that the transition to the new system is as smooth as possible, and to iron out any issues with the use of vaccine passes in advance of them being required on a widespread basis, we'll undertake a trial period by allowing hairdressers and barbers in Auckland to open from this Thursday, 25 November, so long as they require proof of vaccination from their customers. We'll be posting and sending out detailed sector guidance, but, in short, hairdressers will need to operate with vaccine passes, take bookings only—so no walk ins. We've chosen hairdressers to trial the passes because out of all the venues that are still closed, they pose the lowest risk by reopening. There are fewer staff employed, generally numbers in the space are constrained by the number of chairs and hairdressers available, and distancing between customers can be easily maintained.
Chris Bishop: In relation to what he's just said about hairdressers opening early, is he aware of why the Prime Minister ruled that idea out over the weekend when the Director-General of Health, Ashley Bloomfield, signed the gazette—
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: No, I did not.
Chris Bishop: —notice on Friday last week—
SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister—if the member's made an incorrect assertion, either she can leave her Minister to deal with it or she can take a point of order. She can't correct errors while he's speaking.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister made no such claim.




Question No. 5—Prime Minister
5. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her statements and policies?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the Government's decision to request the Commerce Commission undertake a market study of the residential building supplies market. There have been longstanding concerns about potential competition issues, particularly due to the highly concentrated nature of some markets in the supply chain. It's clear a significant portion of the costs associated with building residential housing is tied to building supplies, and the study will allow the Commerce Commission to investigate any factors that may affect competition for the supply or acquisition of key building supplies. The Commerce Commission will present its final report on residential building supplies in December 2022.
David Seymour: Does she, then, stand by her Government's policy of the Commerce Commission doing a market study into petrol supply, where Minister Faafoi claimed it would reduce petrol prices by 18c to 32c, and, if so, how's that one worked out?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously we're seeing significant issues in the fuel market at the moment, which are not just down to those issues inquired into by the Commerce Commission.
David Seymour: Does she stand by her policy of making New Zealanders returning from Australia isolate in managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) for a week, and, if so, can she explain why it's OK for people who have tested positive for COVID-19 to isolate at home but not fully vaccinated Kiwis coming home for Christmas who have tested negative for COVID-19?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I have said to the other Leader of the Opposition, we as a Government are considering changes to our MIQ system as we speak. We've already indicated that it will change. We have made domestic changes to the domestic settings, but, of course, the next step is around the overseas border.
SPEAKER: I was waiting for a point of order. I know the Prime Minister is aware of our constitutional arrangements whereby there is only one of that category, and I think it was a deliberate act on her part. Therefore, she will withdraw and apologise.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I withdraw and apologise.
David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement in question time earlier today, under questioning by the Leader of the Opposition, that she believes Queensland will open to travel from other states of Australia on or about 17 December, and, if so, what has the Government of Queensland done to prepare for that that her Government has not done and, therefore, keeps New Zealand closed to all those other states of Australia?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, if you want to make comparisons, then the comparison would be the preparation around the lifting of the Auckland boundary, and the preparation that we have undertaken—because the member is making comparisons around domestic border changes. The preparation we have made around that is a testing and vaccination requirement. We are easing our restrictions domestically. That is not to say that we will not ease our restrictions internationally—we will—but we need to step into these changes carefully. We do not want a situation where they are removed in such a way that we see dramatic changes to our ability to manage COVID-19 domestically and that we are unable to then put in place again measures that we may need the protective factors from. Finally, I would say the member only need look at—yes, we are in summer; that places you in a different position, but we only need look at Europe right now, where the World Health Organization is warning about potentially half a million deaths in a region that has access to vaccinations in the same way we do. And, in parts of Europe, there are vaccination levels we would consider high that are moving into lockdown. We need to continue to listen to the best research and advice possible, and that is what we are doing.
David Seymour: What could go wrong with the vaccine certificate trial in hairdressers in Auckland from Thursday that prevented the Prime Minister including the long-suffering hospitality sector in that trial too?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That wasn't the basis of decision making. The basis of decision making was, of course, that we are then looking to ease an area sooner than we otherwise might. The COVID-19 Protection Framework kicks in from 3 December, and that's when everyone moves into that model. We expect to have even higher vaccination rates and protective factors than we do now at that point. The basis of the decision was: if we are to move early, what presents the least risk? Hairdressers and barbers were on that list for the very fact that, unlike hospitality, small numbers in spaces—they are, by default, very easily able to separate out individuals. They had public health requirements like, for instance, mask use that, obviously, when you're in an eating and drinking establishment are different, which is why we have used them.
David Seymour: Does she stand by her decision to introduce the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill today, and, if so, why has it taken 277 days, since the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine was administered in New Zealand, to get the legislation ready for Parliament, leaving only 10 days for businesses to adopt before the traffic light system is scheduled to come into effect?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Firstly, on the latter part of the member's question, he appears to misunderstand the tool. There is no obligation on an employer to utilise the tool. So there is no 10-day deadline that the member is referring to. At any time, an employer could determine that they wish to use the assessment tool to ascertain whether or not they would like to put in place a vaccine mandate in their workplace. So that's the first thing I'd just quickly correct the member on. Secondly, around the legislation and the 200-plus days the member is referring to, the member seems to believe that every country around the world has gone into this pandemic believing that they would either use mandates or passes—that has not been the case. Many countries have worked iteratively through the pandemic, putting in place tools that they believe will help their situation. Some countries are still not using mandates; many are using vast ones, including Austria, who are looking to mandate everyone in-country from February. We have always looked, of course, to use the tools that make the most sense for us domestically, based on the uptake that we've been able to undertake voluntarily but also undertaking a public health and safety risk assessment, and that is how we'll continue to progress.
David Seymour: Can she explain what will happen under the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill, introduced to Parliament today, if an unvaccinated employee takes four weeks off, paid by their employer, then decides, after all, that they will get vaccinated and come back to work, but the employer counterclaims that it would be an unreasonable disruption to their business; would the person get their job back or not?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If, in that intervening period, an employer, for instance, believes that the individual has given their undertaking that they will not be vaccinated, they've had their four-week stand down, and they go out and employ someone else, that could, for instance, be considered to be an unreasonable disruption for that business.




Question No. 6—Finance
6. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: Has he sought advice on the number of businesses that may be forced to close once current financial support is reworked as part of the traffic light system; if so, how many businesses?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government moved quickly to put financial support in place for businesses as the COVID-19 pandemic spread around the world, and we have supported hundreds of thousands of businesses to get through and to keep their employees working. In terms of the specifics of the member's question, I reject its apparent premise. The advice I do have is that all businesses have the ability to operate under all three levels of the COVID protection framework. 
Andrew Bayly: Which businesses will be eligible for financial support payments under the new traffic light system?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I signalled on 22 October, when we announced the framework, it is our intention to move away from board-based supports under the protection framework and move towards more targeted support, looking particularly at specific sectors. We'll have announcements to make about that in due course.
Andrew Bayly: Why, a month after announcing the traffic light system, has he still not provided details about what financial support will be available to businesses at each colour—and particularly red and orange?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I've just said in my earlier answer, on 22 October I outlined the fact that under the green and orange levels we did not expect there to be widespread support for businesses. Under the red level, we would expect it to be much more targeted. I'll have more to say about that in due course.
Andrew Bayly: Will the financial support under the traffic light system specifically address the 46 percent of Auckland businesses who can't afford to pay their rent?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We've had increasing levels of support under the resurgence support payment. We've indicated that there will also be a transition payment. Any future support under the red level we will announce in due course.
Andrew Bayly: Will he be introducing any initiatives to reactivate hospitality businesses—as strongly advocated for by organisations such as the Heart of the City and Restaurant Association—so that they can rely on trade, not Government financial support?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the member seems to be highly confused, because all of the supplementary questions up until that point had been asking for more Government support. I have met with the Restaurant Association. I have met with Heart of the City. They are aware of the fact that we have heard their concerns. And we'll have more to say in due course.




Question No. 7—Economic and Regional Development
7. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What reports has he seen on the state of the venture capital industry?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): Last month, PricewaterhouseCoopers, the Angel Association New Zealand, and New Zealand Growth Capital Partners released a report that showed New Zealand has a start-up ecosystem that is more self-sufficient and sustainable than at any point in the past. It demonstrated not only resilience but an increase in maturity. New Zealand Growth Capital Partners administers a $300 million Elevate fund and an $80 million Aspire seed fund on behalf of the New Zealand Government. The report stated—and I quote—"Interest in New Zealand startup investment did not diminish in 2020, despite some dire predictions early in the year as COVID-19 struck. $158 million was invested into 108 deals, and this is the third year of $100 million-plus of investment in startups and also the third year of more than 20 percent year on year growth in dollars invested."
Naisi Chen: What role has the Elevate and Aspire funds made to the successes of the venture capital industry? 
Hon STUART NASH: To date, the Elevate fund has made total commitments of $157 million in crowded and over $430 million of private capital, including investments from New Zealand Super Fund and Kiwi Wealth. This has resulted in almost $600 million available to invest in promising New Zealand companies at the venture capital stage, which is, by far and away, the largest amount we have seen invested in the New Zealand venture capital stage in the last 10 years. The Aspire fund invested $10.8 million into 14 new investments in the 2021 financial year, a notable increase on prior years.
Naisi Chen: What are examples of the types of firms helped by Elevate and Aspire? 
Hon STUART NASH: One example Kiwi start-up, EnergyBank, raised nearly $2.7 million in an oversubscribed seed round led by Icehouse Ventures New Zealand, and the newly created fund, Nuance Connected Capital, which Elevate backed this year with a $17 million commitment. EnergyBank aims to develop a new technology for storing energy, which it claims is better than pumped hydro or lithium ion batteries, and could help decarbonise electricity grids in 42 countries within 30 to 40 years. Another example, deep tech company Aquafortis has developed a technology that uses a fraction of the energy of thermal systems to separate waste water into dry mineral salts and clean water.




Question No. 8—Building and Construction
8. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Is she satisfied that carbon emissions in the building and construction sector are being reduced fast enough to meet the Government's emission reduction goals?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): As a Government, we are committed to improving the quality of our built environment. That's why the Government's Building for Climate Change programme is undertaking work to drive long-term change in the building and construction sector to meet the challenges posed by climate change. The policies and measures being developed will ensure that the sector makes a significant contribution to meeting our emissions reduction and other climate change goals.
Jan Logie: Will she amend the building code to have a higher standard for energy efficiency and create a trajectory to near zero - energy buildings by 2030?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The upcoming changes to the New Zealand building code's energy efficiency requirements will lift the minimum levels of insulation for new buildings. These changes are expected to reduce the energy needed for heating and cooling by about 40 percent for new homes and by about 23 percent for new large non-residential buildings. This will make new homes and buildings easier to heat and cool, healthier, and more comfortable. The changes will also provide clearer requirements for energy efficiency of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems in new commercial buildings.
Jan Logie: Will she provide incentives for those building to higher than code, such as faster building consents and energy performance information for potential buyers?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: We are looking at a whole programme of works, including our Building for Climate Change programme, our Carbon Neutral Government Programme, and also the consultation we're currently undertaking around our emissions reductions plans. All of these things are designed to build better, build more efficiently and more energy efficient homes and buildings.
Jan Logie: Why has the Government not made it a mandatory requirement to publish an energy rating for any office building, public or private, as they've had in place in Australia for more than a decade?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: There are tools available for people to understand, to reduce their buildings emissions. One such tool is the National Australian Built Environment Rating System New Zealand (NABERSNZ), which is a voluntary tool to measure and compare energy efficiency and carbon performance for commercial buildings. While the Government does use NABERSNZ to reduce emissions in cases where it's appropriate, there are a range of other available tools to help us reduce buildings' emissions.
Jan Logie: Does she recognise the increased urgency to changing rules to provide for lower emission buildings when we have record construction and new urban density laws about to come into force?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I recognise that we have a programme of work to undertake. The building and construction sector is a key contributor to our emissions reductions plans. We are also key contributors through the Building for Climate Change programme. This Government is looking at all the levers it can pull to ensure that we reduce our emissions.




Question No. 9—COVID-19 Response
9. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: How many fully vaccinated people, if any, who have travelled from Australia since 23 August 2021 have tested positive for COVID-19 in New Zealand, and how many travellers from Australia have completed stays in managed isolation and quarantine since 23 August 2021?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): It's important to remember that the entire outbreak that we are dealing with right now, which has over 7,000 cases associated with it, stems from a single traveller traveling from Australia to New Zealand. I'm advised that between 23 August and 15 November, 2,544 travellers from Australia have completed stays in managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ); three of these people tested positive—none of those people were vaccinated. While that's a small number, it still signifies the risks that exist with overseas returnees. To put this into context of our overall experience of MIQ returnees: we've had 92 cases amongst 26,000 returnees since 23 August, 50 of whom had received some form of vaccination, and 46 of whom were fully vaccinated. So these numbers reiterate the importance that any decisions around the border must ensure that risk is carefully managed to reduce any potential impacts on vulnerable communities and the New Zealand health system. That is why we've taken a phased approach to reconnecting with the world, and I look forward to giving more details on that in the coming days.
Chris Bishop: So can he just confirm that the number of fully vaccinated people from Australia to have travelled to New Zealand and subsequently tested positive for COVID-19 from 23 August 2021 to 15 November is zero?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member listened carefully to my primary answer, yes, that is the answer.
Chris Bishop: In light of that answer, why can a vaccinated Aucklander leave Auckland after 17 December and travel around New Zealand without a COVID test, but a vaccinated person in Australia with a negative pre-departure test can't travel to Auckland?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think if the member was listening to the Prime Minister's answers to his leader's questions a little earlier, he will have seen that we are taking a staged and phased and managed approach to increasing the risk to the rest of New Zealand of COVID-19 cases coming into their community. There's no doubt there will be COVID-19 cases making its way into other parts of the New Zealand community, but we still want to reduce the risk associated with that, and, therefore, staging that and managing that to ensure that we're not piling a whole host of additional risk all at the same on the rest of the country is an important public health measure.
Chris Bishop: In light of the fact that zero people who have been fully vaccinated have travelled to New Zealand and tested positive in the last two months, would a phased approach to the reopening of the New Zealand border just simply allow people from Australia who are fully vaccinated and have passed a negative COVID test to travel to New Zealand?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member listened to my primary answer, the statement that he made at the beginning of his question is factually incorrect: 50 people who have been vaccinated have tested positive for COVID-19 on arrival in New Zealand.




Question No. 10—Workplace Relations and Safety
10. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: How is the Government supporting businesses to get their workforces vaccinated?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Vaccine requirements in the workplace are a common tool in many countries around the world that are being used to stop the spread of COVID-19, to protect their workers and customers from the virus. Today, we have announced we are supporting businesses—
SPEAKER: Order! Sorry to interrupt. There are two members over there, one of whom is slightly louder than the other, and the one in front is slightly more frequent than the other, but they've both been very noisy today. I don't understand the reason for it, but I'm just asking them to wind it back. Michael Wood, can you start again, please.
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Vaccine requirements in the workplace are common tools in many countries around the world being used to stop the spread of COVID-19 and to protect workers and customers from the virus. Today, we have announced that we are supporting businesses to help get their workers vaccinated and keep people safe by providing them with a new vaccination tool, a clear legal framework to help them make decisions about when vaccines might be reasonably required in the workplace. The tool will specify four key factors, at least three of which must be met before it would be reasonable to require vaccination for particular work.
Ibrahim Omer: How will this benefit business?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: We've had calls from both businesses and unions to make the process around worker vaccination as clear as possible. This simple four-step tool will make it much easier for businesses, particularly small businesses without large legal and HR support. This new process won't override existing risk assessments that businesses have already done under existing health and safety guidelines, and businesses will continue being able to choose which one they use—either the new vaccination tool or health and safety risk assessment processes.
Ibrahim Omer: How was the tool developed?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Over recent weeks, we have worked collaboratively to develop the new vaccination tool, to ensure that it's well informed and is able to be used in a very practical way on the ground. We have consulted extensively, including with Business NZ and the Council of Trade Unions; we've taken public health advice; and we've worked closely with WorkSafe as the regulator in this area. As such, I have real confidence that the vaccination tool is going to be of significant benefit to businesses and workers in providing much needed clarity.




Question No. 11—Housing
11. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): Does she have confidence in the way Kāinga Ora is implementing its "sustainable tenancies" policy, and what advice, if any, has she had about whether Kāinga Ora's policy to "preserve and not terminate tenancies" has placed it in breach of its obligations as a landlord under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): To the first part of the member's question, yes. The sustaining tenancies policy was initiated in early 2017, and it provides Kāinga Ora with a range of tools to address issues of disruptive behaviour, which include working at a local level to provide the support needed to resolve these issues. It can also include the relocation of tenants, and, as I advised the House last week, this has occurred on 159 occasions in the past year. In answer to the second part of the member's question, I've received a briefing from Kāinga Ora on recent incidents of disruptive behaviour and how they are continuing to implement the sustaining tenancies policy. However, it's a longstanding convention that Ministers do not comment directly on individual judicial matters or provide legal opinions to the House.
Nicola Willis: Has she directed Kāinga Ora to review how it deals with abusive tenants, following a series of harrowing stories in which innocent tenants have been persistently terrorised by their neighbours, and, if not, why not?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Kāinga Ora takes issues of disruptive behaviour seriously, and I encourage anyone with concerns to raise them with Kāinga Ora. There's no doubt that the current situation that tenants are experiencing in Whangārei, in particular, is particularly distressing. This is a hard situation that we are facing here. Kāinga Ora has taken the sustaining tenancies programme, they've improved it, they've added tools to the tool kit. But if I can quote the member herself, evictions are not always the answer. It is a requirement of this Government to support people to sustain their homes, because the alternative would mean children being homeless and people living in cars.
Nicola Willis: Why should frightened tenants take this Minister seriously when, despite warnings about their case last week, an elderly Whangārei couple were, this weekend, forced to cower inside their home after their abusive Kāinga Ora neighbours held a Black Power party at which a police officer was allegedly assaulted and a patrol car compromised?
SPEAKER: Order! Order! That question doesn't go to this Minister's responsibilities.
Nicola Willis: Mr Speaker, a point of order. If I just clarify what I said in the question, I asked her about why tenants should take the Minister's expressions of concern seriously—
SPEAKER: That is exactly where she missed, because she has no responsibility for their views.
Chris Bishop: Good grief.
SPEAKER: Order! Was that Mr Bennett or Mr Bishop who made that comment then? There was a comment made by one of those two members. Mr Bennett, did you make a comment?
Chris Bishop: I said, "good grief". That's all.
SPEAKER: You said what?
Chris Bishop: Good grief.
SPEAKER: At my ruling?
Chris Bishop: Well, I muttered it—yes.
SPEAKER: The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Chris Bishop: I withdraw and apologise.
SPEAKER: And the loss of one supplementary as a result of that.
Nicola Willis: Is it sufficient for Kāinga Ora to just relocate chronically abusive tenants when one such relocated tenant, now living in Naenae, has gone on to terrorise his new neighbour, including reportedly threatening to kill him while wielding a spade?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: It's never acceptable behaviour. Kāinga Ora work very hard to ensure that all tenants can ensure safe and peaceful tenancies. They use the sustaining tenancies tool, which wraps support around tenants and neighbours to ensure that, in the vast proportion of cases, situations are resolved. These are difficult, hard, complex cases, but I can advise the House that by and large, the tools that Kāinga Ora uses in this regard have worked. They have been improved since the time the National Party introduced them, and they continue to work in most cases. However, there are cases where they are very difficult—they are very hard. That is when Kāinga Ora insists that if the sustaining tenancies initial policy doesn't work, then they move to relocate. If that doesn't work, then termination of tenancies will occur.
Nicola Willis: Supplementary.
SPEAKER: No. Well, the member's actually had one extra supplementary, which I'll deal with tomorrow, but question No. 12: Willow-Jean Prime.




Question No. 12—Conservation
12. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Minister of Conservation: What progress has been made on establishing a marine mammal sanctuary in the Bay of Islands?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): On 17 November, I announced that a marine mammal sanctuary will be established in Te Pēwhairangi, the Bay of Islands, coming into effect on 15 December. The sanctuary has been established after a public consultation process and aims to not only reverse the decline in the numbers of bottlenose dolphins in the area, but better protect visiting orcas and fur seals as well. By designating this area as sanctuary, we are creating an environment where the human/animal interaction coexists rather than disrupts while also protecting an amazing taonga for future generations.
Willow-Jean Prime: Why is the sanctuary being established?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The bay's bottlenose dolphin, which are a nationally endangered species, are known to spend an average of about 86 percent of their daylight hours with at least one boat nearby. They are cheeky little things and extensive studies have shown that the near-constant presence of people in boats disrupts the normal behaviours critical for their survival. They like to play so they don't get as much rest and kai as they need. The new speed and distance restrictions where people in boats are interacting with marine mammals aim to protect the mammals while also providing sustainable tourism opportunities through maintaining one of the major drawcards for visitors: the presence of the dolphins in the bay.
Willow-Jean Prime: What public feedback was received on the proposal?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Public consultation has been a big part of the process over the last six months, and I want to acknowledge the 645 submitters, and note that over 66 percent of those submitters were in full support. In particular, I want to acknowledge Ngā Hapū o te Pēwhairangi, who have been constant guardians of this project and who have worked in an exemplary way with the Department of Conservation on our collective journey to protect the dolphins. I also want to acknowledge the local boaties who will continue to use and enjoy the beautiful waters of Te Pēwhairangi over the summer, which includes fishing throughout the area, because there are no restrictions specific to that sanctuary on fishing, and will do this in a way that allows our marine mammals to thrive.
 





SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting programme for 2022 be as follows:
February 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17;
March 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 29, 30, and 31;
April 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 14;
May 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, and 31;
June 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, and 30;
July 26, 27, and 28;
August 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 23, 24, 25, 30, and 31;
September 1, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, and 29;
October 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, and 27;
November 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, and 24;
December 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 15. 
Motion agreed to.





SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for the consideration of the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill.
MORIORI CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL
In Committee
Part 1  Preliminary matters, historical account, acknowledgements and apology, and settlement of historical claims
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, the House is in committee on the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill. We come first to Part 1.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), which is SOP 95, in my name, and for the benefit of the many Moriori who will be watching this broadcast by live streaming and other means, we have a small part of the bill that enacts their settlement to have to correct. It just relates to a number of place names that have been negotiated since the deed was signed and, indeed, since the Māori Affairs Committee has considered the bill. They've been agreed with the national geographic board, or whatever the entity is that looks after—the New Zealand Geographic Board—that looks after these things. So this is simply an SOP that has a number of minor amendments to place names referred to in the bill, and that therefore brings all the correcting matters in the bill to a close. It has been subject—
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the Minister, but that SOP is in Part 2. We are on Part 1. Would some honourable member like to, if we want to move it as—
KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order, Mr Chair. I seek leave for all questions to be taken as one debate. 
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Therefore, the question is that Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'm assuming that I don't have to repeat the speech—the well-prepared speech—that I've just delivered about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 95. However, it is a correcting SOP for those last minor technical amendments, or minor amendments, of place names in the bill. It has been subject to consultation with the relevant agencies and they have all, naturally, been agreed to by Moriori. These changes will conclude the bill, ready for its third reading.





JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Minister, just a brief question: there was some concern and questions raised about the protection of Te Ana a Nunuku, and I know, having been on the committee, that that was outside the scope of this bill. But I just wondered if you would explain briefly, for the benefit of those watching, why it was out of scope in terms of this bill.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Mr Chairman, I actually didn't hear the beginning of the question. If the member could just repeat that bit again?
JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Oh, sorry. A number of people questioned whether Te Ana a Nunuku, Nunuku's Cave, could be protected. And I note, having been on the select committee myself, that that was outside the scope of the bill, but I was just wondering if you could explain, for the benefit of those watching, why it was out of scope.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): As I understand it, there is not a designated name registered with the New Zealand Geographic Board for that landmark, and therefore there was no legislative basis on which, without having gone through a completely different process, to do that. What we were left with with the deed set up agreement about a number of places that have place names that are recognised by the New Zealand Geographic Board. It was the desire of Moriori, and the Crown, indeed, to change those, but that place did not have a designated name and, therefore, could not be changed through this process.
JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I note that the overlapping interest is a matter that was considered in terms of this—and it will be considered again, no doubt—as the Moriori are one group of inhabitants on the Chatham Islands and Ngāti Mutunga are another group of inhabitants. I'm just wondering if you could explain for the benefit, again, of those watching where things are tracking in terms of how to address the overlapping interests on the Chatham Islands and surrounding islands.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Notwithstanding that as we head towards the third reading of the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill, this is Moriori's day. We don't normally talk about other iwi, including those with overlapping interests, on what is Moriori's day, but to assist the member briefly, the Crown is still negotiating with Ngāti Mutunga. We'll continue those discussions, and where there are overlapping interests with what is agreed with Ngāti Mutunga and with Moriori, there will be discussions on those overlapping interests with Moriori.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister's amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 95 be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to 
Bill to be reported with amendment.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.





Third Reading
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill. 
SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and it can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. 
E ngā mana, e ngā rē, rau ieriki-ieriki mā. Tena kotou, tena kotou, tena kotou katoa. 
[Exalted figures and voices of authority, and multitudes of leaders. Acknowledgments to every one of you.]
I begin by acknowledging the people of Moriori today. E te imi Moriori, tena kotou. 
[To the Moriori people, you are acknowledged.]
I'd especially like to extend my welcome to the Moriori representatives who have travelled to Parliament today, some from Rēkohu and some from other parts of New Zealand, who are watching this final reading of their bill by live stream. So we welcome them here, we feel them, and we know they are here. This is their day, and it is a very special day. 
Today marks the final stage in the progression of Moriori's Treaty settlement bill. One hundred and fifty-nine years ago, Moriori karāpuna—their tūpuna—petitioned Governor George Grey, remembering the trauma of the 1835 settlement of Rēkohu by Ngāti Mutunga and seeking the Crown's protection. This day is the culmination of the struggle for truth and justice that began then. It's testament to the years of hard work by Moriori and dedication towards negotiating a deed of settlement, and a long-awaited day of celebration at the end of this legislative period that has lasted nearly two years because of the delays caused by the COVID outbreak. I well remember being on Rēkohu at Kōpinga Marae towards the end of February 2020, and it was just when the world was waking up to the existence of COVID-19. The passage of this legislation has been affected by that nasty virus, but we are here today with this bill in its third reading, even though COVID is still around. 
The fact that Moriori could not be physically present in the House to see this, as so many other iwi are when their bills are going through, is another sacrifice that they have had to make in a long line of sacrifices in order to achieve settlement, in order to achieve that long fought for justice that they have been struggling for. I thank Moriori for their fortitude and their patience in reaching this significant milestone. 
It's now time for the Crown to make redress to Moriori for its breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and I'm pleased to be here to support the enactment of their bill. I remember and pay tribute to Moriori karāpuna on this occasion for the grievances they have suffered and the legacy of peace, which serves as a cornerstone for the identity of Moriori to the present day. I also pay tribute to those who initiated this Treaty settlement process who cannot be here today to celebrate this milestone. Moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā e ngā ieriki-ieriki. 
[Sleep, sleep, sleep peacefully great leaders who have passed on.]
I acknowledge and thank Moriori chief negotiator, Māui Solomon, for his life's work advocating for justice for te imi Moriori, and for his able leadership through this settlement process. In 1984, as the newly elected chair of the Hokotehi Moriori Trust, Māui made a promise to his karāpuna to tell their story. With the enactment of this bill, that promise comes to life. I also acknowledge the wider Moriori negotiation team, Tom Lanauze, Paul Solomon, and Grace LeGros, and claims manager Susan Thorpe for their efforts in bringing about this settlement. 
On the Crown side, I acknowledge the Hon Dame Fran Wilde for her able leadership as chief Crown negotiator. I thank my ministerial colleagues for their work and support, particularly the former Minister of Conservation the Hon Eugenie Sage. Thank you also to the officials who worked tirelessly to pull the redress together. I acknowledge the Chatham Islands Council for their support, as well as the Chatham and Pitt Island communities. 
The Moriori Claims Settlement Bill gives effect to the deed of settlement between Moriori and the Crown which we signed on 14 February 2020, and it settles all the historical Te Tiriti o Waitangi claims of Moriori. The bill, like the deed of settlement, acknowledges the Crown's historical breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It also goes some way in providing Moriori with a cultural and economic base to support future revitalisation. 
The historical claims of Moriori are significant. When the Crown annexed the Chatham Islands in 1842, it extended protections under Te Tiriti o Waitangi to Moriori. At that time, Moriori were living in a state of enslavement, with severely depleted numbers on Rēkohu as a result of settlement there by two iwi whose traditional rohe was Taranaki. The Crown was aware that Moriori had been subjugated and that many had died at the hands of their captors. Moriori karāpuna pleaded for the protection owed to them, but for many years, the Crown failed to act to end Moriori subjugation. As a result, even more karāpuna suffered greatly and died in oppressive conditions, including some who died of an illness known to Moriori as kongenge, a deep despair of the spirit. 
In the period that followed, the Crown's continued acts and omissions eroded what little autonomy Moriori had, causing them to lose their connection to their language and culture and to suffer severe social and economic deprivation. In the late 1860s, the Crown did not consult Moriori karāpuna when promoting the native land laws, nor did it devise a just solution for Moriori regarding land on the Chatham Islands following the Native Land Court's determination of land title in 1870. As a result, Moriori were left virtually landless, their tribal structures were undermined, and Moriori were severed from their land, their wahi t'chap, or wahi tapu, and their responsibilities as guardians and hosts. Over a period of many years, the Crown, through the Colonial Museum, collected, removed, and traded kōimi t'chakat, or Moriori human remains, from Rēkohu. This was but one example of the cultural degradation faced by Moriori.
By the beginning of the 20th century, ta rē Moriori had been lost as a living language due to the Crown's failure to protect it. The Crown also contributed to the wrongful stigmatisation of Moriori as a racially inferior people who became extinct—a myth which caused great suffering and hardship, particularly to generations of children of Moriori descent. 
No settlement package can ever fully compensate Moriori for the magnitude of loss they have suffered across generations. It's a testament to their extraordinary grace and their dedication to Nunuku's covenant of peace that they have chosen to accept the current package and move towards a period of reconciliation with the Crown. I thank Moriori. I thank them for their generosity of spirit, and I am hopeful for what the shared future holds. The Moriori Claims Settlement Bill seeks to give effect to the Moriori settlement package as outlined in the legislative statement. Today is a day for looking back and looking back at the origins of the Moriori-Crown relationship; for acknowledging the past in order to fully recognise the significance of the journey since. 
It's heartening to see the wider effects of Moriori coming to the fore in the public space we have brought. I acknowledge the renaissance of ta rē Moriori and the significant efforts of imi to revitalise their language. In addition to the work being undertaken outside the House, the interest of members of the House in engaging with ta rē Moriori with the support of imi, particularly during the select committee process, has been truly heartening. It has given me great joy in seeing ta rē Moriori being spoken in the House through this legislative process and entering formal parliamentary written records. This is an example of what the renewed relationship between Moriori and the Crown could hold. It is this spirit I'm hopeful will continue to grow with the enactment of this bill. I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tena kotou, tena kotou, me rongo kotou. 
[Therefore, acknowledgments to every one of you, and may peace be upon you.]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ko te pātai ka whakaaetia te mōtini [To begin the debate on this bill], I call Joseph Mooney.





JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a privilege to rise this afternoon on behalf of the National Party to speak on the third reading of the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill. 
E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā iwi, e rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. 
[To the authorities, to all the voices, and to all the esteemed leaders, greetings one and all.]
E te imi o Rēkohu, tēnā katoa, tēnā koutou. 
[To the people of Rēkohu, you are all acknowledged.]
First, I wish to extend my sincerest greetings and acknowledgments to all the people of Moriori imi who are watching and listening to these proceedings and, unfortunately, cannot be here in the House today, but we feel you in spirit. One of the unique features of a third reading of Treaty settlement legislation is usually the strong presence of members of the imi, or iwi—the claimant group—in the gallery. However, because of the COVID-19 situation, they cannot be here with us today, but despite their not physically being here, it is our privilege to continue this forward in the spirit with which this began many, many, many years ago to provide a solution, to provide a settlement, and to provide a basis for which Moriori can continue forwards.
As always, I wish to acknowledge the many years of hard work that have gone into this, both of the Moriori negotiators and on behalf of the Crown. I wish to acknowledge all the officials who worked on this. I wish to acknowledge the chief negotiator, Māui Solomon, who's worked very, very hard on this over many years. I also wish to acknowledge Minister Little for his work in bringing this here today, and I acknowledge the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who worked on this under the previous Government.
The settlement package legislated for in this bill provides a Crown apology to Moriori for the acts and omissions which breached the Crown's obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi and for the damage that those actions caused to Moriori. These include the failure to have acted in a more reactive and proactive manner to end the enslavement, the failure to protect ta rē Moriori, the failure to protect Moriori from become virtually landless, the collection and trade of Moriori human remains, and Crown's contribution to the stigmatisation of Moriori as a racially inferior people who became extinct—all incorrect. Various mechanisms, including the transfer of eight sites, will be offered as cultural redress, and $18 million plus interest will be offered as financial redress in this bill.
I wish to speak briefly to the history that has led to here. No settlement package can ever fully redress or compensate Moriori for their losses and for the prejudice which they experienced over generations, but through this settlement, the Crown, on behalf of all New Zealanders, hopes to atone for past injustices and alleviate the acute sense of justified grievance experienced by Moriori and to provide resources to lay a foundation for a brighter future for imi.
Moriori were the original inhabitants of Rēkohu, Rangihaute, Hokorereoro, and the other nearby islands that make up the Chatham Islands group, arriving some time after 1,000 CE. Moriori developed a unique culture on the islands, where there was little differentiation of rank, and warfare and killing were outlawed. It wasn't until 1790 that there's a record of European bringing the islands into sight, when Lieutenant William Broughton, the commander of the armed tender Chatham, on 29 November 1790, sighted the islands. 
In 1835, Ngāti Mutunga travelled to the Chatham Islands, and that began the history which has brought us to the House today. They were one of two iwi who had travelled from the Taranaki region, and the Moriori customary laws of peace meant no resistance was raised to the iwi when they used force to overcome resistance and take over the Chatham Islands.
While the Chatham Islands became part of the Realm of New Zealand in 1842, the Crown took no action to free Moriori from the enslavement that ensued subsequently, and it wasn't until 1862, after repeated petitions from Moriori, that any steps were taken to address the plight of Moriori. Further, in the 1870s, the Native Land Court ruled that 97 percent of the land of the Chathams belonged to the iwi, and only 3 percent to Moriori. So, effectively landless, the Moriori population, once numbering in the thousands, fell to just 31. But for more than 100 years, individuals and institutions, including Crown institutions, collected Moriori remains taken from the Chatham Islands. These remains were tapu, or tchap', in the Moriori language.
Finally, during much of the 20th century, New Zealand school journals falsely taught a history that the Moriori were the original inhabitants of New Zealand before being driven to the Chatham Islands by the Māori. This whole history used the Moriori to create false impressions about the history of Māori in New Zealand, and portrayed Moriori as an inferior race. This false history had a significant impact on Moriori, especially Moriori children, who learnt this history at school.
As a result of these myths, generations have been reluctant to identify as Moriori, but I'm very pleased to say that having been part of the select committee that travelled to the Chatham Islands, to Rēkohu, and having spent time on Kōpinga Marae, what I saw, experienced, and heard was the proud revitalisation of the Moriori imi, a proud revitalisation of their history, and a very proud and promising future, which they will see and which this bill will help lay a foundation for. An enduring memory for me will be standing in the kōpi groves on the Chatham Islands in front of the carvings in one of the kōpi trees, and listening to the stories being told of the history of Moriori, of the bones of their people, which is just over the sand on the beach, and the sense of peace and the sense of history that I felt and heard in the kōpi groves, those ancient fruit forests of the Moriori people. It gave a real sense of the history of Moriori, and also listening to and seeing both the elders and the young who care for those forests and care for that history, and who will care for the future of Moriori.
Moriori have given something, I think, very special to the people of New Zealand, which is Nunuku's covenant of peace: the decision taken by the Moriori not to engage in warfare and killing. But they've handed down this story, this ancient covenant, which is something which is quite unique and quite special for our country, and they're certainly not a conquered people. They are people with a proud past and a proud future, and we certainly saw and heard that as well when we spent those days at the Kōpinga Marae, which is built as a monument to the legacy bequeathed by their ancestors as a place for gatherings for the people from Rēkohu, from New Zealand, and from all over the world.
Since the late 1970s, Moriori descendants have been working hard to rebuild and revitalise their identity and their culture as a distinct people with a unique heritage, and what has been achieved over the past 40 years is a testament to their resilience as a people, their determination to reclaim their rightful place in the history of Rēkohu in Aotearoa. Notwithstanding the tragic past and oppressive environment that Moriori had to operate in for many, many decades, they are proud as a people in honouring their ancestors, their legacy of peace, and their values of sharing, inclusivity, and commitment to high standards of human behaviour. Moriori have been able to overcome impossible odds and emerge, once again, into the sunlight of Rēkohu. This is a testament as much to the vision of their karāpuna as it has been to the resilience and determination of their mokopu—their grandchildren—to right the historical wrongs of the past.
On this side of the House, as on all sides of the House, we hope and we anticipate that this bill lays a foundation for the continued restoration of the social, the cultural, and the economic wellbeing of Moriori. In progressing this bill this afternoon, we look forward to a new relationship between Moriori and the Crown, one that is founded on cooperation, mutual respect, and respect for the Treaty and its principles and for the relationship between Moriori imi and the people of New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēna kotou, tēnā kotou, me rongo kotou.





Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): E ngā mana, e ngā rē rau ieriki-ieriki mā, e ngā morehu o te iwi Moriori, tēnā koutou. E ngā iwi taketake o te motu a Wharekauri, kei te mihi. Nei anō tētahi o ngā uri whakaheke o Ngāti Tama o Ngāti Mutunga e tuku ngā mihi ki a koutou, ā, tēnā koutou. 
Ahakoa ko te aha o ngā kino nō muri rā ka panonihia te ao, he ao rerekē ināianei. Me waiho ērā momo āhuatanga i te ao kōhatu. I tēnei wā e taea ana te kite ko te oranga tonutanga o te ahi kā, o te iwi whānui o Moriori. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou, ki a koe Māui, e mihi ana ki a koe, e hoa, mō tō kaha ki te kōkiri tēnei kaupapa mai i te tīmata.
Maumahara au, maumahara tātou o te iwi Māori, tō kaha ki te kōkiri tēnei kaupapa me hoki ki te kōkiri ngā kaupapa Māori, koirā tō mahi, Māui, i ngā wā o mua, tēnei te mihi ki a koe. Koutou e whakarongo mai nā, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou. He hōnore nui ki te tautoko, ki te tū, ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei kaupapa i tēnei wā, nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā anō tātou katoa.
[To the authorities, to the voices of the esteemed leaders, and to the survivors of the Moriori people, greetings. To the indigenous people of the Chatham Islands, I greet you. Here stands one of those descended from Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Mutunga, greeting you, greetings.
Despite past ill treatments, the world has changed, it is now a different world. We should consign those circumstances to the old world. Today it is possible to see the continued survival of the longstanding occupants, the wider Moriori tribe. This is a tribute to all of you, and to you, Māui, I acknowledge you, my friend, for your strength in driving this issue right from the start.
I remember, as all of Māoridom remembers, your strength in driving this initiative as well as other Māori initiatives. That was your role, Māui, in the past, I acknowledge you. To you who are listening, I greet you. It is a great honour to support, stand and to speak on this matter today, and therefore I say greetings, greetings one all.]
It's an honour and a privilege to speak in this third reading. For myself, as a descendant of Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Mutunga, it is without doubt a privilege and an honour. Some people might think it's not right for someone like me to speak, given the mahi and what happened with my ancestors, but I've always said to a number of Moriori who I grew up with—some of the Solomon whānau in Māngere—that I couldn't be held responsible for the acts of some of our tīpuna and some of our ancestors, as a lot of people would argue today, perhaps, with regards to what their ancestors did to Māori. But I certainly have an opportunity to get and be part of the redress, and that's what today's all about. I have a part to play in terms of the justice side, the humanity side, and that's what third readings are all about.
So when I did tell some of my Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Mutunga whanaunga that I would be having a kōrero on the bill, they were a bit worried. But I'm certainly not, because the Moriori story is one of the most fascinating stories, as the previous speaker Joseph Mooney said—well said, too. One of the most wonderful stories in terms of this country's history and, in fact, in terms of world history, and the peace that has been exhibited by our people down there—and I say "our people" because that's how I see things in terms of Moriori. It's something for all of this country to be proud of. Ironic, really, that we had such a peaceful resistance in that area, and in a different area, in Taranaki, we also, believe it or not, had huge peacemakers and resistance from tohunga like Te Whiti and Tohu. So it's ironic that we celebrate and support our Moriori history and, at the same time, remember what happened with our Taranaki tīpuna.
I'll never forget travelling to the Chatham Islands for the first time, in 2018, when we honoured the passing of the last Māori Battalion officer, Alfred "Bunty" Preece, who was 96. Those were the first military honours that were ever accorded to people on the island, and it was a wonderful trip—first time I'd ever been there. I took my whānau down there with Minister Ron Mark at the time. Joseph Mooney was talking about the wairua and the spirit of that place. It very much is a special place, isn't it? You felt the wairua. We felt it all, and we got it from Bunty Preece's tangi, who was a former mayor, and his son, Alfie Preece Junior, was also a mayor. We felt the wairua there, the support, and the peacefulness from a people who have been so ravaged by the Crown. Their story, like the Māori story in terms of what has happened, is something to behold. Left landless; basically, at times, mutilated through the years.
So it's appropriate that I salute the negotiators, particularly Māui Solomon, who's fought for his people and fought the fight for his people of the Chathams, the Moriori. But the other side of Māui is he's fought the fight for Māori people. He's fought for a lot of groups. He's been a long-time legal person. These are the types of people who will work in our world, who can work with everyone. I mihi to him for his kaha in terms of fighting for Moriori people, and the other negotiators who were involved who the Minister mentioned today.
The Moriori history is so fascinating because not only do we talk about the peaceful resistance, the wairua of the people, but we're talking about a group of people who've been used and abused by everyone—politicians, historians—when they talk about history. There was a whole divide and rule strategy that not just the Crown embarked on; too many of our own people embarked on: Māori, Pākehā, historians, politicians. 
We all heard the type of kōrero that said, "Oh, you Māoris weren't the first here. The Morioris were the first here, and you murdered everyone. Really, you're not the tangata whenua; the Morioris are." We've heard those types of stories for ever and a day. We heard them when we were at primary school, and we heard them for so many years. It wasn't funny, and it took away so much in terms of that unique Moriori history. You know, we should not have bought in to the nonsense that was being pushed out by some ill-informed historians. We had Don Brash going on about it about a couple of years ago. It's just ridiculous, and it took away the fact that what happened was sad and what happened was part of history in terms of Māori going down there and invading and taking over a whole group of people and enslaving them. It took away their rights. It took away the way the Crown treated them. It took so much away, and we bought into all that nonsense. 
As someone who worked on radio and who worked on TV through the years, I got so sick and tired of the continual racist kōrero that we kept hearing about Māori murdering the Moriori and Moriori being the first here. We're way past that. As a Government and, as a Parliament, we're way past that, and I salute the previous Minister, Minister Christopher Finlayson, who took this up. It's good that in the House we haven't bought into those arguments about who was first here or who wasn't first here. We just focus in on the compensation and the support that the Moriori have deserved, and I thank everyone for that because this has been such a rich history.
What I'm looking forward to is how we go forward now. How is that Moriori history going to be supported and converted in the 2020s? What's the next move for Māui Solomon and his team? You see, $18 million can never buy justice. The Treaty settlements process, as acknowledged by most Treaty Ministers, does not deliver full justice for the different groups—for Māori, for Moriori—so how is Morioritanga going to play out in the 2020s? It's going to be fascinating to watch how these young groups come through from Wharekauri and to see what type of contribution they will make to New Zealand society.
Being in Parliament gives one the opportunity to salute the mahi that's been done by people like Māui Solomon, who's been doing this since the mid-1980s. It gives us a time to remember the sad tragedies that they went through in terms of Wharekauri but it also gives us the opportunity to celebrate the mana, the strength, the kaha of a people who have risen again, and I mihi to them one more time and thank them for their contribution. Congratulations, this is your day. Mihi nui ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā anō tātou katoa.





HARETE HIPANGO (National): 
Tō reo iho rā te tohinga o Rongo 
ki runga o Rēkohu—Mūwheke ka eke ko Rongomaiwhenua
Toitū te whenua, toitū moana, toitū te tangata, mano tau—rongomau. 
Rēkohu haumako e me rongo. 
The ancient covenant of peace rises again
and casts itself over the island of Rēkohu—originating from Mūwheke and Rongomaiwhenua. 
Hold fast the land, hold fast the sea, the people in peace and tranquillity for a thousand years.
Rēkohu flourishes in peace. 
E te imi Moriori, te waina pono o Rēkohu, te tchakat henu, tēnei te mihi, tēnei te tangi ki ō koutou karāpuna, ō koutou mokopu, ki a koutou katoa. Ka huri ki te ao, ki a koutou ngā manuhiri tūārangi, nau mai haere mai ki te Whare Pāremata. E karanga au ki te pānuitanga tuatoru o Te Pire Whakatau Taunga Kerēme a te Imi Moriori. Ināianei, i tēnei rā, te moemoeā o ō koutou karāpuna, te moemoeā o te imi Moriori i konei. 
[To the Moriori people, to the original inhabitants and people of the Chatham Islands, I greet you and weep for your ancestors and your grandchildren, for all of you. To return to the living, I welcome you visitors from afar to the House of Parliament. I welcome the third reading of the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill. Now, today, the dream of your ancestors and the dream of the Moriori people is here.]
Today, this is a moment in Moriori history, a moment in New Zealand history, that has traversed centuries: the third reading of the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill. A moment in making since mai ra ano, a time long, long awaited, a time long, long hoped for. Since 1835, the invasion of the Chatham Islands, the whenua of Moriori. Since 1842, the annexure of Moriori whenua, wai, moana, culture, and heritage to New Zealand. Since 1862, when the karāpuna petitioned Governor George Grey—131 pages. Since 1870, with the Crown turning a blind eye to the people of Moriori when it sat on your lands as a Native Land Court, confirming the pre-1840 conquest legitimate, awarding 97 percent of the land to the newly arrived conquestor, the Taranaki tribes, and delegitimising tikane Moriori of Nunuku's covenant.
I stand not only as a member of the National Party but as uri of W'anganui, and I relate to the people of Moriori Rēkohu, who have travelled this journey and borne the anguish and the mamae of descendants, of people, for time past. But those people are living on in the descendants of Moriori Rēkohu. I have no depth of the anguish that Moriori feel. I have an understanding based on my people's journey of W'anganui with Te Awa Tupua. However, this story of Moriori has been denied its legitimate place in New Zealand history. 
I turn to a book where a segment has been penned in here by rangatira Māui Solomon. In this book labelled Māori Peoples of New Zealand Ngā Iwi o Aotearoa, there's a segment in chapter 13, "Moriori": "Hundreds of years ago, the Moriori of the Chatham Islands took a solemn vow of peace known as Nunuku's law. Their decision to uphold this sacred law in the face of aggression in 1835 had tragic consequences. The people were slaughtered, enslaved, and dispossessed of their lands. Nevertheless, Moriori people survived." 
I marked the placement in this pukapuka—this book—with a feather when I was walking this morning and I stopped and looked down, and there it was. It was a tohu—it was a sign. It is not the albatross feather. But those of us who know the history of Parihaka, which is well enshrined and written into New Zealand history—many do not know the history of Moriori and the covenant of peace of the karāpuna Nunuku and the significance of the albatross feather and how that was carried by the people of Taranaki who invaded Rēkohu and took that symbol back with them. We well know and associate the white feather of Taranaki with Parihaka. The rightful place in New Zealand history is that the albatross feather has its origins with the people of Rēkohu, te imi Moriori. 
Turning to the bill, the third reading is significant. I've traversed part of the history, never the depth of the mamae, but I'm saddened that the people of Rēkohu are not able to be present in the Chamber. However, technology is facilitating the connection by some means of reaching out to pass and convey this message. 
The bill will be covered by members in this House and the significant portion that I turn to, as is appropriate with this third reading, is the apology: clause 10(a). In that apology offered by the Crown as is set out in the deed of settlement, it expresses "To … tchakat hanu (tangata whenua) and waina pono (original inhabitants) of Rēkohu … karāpuna"—the descendants, the tūpuna—"and mokopu"—the grandchildren, the mokopuna—"the Crown is profoundly sorry that … it failed"—it failed—"to uphold the partnership and provide the protection [which has been] sought by Moriori karāpuna since the 1840s." 
In clause 10, it goes through and it outlines an apology which covers the main grievances: the Crown's failure to intervene to end enslavement, the Crown's failure to protect Moriori from becoming virtually landless following the 1870 Native Land Court, and the failure to protect ta rē Moriori—the Moriori language. The Crown atones for its role in the collection and trade of kōimi karāpuna, or ancestral bones and remains, and it had a role in promoting myths that stigmatised Moriori as the racially inferior, who became extinct—the furthest from the truth. 
I now turn to acknowledge, significantly, those who were part of the journey in negotiating on behalf of Moriori, and I turn, importantly, to a person who, as a young man in his 20s, stood upon the shoulders of his karāpuna to carry the burden, to carry this journey through to this legislative passage into law, the recognition and protection and the legitimising of Moriori. He is a man who, back in 1984, whilst reading and learning much of the history of his people for the first time, said—I quote him—"I made a promise to my karāpuna … that I'd do all I could to have the truth told about Moriori and to have justice done by them, so as to honour my Moriori ancestors and ourselves, their living descendants." Māui Solomon, I pay respect and immense regard to you as an honourable man, as a man of respect, a Moriori man, a rangatira. As you said back in that interview on 15 December 2019, "From that day to this, I've dedicated my life to seeking justice for Moriori and to ensuring that our stories are told." 
In closing, I mention and bring to the attention of New Zealanders the importance of this, a significant chapter in history. It can be accessed on the parliamentary website. It was depicted in the TV documentary series on Māori Television. I commend the bill to the House.





Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Otirā, e ngā mema katoa o te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. 
Moriori mana, Moriori reo, Moriori tangata, nōku te hōnore e tū ki te kōrero i ō koutou pire. Nō reira, ōku rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[To the Moriori authorities, to the Moriori voices, to the Moriori people, it is my honour to stand and speak to your bill. Therefore, to all the chiefly authorities, greetings one and all.]
It is indeed an absolute honour to speak on the third and final reading of the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill. Can I add my appreciation and acknowledgment to the chief negotiator, Māui Solomon, for his hard work and his diligent work over the course and passage of this settlement. Can I acknowledge the team behind him and those that filed the original claims, the many members of the Moriori iwi who are no longer here with us. Can I also acknowledge our Crown negotiator Dame Fran Wilde, the officials, the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Andrew Little, and, of course, my Māori Affairs Committee members, who worked very hard over examining this particular bill. 
It is a great time to celebrate, but great in acknowledging the contribution and the generosity and the patience of the Moriori people, and their story should be told. Their story should be told in our school history. Their stories should be shared not only on Rēkohu but throughout Aotearoa New Zealand, because they've got a story to tell, and in the passing of this bill—very quickly, as we all appreciate with settlements—you want to tell the full extent of your history. But in the bill, particularly under the summary of the history account, I draw members' attention and the attention of those that are watching this debate, it talks about what happened on Rēkohu in 1835. It talks that in 1862, the Moriori people wrote an extensive petition to this Whare—to this House—seeking recognition of their land rights—their ancient land rights—and then, of course, it talks about the Moriori's customary land tenure and the interpretation of it being held communally, whereas the Crown title individualised land titles, hence the problem that we are seeing in the passage of this particular bill. 
As with all Treaty bills, there is the conflict between communally owned and guarded whenua versus individual title, but it's in this particular bill that I acknowledge the Moriori's passion for retention, despite all odds. When we talk about Treaty settlements and when we talk about the Waitangi Tribunal, it can only go back to 1840, and so many of the hurts that Moriori and, I would say, our northern tribes had, which happened pre-1840, have never ever been addressed by successive Governments. But I want to make the point in the third and final reading about the Moriori situation and its concern of what happened to them in 1835. So the redress package, as the Minister spoke, doesn't do justice—like most Treaty settlements—for what was sacrificed and what was lost. But we are here acknowledging the conclusion of a long-drawn-out negotiation period, which acknowledges and attempts to rebuild to support the absolute development of Moriori people as they see fit. 
In the time I've got left, I want to talk about my connection with Rēkohu. I want to talk about Rēkohu in so far as it is the birthplace of the Ringatū faith. On 15 November 1865, as a result of the Waerenga-a-Hika siege in my own home region of Tai Rāwhiti, Te Kooti Arikirangi Te Tūruki, along with his followers from Rongowhakaata, Ngai Tāmanuhiri, Te Aitanga-a-Mahaki, Te Whānau a Kai, and Ngāriki Kaipūtahi, were imprisoned at Rēkohu without trial. So hence the relationship, and on that journey, one of the followers that went with Te Kooti was my great-great-grandfather Te Warahi Poutini. So for our people of Tūranganui a Kiwa, going to Rēkohu and being manaaki-ed—and so, as a descendent of the Tūranganui people, I want to record my appreciation to the Moriori people who looked after my tipuna at that very trying time in our history.
One hundred and fifty years later, in 2016, a delegation of our people from home re-travelled back to Rēkohu and were hosted by the Moriori people. They got taken to where Te Kooti and his followers camped, and got shown around the island, and I want to record, again, my appreciation to the Moriori people for their manaaki of our people 150 years after Te Kooti and his followers were incarcerated without trial on Rēkohu. I thank the Moriori people for the generosity, their hospitality, their manaaki, again, of our tipuna. 
In 2018, I was lucky to travel with a delegation of Crown Ministers and officials to open and launch the wharf on the Chatham Islands. It was my first trip to the Rēkohu and I enjoyed, again, the hospitality of the local people, of the Moriori people, and I, too, got a visit to where Te Kooti was in prison. They took me to the lands where his followers—and I can say, the shivers across one's spine when you are retracing your tipuna's footprints over such a significant period could only be realised, like I said, by the generosity of the Moriori people. Again, I want to acknowledge my appreciation and thanks to them in this third and final reading of their bill. 
It is important that we acknowledge and tell the Moriori story, and I have every faith that we will do that, led by the Moriori themselves. There are huge opportunities on the island. I want to also acknowledge the surrounding islands of Rēkohu and their contribution to the wellbeing and the welfare and the opportunities of the people that reside on that island. I am looking forward, and we continue to work with them, with the people of islands on a number of fronts. But for today, for this afternoon, in the third and final reading of the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill, it is an honour to acknowledge this third and final reading. I wish the people of the Moriori the very best. I know that they will take this day as one of celebration but also of remembrance of the enormous sacrifice they have made. Without hesitation, I commend this bill to the House. 





TEANAU TUIONO (Green): 
Ko Rangitokona tokona i tche rangi
Ko Rangitokona tokona i tche ātā
Ka tu ta pou ki ru pakira o ta rangi
Ki ru pehore o ta rangi
Ka tu ta mēmēa-a-nuku
Ka tu ta mēmēa-a-rangi
Ka tu ta kahi-a-nuku
Ka tu ta kahi-a-rangi
Ka tu ta pou
Ta pou, ka tu ta pou, ta pourangi e
[Rangitokona holds up the sky
Rangitokona props up the dawn
The pou stands against the baldness of the sky
It stands against the bareness of the sky
It stands, a thought against the earth
It stands, a thought against the sky
It stands, a wedge against the earth
It stands, a wedge against the sky
The pou stands
The pou holds, it holds the sky]
E ngā mana, e ngā rē, e ngā rau ieriki-ieriki mā tēnā koutou. I te tuatahi me mihi atu au ki te imi, te imi o Rēkohu, tēnā koutou. Auē te aroha, auē te pai. I tae rātou, i tae koutou ki te taumata o te puke. He wā anō mō te okioki, kia whai anō te oreore, ā, ngā moemoeā o te tchakat henu, te imi Moriori, otirā tēnā koutou katoa. Koia ngā karāpuna i noho waina pono, i tiaki i ō rātou nei wāhi tiaki?
Me mihi au ki tērā karāpuna, ki a Hirawanu Tapu, e ngā rangatira taumata, i te mea ko ia te tuatahi i, i titihia ki Te Kāwanatanga i te tau 1862. Mai i tērā wā tae noa ki tērā wā i haere te imi Moriori ki te whai i te pono, i te tika, ā, te aroha ki roto i ngā tukanga o te Pāremata, ki roto i ngā tukanga o te kōti. 
Haere, me pēnei ana ki a te imi Moriori, kei konei koutou, kei konei, ahakoa te rūkahu kei roto i ngā pukapuka hītori, ahakoa i hinga ētahi o ngā tūpuna, kei konei tonu koutou. Ahakoa i rangona whānui ki roto i ngā taupatupatu āhuatanga o te hītori ngā takahanga o te wā, i rangona koutou tēnei mea te kaikiri, kei konei tonu, kei konei tonu, ngā oreore o ngā karāpuna nā Rēkohu.
E manawareka mai te hunau i a rātou e whakatau i ā rātou nei, i tiaki i ō rātou nei mīheke. I kitea anō mātou ki tērā mai i te wā o te haerenga mātou Te Komiti Whiri i ngā Take Māori ki te Ana a Nunuku. I rangona mātou te mauri, i rangona mātou te hītori, i rangona mātou te oranga o tēnei mea te rongo ki roto i ngā āhuatanga katoa. I rangona hoki mātou, i tautoko au ngā kōrero ki tō Joseph Mooney, i te mea, i reira tahi mātou ki roto i te uru kopi. I tiro mātou ki runga i ngā rākau ngā waitohu o ngā mātua tīpuna, ngā waitohu o ngā karāpuna, ngā kōrero tuku iho i mahue ake mai rātou. I rongo mātou i te wairua, i rongo mātou i te mauri. He mauri anō e ora ana ki roto i tēnei o ngā pire. Ehara i tēnei pire, ākene ka ture nei, te tīmatanga me te whakamutunga o tēnei hīkoi o tō tātou nei whānau imi Moriori. Kāo. He wā anō, he wā anō kia whai ō rātou nei moemoeā katoa.
Me mihi atu au ki a, ki tērā whero o rātou, ki a Māui Solomon, i te mea kua whakapau kaha ia ki roto e hia kē ngā tau ki te whawhai ki ngā motika, ki te hāpai atu i te tuakiritanga o tana rē, o tōna imi, heoi anō, i hāpai ana ngā moemoeā o tērā tūpuna, o Hirawanu Tapu. Me mihi atu au ki tōna hunau whānui, te Hokotehi Moriori Trust. I reira rātou i kōkirihia, i whiriwhirihia tēnei kerēme, arā ko Tom Lanauze, Paul Solomon, Grace LeGros me tā rātou nei kaihāpai a Susan Thorpe.
Me mihi atu au hoki, kua rangona ngā mihi ki te taha o Te Karauna i kōkirihia e Dame Fran Wilde i tōna wā, otirā, ki ngā Minita Hon Chris Finlayson me Hon Eugenie Sage me ō rātou nei āpiha, i te mea ehara tēnei haerenga i te haerenga māmā, he haerenga nā te ngākau, heoi anō he haerenga nā runga i te waka e ekeeke ana ki runga i te moana.
Ko ētahi o ngā kōrero i puta mai i a mātou e haere ana ki te Rēkohu, ko tēnei pire he pūtake, ko tēnei pire he tūāpapa, he tūāpapa i taea te hanga i tō rātou nei whare, te whare o ngā imi Moriori. I kite ā-kanohi mātou i te ātaahua o tō rātou nei marae, Te Kōpinga. I rangona mātou te manawa reka o te kai, i rangona ō mātou nei puku te reka o te hōhonu o te kai moana, ā, nō reira, ko tērā te tauira ka whakaturea ki roto i tēnei pire, heoi anō, he nui ngā mahi ki mua i te aroaro ki tēnei o ngā imi.
Ko tētahi kōrero i puta mai ki te whakangungu i tō rātou nei rē, i tō rātou nei reo, ki te whakangungu anō hoki ki roto i ngā āhuatanga o te marau ki roto i te Tāhuhu o Te Mātauranga, nō reira, e harikoa ana ahau, kei konei te Minita Tuarua o Te Tāhuhu o Te Mātauranga, ki konei ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero, i te mea, mēnā ka whai wāhi tātou ki te whakatika i te hītori, te kino, te rūkahu ki roto i ngā hītori, kia whakahōnore tātou i ngā kōrero tuku iho o ngā imi Moriori ka tika tō tātou haere o te waka. 
He uri anō tēnei nō Te Tai Tokerau, otirā he uri anō hoki tēnei nō Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa. I reira, i te wā i tae atu au ki tērā o ngā whenu, kei te whakaaro ake au ki aku nei hononga i te wā e haere ana au ki ngā wāhi kē atu ki Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa. I mea mai ētahi o ngā mema i te wā i te uru kopi me te mea atu "Ehara tēnei wāhi ko Aotearoa—ehara tēnei wāhi ko Aotearoa. Nō Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa kē tēnei wāhi, nō Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa kē ngā uri o te imi, o ngā Tchakat Henu o Rēkohu." I a au e haere i rongo au i tērā mauri i te mea i hoki ngā mahara i te wā i haere au ki ētahi o ngā moutere puta noa i Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, i a au e haere ana ki te tihi o te Tapa Whā o Poronēhia, ki Hawaii, te noho tata me ngā kanaka Maoli. I a au e haere ana ki ētahi atu o ngā moutere ki roto i te Tapa Whā o Poronēhia me te whakaaro ake, ahakoa kei tawhiti rātou kei te rongo tonu i tērā wairua, i tērā mauri ki roto i te whenua o Rēkohu, i te mea ko te whenua, kei te whenua tōna reo, kei te moana tōna reo, kei te uru kopi tōna reo.
I a au e whakarongo ana au ki te rē o Rēkohu ka whakaaro ake au, ko te whenua tēnei e kōrero ana ki a tātou i tēnei wā. I a au i rongo ki o te take o ō rātou nei kupu ko te rē o te kohu, i whakamārama mai tētahi ki a mātou, ko tērā anō ko te reo o te kohu, ko te reo o te kohu e kōrero ana ki a mātou i te wā i haere mātou Te Komiti Whiri Take Māori ki Rēkohu.
Nō reira, me mutu au ki runga i te hari me te koa, me mutu au ki runga i te hari, i te koa, me whakaaro ana ahau i te mea ka whai wāhi ō tātou nei hunau imi Moriori mō tēnei pire te whakatū tūāpapa, te whakatū pūtake kia hāpai atu i tō rātou nei tuakiri, kia hāpai atu ō rātou nei rē ki roto i ngā marau o Aotearoa whānui, kia hāpai atu i ō rātou nei uri e noho marara ana ki ngā moutere o Aotearoa nei, kia whai wāhi kia hoki mai rātou ki Rēkohu. Me te whakaaro anō ko tēnei pire e turehia i tēnei wā i whakarite i tētahi waka anō mō rātou, i whakarite i tētahi waka anō mō rātou. 
Nō reira, me oti au ki runga i tērā o ngā kōrero. Ko te tūmanako ko tēnei pire e turehia ana i tēnei wā kei te whai ngā oreore o ngā karāpuna, kia whai okioki ki roto i ngā taumahatanga o tēnei haerenga, kia hāpai ake ō tātou nei hunau imi Moriori. Tēnā tātou katoa.
[To the authorities, to the voices, to all the esteemed leaders, greetings. Firstly, I wish to greet the people, the people of the Chatham Islands, welcome. Oh the love, oh the goodness. They have gained, you have gained the summit. There are times appropriate for rest, so that activity and the dreams of the indigenous people, the Moriori, can be pursued once more, and so I acknowledge you all. They are the ancestors who remained faithful in caring for their sacred places.
My distinguished chiefs, I must acknowledge a certain ancestor, called Hirawanu Tapu, because he was the first to be a scribe to the Government in 1862. From that day to that time the Moriori people have continued to pursue truth, justice and compassion within the parliamentary and judicial processes.
So, I must say this to the Moriori people, you are here, you are here, despite the lies found in the history books, and, despite the fact that some of your ancestors have passed away, you are still here. Although the transgressions of that time were widely heard in debates about the history, you have experienced hostility, yet you are still here, you are still here, the reverberations of the ancestors of the Chatham Islands.
The family of the Chatham Islands seemed pleased when they welcomed/decided upon their, they took care of their taonga (treasures). We saw that again at the time when we, the Māori Affairs Committee, went to visit Nunuku's Cave. We felt the life force, we heard the history, and we sensed the wellbeing of peace in everything. We also felt—and I support the comments to Joseph Mooney, because we were there together in the karaka grove. We saw on the trees the symbols of the old people, the symbols of the ancestors, the traditional messages/narratives which they left behind. We felt the spirit and the life force. There is life force as well living in this bill. This bill, which will soon be enacted, is not the be all and end all of the journey for our family, the Moriori people. No. There will be a time, another time for them to pursue all of their dreams.
I must acknowledge their chief, Māui Solomon, because he has given his all over many, many years to fight for their rights and to elevate the identity of his language and people, and so shouldering the dreams of the ancestor Hirawanu Tapu. I must also acknowledge his wider family, the Hokotehi Moriori Trust. They were there negotiating and driving this claim forwards, namely Tom Lanauze, Paul Solomon, Grace LeGros and their supporter, Susan Thorpe.
I must also acknowledge, and we have heard those acknowledgments to the Crown side, which was driven by Dame Fran Wilde in her time, and also to the Ministers and, indeed, the Hon Chris Finlayson and the Hon Eugenie Sage with their officials, because this journey is not an easy journey, it is heart-driven, however a voyage on a vessel which is traversing the ocean.
Some of the things that we said when we were travelling on the Chatham Islands are that this bill will be a base, a foundation upon which they can build their house, the house of the Moriori people. We saw the beauty of their marae, Te Kōpinga, in person. We tasted the satisfaction of the food, our bellies tasted the deliciousness of the vast seafood, and, therefore, that is the example which is being legislated within this bill. However, there is much work ahead for this people.
One of the other themes that came up was to protect their language, and also to protect it within the features of the Ministry of Education curriculum, and so I am pleased that the Associate Minister of Education is here to listen to the discussion, because if we have an opportunity to correct the history, the harm and the falsehoods in the histories, to honour the traditional narratives of the Moriori people, then our vessel will progress well.
I hail from Te Tai Tokerau, and also hail from the Pacific. Over there, when I arrived in that land, I thought about my connections when I was travelling to other places in the Pacific. Some of the members said to me while we were in the karaka grove, "This place is not New Zealand—this place is not New Zealand. This place belongs to the Pacific Ocean, as do the descendants of the tribe, the indigenous people of the Chatham Islands." As I was travelling I felt that life force because it reminded me of the time I travelled to some of the islands all around the Pacific Ocean and when I was travelling to the tip of the Polynesian square, to Hawaii, to stay with the indigenous Hawaiians. While I was travelling to some of the islands in the Polynesian square I thought, however distant they are, I still feel that spirit and life force in the land of the Chatham Islands, because the land, the land has its language, the ocean has its language, and the karaka grove has its language.
When I am listening to the language of the Chatham Islands I think this is the land talking to us right now. When I heard the origins of their words "language of the mist"—"rē o te kohu"—someone explained to us, that is also the language of the mist, the language of the mist was speaking to us when we of the Māori Affairs Committee went to Rēkohu.
I finish with a sense of joy and delight—I finish with a sense of joy and delight—and thinking because our Moriori people family will have the opportunity through this bill to build a base and a foundation to elevate their identity and their language in the wider New Zealand Curriculum, and to also support their descendants who are living scattered around the islands of New Zealand, in order to find a way for them to return to the Chatham Islands. And also with the idea that this bill being enacted at this time will provide another means for them—will provide another means for them.
Therefore, I will finish on that comment. I hope that this bill currently being enacted is equipped with the movements of the ancestors, so they can have rest within the difficulties of this journey, to elevate our family of Moriori people. Greetings one and all.]





TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak in support of the third reading of the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill, a bill that allows provisions for the deed of settlement to be made into law. It's been a long process. This bill acknowledges and apologises for the massive loss that the Moriori people have experienced. Not only were you subject to the loss of your people, land, culture, and language historically but even in the present day you still have to deal with the entire history being effectively ignored, erased, and rewritten.
I have enjoyed listening, but sadly, to the second and third reading of this bill, as I have learnt much about New Zealand's history of our Moriori people. I look forward for more New Zealanders to understand the correct story of what has occurred to the Moriori people. I also learnt about the limestone caves on the Chatham Islands, which have carvings, and I encourage all the parties to come up with a great solution to protect these carvings in the caves because it is very much part of New Zealand's history.
But despite the many injustices that have occurred to you and your families and experienced here, like my colleague Nicole McKee mentioned in her first reading speech, you have fought hard. You have fought with determination. You have fought with effort, bravery, and courage and have made sure that none of these deaths have gone unnoticed, and, thanks to you, they will be recorded for ever in our legislation. 
As we are aware, the right action of this country to take is the one that rights a wrong that happened in our past. ACT has long supported the Treaty settlement process. This position is deeply rooted in the principles that underpin our party. We believe in the importance of property rights, justice, and the rule of law. For those reasons we are proud to stand on the side of history, and I commend this bill to the House.





TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to contribute to this debate today. It is the final reading. Here in the houses of Parliament, in the Banquet Hall, sit many Moriori who will be listening intently to the contributions of all of the members in this House, and to them can I say me rongo, me rongo koutou. 
It has been a journey, actually, through this House for us, but it's certainly been a very long journey for the Moriori people. Can I acknowledge the Hokotehi Moriori Trust; can I acknowledge you, Māui; can I acknowledge Susan Thorpe, who's back home on the island; Grace LeGros; everybody that's travelled here; everybody that can't be here; and all of your karāpuna who have been part of this process in days gone by but have passed on to the other side.
The Chatham Islands are a very special place, Rēkohu is a very special place, and Wharekauri is a very special place. They're all the same place, but, actually, over the generations, people have fallen in love with the Chathams for lots of different reasons. Most of it is actually the environment. It's a beautiful place. The people that live there are connected to the environment—and we here on the mainland could learn a thing or two from them. They fish from the lagoon. They get their food out of there. It is their food basket. They get kahawai. They get flounder. They get mullet. They get whitebait. All of that helps to sustain them as a community, and it's a beautiful thing to see. 
The Chatham Islanders, the Moriori, they live off the land. They show sustainability. They have a connection with the island through fishing and hunting, and over the years, things haven't always gone right. The sealers and whalers showed up back in the day, and they took what they needed to take and a little bit more. Over the years, as well, things have been stripped from the land and stripped from the waters as well, and that has also set the islands on a very different pathway. But the thing that they've got is their history. 
I want to acknowledge Hirawanu Tapu and, actually, my colleague from the Green Party Teanau Tuiono also mentioned the work of Hirawanu Tapu. From 1868, it was his job to collect Moriori history, to collect the traditional stories, the chants, and the vocabulary, and he did that by talking to the elders at the time. So this is intergenerational passing on of knowledge that has only been made possible because this very gracious man became an historian for the tribe. For that reason, his work went into the Journal of the Polynesian Society back in the 1890s, and, in 1911, there was a book published called the Moriori People of the Chatham Islands: Their History and Traditions. Had we not have had the benefit of his work, we may be in a very different situation today, and we would have an imi that would be soul-searching, probably with very few answers. But the fact is that history is everything, and those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. So I dedicate this speech to Hirawanu Tapu but also to te imi o Rongomaiwhenua, who are our Moriori whanaunga that live over there and live and breathe their life.
Whilst we reach a certain point in this journey, for us in the House, of passing the bill, of making this legislation in not too far a time from now, I know that our Moriori whānau are on a journey. They are on a very big journey, because whilst their history has been—I heard my colleague say "wonderful", and I'm sure there were wonderful parts of it too. But, actually, "tragic" is also another word that springs to mind, as well. They and their ancestors endured battle; many of our ancestors did. But, actually, in this particular story it had tragic consequences and it almost led to the decimation of a tribe. For that reason, they are on a path of revival—that's what they're on—and they've grabbed it with both hands.
To those people who haven't yet watched the documentary, I encourage you to go on to Māori Television and to check out the Chatham Islanders TV series, because there's a lot that you could learn about the good people that inhabit those islands. I encourage you to go on and watch the whole series, and it will give you a snapshot, but only a small snapshot, of the life that they live over there and the past that they've had but also the future that they're looking forward to as well.
I celebrate with the imi and I lift them up because their future's looking good. They have got a long road ahead of them, but they've started right. The TV series is out, but on top of that their app is also downloadable on the phone. For all those people that gapped it from the Chathams all those years ago and are living in other various other parts of Aotearoa—well, to those people, I say, download the app, whānau. You can find it on the Google store. Just have a look for the Moriori language app and you'll be able to learn a little bit as well, maybe as a precedent for your eventual trip over to the Chathams, and I know that they would love to see you. 
They are an island that also welcomes tourists, and as we've all been shut down by COVID-19, so have they. So I encourage New Zealanders, if you're thinking about somewhere to go over the summer period, go over there. There's some Moriori whānau that will be welcoming and are looking forward to your visit.
On top of their grasp for the future, as I found out at lunchtime—thank you, Māui—if you go to Spotify, you can also check out some new music which has actually been crafted from some old music. I wanted to take a moment of the House's time—just a minute—to be able to listen to some of those old songs which have been made new again by some young, talented artists. So, as I play that, I ask that we just take a moment to consider the beautiful rē Moriori and their waiata Moriori. If you go on to the Spotify app, you'll find it on the Hokotehi Moriori Trust, and the first song up is called "Hokotehi Me Rongo". I'm not sure if this has been done in the House before, but, anyway, let's go. [Member plays song on cellphone] And it goes on—"Hokotehi Me Rongo"—and there is my place to finish this speech. 
To our Moriori imi that are here in the building, that are listening from all around the country, and that are listening over on Rekohu, we stand next to you. We look forward to your journey, we look forward to your history being recorded, we look forward to more of your songs, and we look forward to embracing your rē and brushing up on our own cultural capability when it comes to your language. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call.





TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill, and I think it was particularly beautiful, actually, to note that last moment from the previous speaker Tāmati Coffey. I've always loved seeing the unique aspects or learning more about the unique aspects of different cultures, and sharing that with us was quite special. 
I also am very fortunate to have had the opportunity to have travelled out to the Chatham Islands, and it is a magical place, an amazing place, a beautiful part of New Zealand. It is rugged, windswept, and it gets a bit of rain, too, out there, but it is a really unique part of what it is to be in New Zealand with some of this diversity, these unseen, unspoiled parts of the country that most people don't have the opportunity to travel to. So I can imagine what it may have been like for the Moriori travelling out there and establishing themselves on that beautiful part of the world.
Of course, when we look back in history with the benefit of hindsight, we understand that just about every culture goes through significant challenges in its time. Today, we have the ability to address some of the challenges that the Moriori faced, some of the suffering that they went through that they should not have, and I think we're fortunate as a country to be able to make some of these retrospective considerations that do help to bring peace and enable the next step in a journey to be taken for people. So, on that basis, we absolutely support the bill on this side of the House as well. 
Obviously, the historical account of the events that occurred under Part 1, as well as the apology offered by the Crown—no culture, no community, should have to suffer enslavement and suffer the challenges that the Moriori did, and there was a slowness to act from the Crown. After the 1842 signing, that should not have taken so long for the inequities to have been addressed. Unfortunately, it did. The enslavement by Māori tribes of the Moriori was unfortunate, and it should have been addressed by the Crown sooner.
Having said that, we are now in this place where we have taken those points on board: the historical account; the commercial redress as well, under Part 3. Obviously, some financial contribution towards that of course doesn't fix the problem in and of itself, but is a contribution towards enabling those next steps that I mentioned to be taken for people to draw a line in the sand and to say, "Now we can move forward and we can carve out our own future as we see fit for us, with some additional support to achieve that."
So, on that basis, as I said, we do support this bill. The Chathams is a beautiful part of New Zealand. I would encourage anyone who hasn't had the opportunity to take that opportunity, to find the opportunity, to go out there to experience what it is to be a part of that most eastern part of New Zealand and to embrace the culture. The people there are unique, they're hospitable, they're friendly. They'll give you a bit of a tough time, but it's all in jest and good fun, and it is absolutely worth the trip. So we support it. We support the ongoing success the Moriori, I'm sure, will enjoy off the back of this as well, and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.





DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā koutou e ngā hau e whā ka huri noa o ngā motu, ā, ka nui taku mihi ki a koutou te iwi Moriori o Rēkohu, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.
[Greetings, Madam Speaker. Greetings to those here from all around the islands, especially to the Moriori people of the Chatham Islands, greetings, greetings one and all.]
It is an honour indeed to rise and speak to the third reading of this legislation, the Moriori settlement claim—the final stage, but the new stage of hope and recognition of you. Te Paati Māori support Moriori in the endeavours through your reinvigoration. We remember and pay homage to your karāpuna. We acknowledge your resilience as an uri of Aotea waka. I bow in humility for your pain and perseverance. As an uri of Ngāti Ruanui, Ngāruahine, Ngā Rauru, Pakakohi, without knowing all of your history, we have been blessed and felt your karāpuna. You have led our wellbeing and the spiritual significance of pacifism for my whānau, hapū, and waka within Taranaki, with the extension of your tikanga—values—into Parihaka. Because of you, we wear the raukura. Because of you, we have the strength of pacifism and forgiveness. You have led the example of absolute resilience and tenacity. You are the reminder of humility, often seen in tuakana. We have learnt and we have continued to learn from the example that you showed, the strength of unity, and that we will learn to know and never forget what is so wrong. We stand here to remember the biggest lesson, of aroha ki ngā tangata. 
So we have a short call to say that we are here to affirm this settlement process and we remind that it should not be full and final. This is a small percentage—1 percent—of what was taken and what's owed as the breach of Te Tiriti. Te Paati Māori will continue to fight in hard support for the next generations returning for the remaining 99 percent. 
I turn to all your rangatahi and all your mokopuna who we have felt rise in their whakapapa, who we have heard rise in their reo, who we have seen stand side by side with their mātua in this process. May you continue to grow strong and confident; know we will always be here to support you. We commend this bill to the House.
Nō reira, he hōnore, he kororia ki te Atua. He whakaaro pai ki ngā tāngata katoa, tēnā koutou. Kia ora koutou katoa.
[Therefore, honour and glory to God. Goodwill to all people, greetings, and be well, one and all.]





RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā koutou ōku rangatira. E te imi Moriori, tēnā koutou. Nau mai, whakatau mai ki te ana o te raiona e takatū nei. He rā nui tēnei, he rā, nō koutou tēnei, he rā nui whakahirahira. He hōnore nui ki te tū i tēnei pānuitanga tuatoru. 
Ka huri tū, me mihi atu ki ngā mate huhua o te wā, kua whetūrangitia koutou, haere, haere atu rā. 
Hoki mai ki a tātou te kanohi ora e pae enei me ngā mema hōnore huri rauna i tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.
[Greetings to the Speaker of the House. Greetings to my esteemed colleagues. To the Moriori people, greetings. Welcome, welcome to the lion's den, which is prepared for you. This is a great day, this is your day, a very significant day indeed. It is a great honour to stand at this third reading. 
I now turn and must greet the many deceased of this time, you who have become stars in the heavens, may you rest in peace. 
Returning to the representatives of the living sitting here and the honourable members all around this House, greetings, greetings, greetings one and all.]
It is such a privilege to be able to speak in this third reading of the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill. I have sat through many Treaty settlements over my years in this House, both as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee and also just witnessing the debate, and they're all very special. 
I believe, just like all Treaty settlements, the Moriori settlement casts a shadow over the history of our country, of Aotearoa, over the atrocities which have taken place. We have a very colourful history in this nation, and to be able to see the history that has now been written down through the deed of settlement and now reflected in this bill, the history of the Moriori people, it's very poignant that we mustn't forget. We celebrate these occasions, whereby we can now use this as a marker to be able to ensure that there is a new relationship between the Crown and Moriori that can move forward, because we know there have been terrible acts of omission of the Crown. 
There were terrible events that took place between Māori and Moriori, and Māori and Māori. We hear this in every Treaty settlement, but it's captured—it's captured. This is the history of the Moriori people. It has been painstakingly—every word of the deed of settlement, the historical account, and likewise—reflected in the bill. Every word, every phrase, is the history of their people, which has now been recorded for all time through this settlement, which marks this new era of a Treaty relationship with the Crown. 
So I want to acknowledge the Moriori people. I want to acknowledge the many years that have taken place in this long, long journey. I think of all of those that have passed on who were part of the journey in this recent time. Yes, this day is a day of remembrance. We must remember all those that have played a part, a significant part.
I'm very privileged: a big part of this settlement and of the terrible wrongdoings that were committed against the Moriori people was about the portrayal or the stigmatisation of the Moriori people, but I never ever encountered that. I'm so fortunate. I'm so fortunate that since I was a young lad, I have had nothing but the most awe-inspiring images of the Moriori people. I've gotten to know the people and gotten to spend time on Rēkohu as a young child, and, indeed, as I've grown up through life, I've had the privilege to be able to be engaged in various activities, mostly iwi-to-iwi activities, with the Moriori. So I have had just wonderful memories. 
My first memory of Moriori, I do believe, was a TV show. It was like a documentary, and it was Māui Solomon and his brothers. They were, I think, dressed in nothing but a loincloth, and they were clambering over the rocks on Manukau, I believe. They were finding these turtle-sized pāuas, and they were eating those pāuas and chewing on those pāuas, and then they were handing it on, and I was just absolutely bedazzled by these Moriori warriors. I thought, "Wow, that's amazing." They were able to eat raw pāua off the rock, and so that inspired me. 
I was so fortunate that just a couple of years after that, I was able to go to the Chatham Islands to celebrate the unveiling of the statue of Tommy Solomon, the tupuna of Māui and his whānau. It's still standing there beautifully, the statue there, and that really marked the renaissance of the Moriori people. That momentum has just continued over the years, when I think back to the efforts of Māui in fisheries negotiations for the Moriori imi right through to the establishment of their beautiful marae, Te Kopinga Marae, through to the acquisitions of significant assets on the island which they have required to build up their commercial base, and through to, now, the completion of this settlement. It's been a very action-packed past 35-plus years—close to 40 years—of this particular journey, and so this is a real milestone for Moriori.
I think of the relationships that we have, and I know I've mentioned that in previous speeches, but I have a fond memory. It's such a long journey, these Treaty settlements, but I remember I was in the Wellington Airport, and Tom Lanauze and a dear kuia that was with him, who were on the negotiating team, were holding some consultation hui, I believe, with Moriori whānau. It was just wonderful to see them. So we got talking and, as all good Ngāi Tahu whanaunga do, I gifted them a bucket of muttonbirds, much to Tom's joy.
Hon Simon Bridges: Is that legal? That doesn't sound legal.
RINO TIRIKATENE: I've always got muttonbirds handy, always at the ready, as the member for Te Tai Tonga. I gifted the bucket of prized muttonbirds that we have down in the South to Tom Lanauze and this dear kuia, and they were very much appreciative, because I recognise and we recognise, as Māori, the importance of the mahi that they were doing. It's so important, and it was that expression of just goodwill and whanaungatanga that we have for our relations on Rēkohu.
So we have been involved in so many things over the years, and this is a really important marker. I want to acknowledge all those that have been involved in this settlement on both sides: te imi Moriori and, obviously, the Crown: Dame Fran Wilde and all her team, all the officials. There's more to come—there is more to come—because we know there are some shared settlements that are yet to be coming through for Wharekauri Rēkohu, and I'm really looking forward that we can once again, as a House, come together to acknowledge those shared settlements that will also be given effect to by legislation between Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri.
So there is much to celebrate and, just in closing, I want to acknowledge the waiata that the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Tāmati Coffey, played for the House. That is a first—that is a first. He might have set a trend. We'll be coming out with the old boom boxes and letting it rip. But I do want to acknowledge that beautiful waiata because I think it just captured, in the beautiful ambiance, in the wairua, of that waiata—we could feel the wairua of the Moriori people coming through, from their own uri singing forth their beautiful waiata, which was, no doubt, composed by their rangatahi. 
So that is what we want to base this celebration day on: the future for their rangatahi, the future for Moriori imi. I congratulate them all. Me rongo, me rongo, kia ora mai anō tātou katoa. 
[In peace, in peace, thank you one and all.]





Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Oh, this has been a great debate. We've had music from Tāmati Coffey, and I'm not sure that was within the rules, to be honest, but it seemed culturally inappropriate to stop it. I'm just going to say to Tāmati Coffey, don't go doing that with Snoop Dogg. You know, it's probably not the right thing to do, but it was good. 
I also very much enjoyed what I heard from Rino Tirikatene there. I loved that image of him gorging on the pāua. He really got into it with his hands—you could almost taste those pāua when he was telling that story, and then the buckets of muttonbirds. I'm not sure: is there a limit on those muttonbirds? Is that like undersized crays that he's been getting? "Pretty legal", as Steven Joyce used to say, I think is the expression there. 
It was a great speech, from a great member of Parliament. I think that the member Rino Tirikatene, who's just sat down, along with Mr Eagle, are actually like co - local members of Parliament for the area—is that all right, Mr Eagle?—because Rino Tirikatene, of course, is MP for that whole area. So it's good to hear from him, and also from Mr Eagle, I'm sure. I think he's limbering up to give a speech on this. 
I spoke about him in my last speech in this House on this, and, like Rino Tirikatene, he's a fine local member of Parliament. He doesn't know this, but when he's Mayor of Wellington, I'm actually—from a hundred yards, we look very similar. So when there's like protests—[Interruption] No, not you; you too, actually—you too. One of us is a little smaller, but we won't go there—it's all that pāua you've been eating. I digress. 
Hon Member: Back to the bill. 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, no, the bill's coming—the bill's coming. At a hundred yards, we look the same, so when those Extinction Rebellion protesters are coming for you, I will insert myself and they will think that it's me—they will think that I am you, that is, and I will keep you safe. 
It's been really good to speak on this bill at each stage. I haven't been on the committee, but in a sense one doesn't need to to get a sense of the flavour of the law and to read it and get a sense of what it's all about. You know, all jokes aside about some of the members in the Parliament who have played us music and told us tales, this is, I think, a nice part, if I can say that. It's a good part of the House. 
These bills are non-contentious. We're not bickering about them, as the House does on a number of laws. We come in agreement to settle and provide redress for past injustices, and here we have a situation where for the Moriori people, we are righting gross historical injustices, and I'm not going to retell those. We've spoken about them at length now in this House at various readings of this bill, but they are there, and so the redress that is provided by the Crown in terms of apology redress, cultural redress, and financial redress—I think it's around circa $17 million to $18 million worth—is token. It doesn't, in fact, accommodate what has happened. It's not like for like—not apples for apples, if you can put it that way—but, nevertheless, it is some redress.
I think one theme that's come through in the discussion in the first, second, and third readings of this bill is that one of the greatest injustices here has been one that in a sense—I'm 45. I know the members opposite find that hard to believe. Not a lot of grey hairs—a full head of hair that I have. But even a young buck like myself can remember when growing up that the Moriori people had myths and stigma around them. I can sort of remember, bluntly, that they were the ones that had been made extinct, even though that wasn't actually the truth. There was a sense of—and I'd say this in quotes; it's not what I believe now and it's certainly not what I know to be true with the passage of this law and the historical record that is encapsulated in this law—"inferiority" there. 
So we, in this law, put that right. In doing so, we are in a sense righting the worst, or one of the worst, injustices that have happened to Moriori people—those myths, those stigmas, that were untrue and that were perpetrated by many, including the Crown. For the Crown, it wasn't simply what was done, although there were injustices done in the Māori Land Court—or the Native Land Court, I think it was at that time—but also in what was not done: what was taught and what was not taught in our classrooms. So we in our way, in this law, put it to rights. 
It's sad, I want to say—and I appreciate it's probably because of COVID and restrictions; I presume that's right—that the Moriori people aren't here today to be here for the third sum-up. Well, I'll put that right if I see them in the gallery—
Hon Member: Next door.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Oh, they're next door—I see. We won't hear the waiata in this House, at least, and I always enjoy that. It's a fitting endnote, if you like, to these sorts of bills. 
National, when it comes to the Treaty process, I think's got a proud heritage—a whakapapa, if you like—on these bills. We started it, and I simply say that to say, you know, we may not get the votes in this area, but we are part of the heritage, the whakapapa, the mahi, when it comes to the Treaty settlement process, and that is important, I think.
So, with those remarks, it's good to have been part of this journey in a small way at the first, second, and third readings. I am gratified that we are, in a sense, in some tokenistic ways, righting the wrongs that have been perpetrated on the Moriori people from those Chatham Islands out to the east of where we are here in Wellington. As I say, it's a pleasure and a privilege.





PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. What a pleasure it is to be the final speaker on this, the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill. There is a sense of excitement in here, as there always is when we talk about Rēkohu / the Chatham Islands / Wharekauri, and what excites me most is that, finally, I am getting every single member in this House excited about a small part of the Rongotai electorate but also of Te Tai Tonga, where Rino Tirikatene and myself represent the good people of Rēkohu. I want to just acknowledge that despite this excitement, there is pain, and can I acknowledge all those who identify as Moriori and those who are about to go on their journey to identify themselves and say, "Hey, I too am Moriori in the karāpuna and all of those who have gone before."
I want to just also acknowledge everyone involved, as the last speaker. There have been many. I say I'm privileged for a good reason, because in the Banquet Hall there is a small part of the Moriori community here—not everybody. I had hoped to look around the green leather seats up top and see it full, and I'm sure, though, that they too would have liked that as well. But we have the Moriori negotiating team. It's not all members, but we have, of course, Māui Solomon, who has been mentioned in many a speech. It's been his life's work, backed up strongly by others who have been part of that negotiating team on both sides. Tom Lanauze isn't here, as is the claims manager Susan Thorpe, but I did see Grace LeGros there, I saw Paul Solomon there, and I saw the back-up team who have been with them all the way.
These settlements are no easy feats, and Māui reminds us of that when he speaks. He outlines the pain, as it's taken so long. I've got a document here that outlined the deed of settlement signing ceremony, which I was privileged to attend back in February of 2020 at Kopinga. 
On the Crown side, Dame Fran Wilde is there with the team from Te Arawhiti, and I mention them because, as we know, these things take a long time. They take perseverance, and so they are part of the process, too. I want to acknowledge those Ministers who have been here before, like Dame Annette King; the Hon Chris Finlayson, who helped and who was the former Treaty negotiations Minister; and, of course, our own Hon Andrew Little, who has led this through to its completion. 
Some of you may not know that there are others on the island who have played a key role. We've heard about Alfred "Bunty" Preece—the late Bunty—but also Alfred Preece, a former mayor; the current mayor, Monique Croon; and the Chatham Islands Council. There have been many leaders, many people on-island, and it was great to see the new members of the Hokotehi Moriori Trust. They will become the entity that takes this forward, and that's why I'm most privileged. 
Often, I get the honour of going across to the Chatham Islands / Rēkohu, and I'm reminded how warm they are to receive me. Every trip has meant some new experience. What I most enjoy is when I get to visit the primary schools. They have three. One of those, and the biggest, is Te One School, and I'm constantly enlightened by their demands. They are small but important. One child, Brodie, who's now a little bit bigger and is boarding at St Bede's, said to me once, "If you could do one thing, Mr Parliamentary Member, that's bring me a peanut slab.", and so my trips there have been to bring some mainland food of goodness to them. Whilst we're outside the gifting season, and the Kilbirnie KFC doesn't quite cut it, it does remind me how the little things really matter. For me, the little things that come back to me are the fact that they in some way have, I guess, a trilingual experience—English, Moriori, and Māori—and they've got the most fascinating school song. But that is for another day.
But I extend that warmth to the experiences that people on the Chathams open their doors to me. They educate me a little bit more. I might get two different stories, but what I do generally get is that this is the feeling of Moriori people and this is what happened, and this is why this is so important. So, today, we are capturing everything we can through this settlement, but can I just say to you that there is so much more. That's the excitement I talked about when I stood up and I heard several people say, "Look, something that's not seen is their commitment to many things, and one of those things is the environment." Right now, on-island, there is a project called Recloaking Rēkohu. That's their commitment to looking after what we've often seen, and that's the kopi tree art. For those that get the privilege of going to Hāpūpū reserve there, there's no longer those trees where the art is, and that's happened during my short time as the member. 
They're big into tree planting. One of the things I most enjoyed when I took over representatives from Trees That Count, the Project Crimson Trust, and I saw the enthusiasm that members had in terms of planting trees, regenerating the land, and making sure it was sustainable for the future, not to mention—and, dear I say it, one of my favourite people there is Loretta Lanauze. She's actually the chef, Mr Bridges. So she's the chef at Kopinga Marae, cooking up to fine perfection, in true Moriori style, the pāua, the crayfish, and the many other delights that some members here have experienced. 
My point there is they are on that journey already. Settlement in approval stages or not, they've started, they are moving, and they are doing a good job, and every week there is someone from Rēkohu needing some help—just like any other constituent for those of us who are electorate MPs—who comes through the office, and we have dedicated resource and communication lines into the island. There's only 12 phone lines and the internet's not too flash, but any day now the first mobile phone call will be made, and I'm hoping the Hon David Clark will take that call with Her Worship, the mayor there—
Hon Simon Bridges: No, he'll be mountain biking.
PAUL EAGLE: —and just show that we are moving. There could be a cycleway trail too, but that's for another day.
But those hui at Kopinga are about ta rē Moriori, the language revitalisation. They hui often at that marae, and this is all part of their revitalisation, in a sense, for all Moriori people: having a place, a tūrangawaewae, that they can call home. So when people do return home, there is a whare, Loretta's cooked the warm, healthy kai for them, and they have history being told. We saw Tamati Coffey give a wee snippet, and I bet you Heather Beaton has been working hard there on the app and Spotify to make sure, using technology, to truly transmit, literally, their language, their values, and what makes Moriori strong.
Can I say, I know the next stages for them are going to be in ensuring that the governance of the island truly reflects the partnership with both Moriori and Māori. I know that our governance review being led by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and the Hon Jan Tinetti will allow them to truly be in a position to make decisions for the future of Rēkohu, Rangihaute, and the other islands that make up the Chatham Islands group for ever and ever. 
As I bring this speech to an end, can I finish just by saying thank you to the Māori Affairs Committee for shepherding this report through. I know it was a truly significant experience for many, and, as I said at the start, I'm hoping every single member now understands a little bit more when they hear about the Moriori / Chatham Islands / Wharekauri. Kia ora.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.





DRUG AND SUBSTANCE CHECKING LEGISLATION BILL (NO 2)
Third Reading
Debate resumed from 18 November.
Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. "Days without sleep, hallucinating, vomiting and extreme paranoia is not what festival-goers were expecting when they consumed MDMA over the summer." So this is the beginning of a Newshub story that was released earlier this year, and it talked about the experiences of festival goers over summer. It was a summer that KnowYourStuff found that 68 percent of samples that they were testing at events weren't what the person submitting the sample thought they were.
Often when we think about drug testing, we think about the people that are submitting their substances to be checked, but I also think we need to step back and think also about those working in the emergency services, so those in the A & E departments and those in our ambulances. Often what they're confronted by is a young person who has consumed a substance and this young person themselves isn't sure what they've taken. So in that context, obviously, if you've had a substance checked, then the person will know, but often they don't. So what's incredibly useful is also to have some understanding of the underlying statistics and the information from previous tests from other people attending festivals in similar areas about what some of those unexpected substances might be, because part of treating and assessing a young person is knowing what that substance was because that determines the next steps for management.
So for me, it's a real pleasure to speak on this third and final reading of this bill, because what it will mean is that, again, this summer, those drug checking services can operate with legal certainty. I think drug checking is about harm reduction, and I think some of the changes that the Health Committee made have made this a much stronger bill. I think one of them was making sure that not only do people get their substances checked, but they also will consistently now have access to quality harm reduction advice about the substance that they have had tested.
So just summing up, again, that the select committee had 56 written submissions and we heard 11 oral submissions. Some of those submissions did make a difference in terms of some of the changes that we've made. One of them that was pointed out and where we did recommend change was making harm reduction advice mandatory because, basically, as I was saying, it's not just about the physical testing of the substance; it's about that harm reduction advice that's going to go along with it. Because, while KnowYourStuff suggests that a high proportion of young people who find that the substance they've got isn't what they thought it was do choose not to take that substance, a small number do still go on and take the substance. In that context, also making sure there's advice around having support around you, about making sure that alcohol is not used, and about other substances not used in a non-judgmental way is really, really important.
So, basically, when the bill was introduced, 35DB stated that "The functions of a service provider [were] to do 1 or more of the following:", and providing information about harm reduction advice was only "1 or more of the following." What that meant was that it wasn't mandatory and so you could potentially have some people that were setting up as drug and substance checking services who would test the substance, but then, theoretically, not provide any advice, and, actually, it's probably the advice that's the most crucial part of this. So, basically, what we felt as a committee was that following testing, such advice should be mandatory and we added a new section recommending a new 35DDF to that effect. But it was also noted that if, despite the best efforts, that the person said, "No, I don't want to receive that advice.", then that was also respected. So it wasn't that you had to continue giving advice if it was unwelcome, but certainly making sure that that advice was available.
We've made another number of changes that were recommended, and I think two of those were around the use of personal information and collecting that and also about the admissibility of test results in court proceedings. Because, when the bill was introduced, basically, the idea was that you couldn't use those test results in terms of criminal proceedings because you didn't want to discourage people from using those services. However, basically, it didn't cover civil cases and it didn't cover the fact you used the testing services and so we've made some recommended changes to make sure that those are covered so people have that sense that they can use that without legal consequence and there'll be confidentiality. So this is a really important bill, and I'm really happy to commend this bill to the House.





Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): You know, the member who has just sat down and spoken—
Hon Chris Hipkins: I just said, "I came down just for this."
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, you're only human. The member that has just taken her seat, Dr Liz Craig, she started her contribution by saying, "Well, you know, someone who has taken a pill, they'll be sleepless, they will be sweating, there will be paranoia." You know, I can agree with the member quite readily. Those are negative effects, and we would want to do something about that. But the problem is, I can't understand from the member's speech how on earth this bill does a single thing that stops those things. Because the reality is, basically, when we're thinking about this bill, it's the MDMA. It's the actual, main substance of the pill that is causing those effects. It's not the additive or what have you that the politically correct pill testers are going to be testing for that's causing those things. So when that side of the House pats themselves on the back because they say, "Well, we've fixed things here, and everything's going to be OK now. Hallelujah. We've passed this law on pill testing and we've slipped in a few things along the way that do a lot more than we said it would, by the way.", actually, I say, and the National Party says, tragically, they're not actually solving very much at all.
So it won't surprise you, and it's been our position, both on the temporary regime and now on this one, that we oppose this law. It's well intentioned. I think the member that's just sat down—you know, she's a medical doctor. I know other members on the other side of the House, they're well intentioned about this, but I say that, look, it's not going to achieve the sort of things that they say it will. In fact, it could be that it does quite the reverse.
So I just want to—I don't think I'll take the full 10 minutes. I do, though, want to recap on some of the arguments that have been made. The first argument, I think, that we hear so loud and clear from the public health lobby, from Andrew Little, and from the Labour Party, is that this is all evidence-based. Well, the only study—I keep asking Chlöe Swarbrick. I kept asking Andrew Little. I kept asking other members on the other side of the House for their studies, the evidence base that they relied on. The only Kiwi study they could rely on—by the way, they never referred to anything else from around the world that I could see, not a specific study. The only study they could rely on was a Victoria one. By the way, it was self-selecting. It was a sample. It wasn't within cooee of being what I would consider a proper evidence-based, scientifically selected study of what is happening in New Zealand. It was self-selected. It was a sample.
The reality of it is this: testing increases usage. You're testing, you're giving people a sense of confidence—I believe false confidence—therefore, usage goes up. What we have seen from actual studies on the ground in Australia and the United Kingdom—I believe in the United States; I'm not quite so familiar with the United States—is that, actually, fatalities have gone up, because I say again, it's not the additives that are being tested for that kill. So it's a false confidence in this bill that we are giving.
Actually, the only message that really stops fatalities is that no pill is safe. There's no such thing as a safe ecstasy or a safe dose of some of the other drugs that may in time be able to be tested. That's, in effect, what the coroner has said very recently. I acknowledge in the case for the coroner in the last month or so it was ecstasy and water, but they nevertheless made the point: actually, this isn't safe. That's a message that needs to get out there, because it's a popular drug, and people think, certainly, with the kind of kaupapa they're getting in this House from the other side that it's all OK, and it's not.
The member opposite, before she sat down, said, "Well, but there'll be all this wonderful advice from the pill testing stations." What a load of nonsense. It'll be politically correct, a kind of a spiel that does not make clear that actually no pill is safe. It'll be "It's been tested. It doesn't have any of these other greeblies in it. Here you go. Go on your way, son. Go on your way." That is not enough assurance, it seems to me, for young New Zealanders.
The other thing, and the thing I'd say to David Seymour is this—because ACT is doing a good job at the moment, and I say, "Good on them." They're cornering the market at a level in politics. They are doing a good job of being urban wokester and Groundswell, right? But I say quite clearly to the ACT Party: actually, when it comes to this bill—when it comes to this bill—actually, the people of Groundswell, they don't want to have to pay for other people to have their pills testing, which is exactly what Andrew Little has done. He started this bill; it was just at festivals. Then it became pill testing everywhere. Then it became that the taxpayer's paying for it. I say to ACT: actually, if it really was the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers, it would stand up for taxpayers and say, "You know what? You don't take drugs; you don't have to pay for other people to do so either." Because I reckon—
David Seymour: Maybe farmers go to festivals.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, there'd be the odd one, but actually, I say to him, he can't be Chlöe Swarbrick and the farmer down the road. At the moment, that's what David Seymour, with respect, is trying to be. He's trying to be Herne Bay and Invercargill. I think, actually, as he gets close to the election, he's going to find that difficult to do.
So I say drugs aren't just a health issue. Yes, they are a health issue, but they're also—and I think, frankly, we're the only party in this Parliament that knows this—a criminal justice issue, because of the harm they cause, the misery they cause. It is not a victimless crime, as some would have you believe. The referendum on cannabis that we saw at the last election made that quite clear, actually. That's how New Zealanders see it as well.
David Seymour: Why doesn't Simon want to be popular everywhere?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, it's all relative.
David Seymour: Why can't you be popular in Herne Bay and Invercargill?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, Mr Seymour probably can, for a time, right? Until he's in Government—for a time. But I think it's hard to do that. I say once more before we sit down that, actually, one of the big problems with this bill has been that for the Government and Andrew Little in particular, when he first came to this House, he said it would just be for festivals. It then grew and it was pill testing everywhere that we're legalising. It then became that actually not only are we testing the pills but the taxpayer is going to pay for it everywhere. I just say—actually, National is the only party that does in this House—that's not right. That is not a good use of taxpayers' money. Actually, the evidence base isn't behind this bill. This is more than just a health issue. No pill is safe.





Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's been a long time since I've had an opportunity to be in the House—a long time to take a call—so it's great to be here and I say, "Kia ora koutou" and also "Talofa lava" to all my parliamentary colleagues. During the lockdown, it's not like we were doing nothing in the community. I know a lot of our Aucklanders and South Aucklanders were doing the hard job of getting our vaccination rates up, and there was the opportunity for myself to volunteer at the testing sites or vax sites, and also managed isolation and quarantine as well, doing our part in that mahi.
To be the last speaker on this bill, the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2), in the third reading, it's an opportunity to also wrap up as I wasn't here during the second reading and also the committee of the whole House, but also just to acknowledge all the work that's been put into this bill.
The submissions from our community, and organisations—it was great to hear from St John as well, and the awesome work they do, and also their wanting to include this as part of their service as well. To the clerks and officials who went back and forth, and also to our colleagues across the House on the Health Committee—yes, we know that only one party does not support this bill—but also, I guess, the work done to make sure that this bill was up to standard, and that's why we did not see any changes to the bill at the committee of the whole House.
One of the things I want to point out is we're always looking for a pathway or a place where we can intervene when it comes to harm reduction, and this is one place where we can ensure that there is that pathway, and where there is a bit of innovation to do so, because, like my select committee chair, Dr Liz Craig, has mentioned, the advice that you give can be very useful in terms of engaging. So that's why I support this bill to the House.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.
Ayes 87
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 33
New Zealand National 33.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.





URGENCY
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the passing through all stages of the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill and the Taxation (COVID-19 Support Payments and Working for Families Tax Credits) Bill; the first reading and referral to select committee of: the Māori Purposes Bill; and the third readings of the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the Education and Training Amendment Bill; the second reading of the Maritime Powers Bill; and the committee stages of the Commerce Amendment Bill and Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill.
The Government's priority in this urgency motion is to pass the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill and the Taxation (COVID-19 Support Payments and Working for Families Tax Credits) Bill. The first bill allows for the traffic light framework to be put in place, including the requirements around vaccination certificates. The second bill increases the level of support available to businesses and to individuals and families as we move into the next phase of our COVID-19 response, hence there is genuine urgency around getting both of those pieces of legislation passed through the House.
It is the Government's intention that, if both of those pieces of legislation have been completed by 1 p.m. tomorrow, that urgency would end and then we would have question time and general debate and member's day tomorrow. In the event that those pieces of legislation have not completed their passage at that point, the Government wants to make sure that the House doesn't find itself in a position where it runs out of business part-way through what would normally be the sitting hours tomorrow. Hence those additional items of business have been added to the motion in order to make sure the House can continue to make the most efficient use of its time. In the event that those first two bills do proceed past 1 p.m. tomorrow, it is our intention that, if they have completed their passage by 10 p.m. tomorrow night, that we would finish the House sitting at the normal time of 10 p.m. tomorrow night. In the event that those two bills have not passed, we would continue on until midnight and come back on Thursday morning under the urgency motion. But, as I've indicated before, the other items of business have only been included in the urgency motion to ensure that the House doesn't run out of business in the event that the urgency is not completed by 1 p.m. tomorrow.





A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.
Ayes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10. 
Noes 45
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Motion agreed to.





COVID-19 RESPONSE (VACCINATIONS) LEGISLATION BILL
First Reading
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I present a legislative statement on the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I move, That the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill be now read a first time. 
New Zealand's preparing to move to the next phase of our response in the fight against COVID-19, a global pandemic that has confronted the world and presented a series of challenges around the globe that are unprecedented in our lifetimes in terms of the public health response that has been required. The next phase of our response here in New Zealand focuses on the framework that allows for much greater freedom due to the success of our roll-out of the vaccination. The vaccination programme is the greatest public health tool that we have now in our fight against COVID-19, and it is the most effective way for us to open up the country again safely, without the need to resort to the restrictions we've had in the past. 
It is worth, at this point, very briefly recapping where we found ourselves just under two years ago as we were grappling with the onset of the global pandemic. There was no vaccine. There were very few treatments available that had been proven to be effective, and therefore the best way of keeping New Zealanders safe was to stamp COVID-19 out completely and to keep it out of the country. And that has been our focus for most of the last year and a half since we found ourselves in that first position.
The vaccine roll-out has changed things. The arrival of Delta, the new variant that has proven to be almost impossible to stamp out in every country that has experienced an outbreak of Delta, has also changed things. And so now we enter into the next phase. So this bill clarifies the framework for the management of COVID-19 in our community—and we have to accept the reality that COVID-19 is here in the community to stay. 
The bill includes the ability to make orders that differentiate between people who are vaccinated against COVID-19 and people who aren't, and so to achieve that, the bill amends the order-making provisions in the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. The orders that will be made will provide for the issue of COVID-19 protection certificates to use within New Zealand, which will be known as My Vaccine Pass. It'll allow us to specify the information required in the process for people to get a vaccine pass. It will prohibit people from entering certain places if they're not vaccinated or exempted from vaccination—i.e., if they don't have a vaccine pass. It will specify that proof of vaccination can't be required for accessing certain life-preserving services—so the ability to go to the supermarket, to go to the pharmacy, to access core educational services, compulsory education services, to access health and disability services, or Work and Income support. We will be preventing people from requiring vaccination in order to access those critical services, and we will have orders that specify the COVID-19 vaccination exemption criteria that will exist under the framework.
Provisions have been made in the bill for enforcement officers to direct the production of evidence to demonstrate compliance with an order. That's important. The bill will support our future vaccination mandates where there's a strong public interest in doing so, rather than solely for public health reasons—and this is something that employers have asked for clarity and greater certainty on for some time now, and we've been working very hard to provide them with that greater certainty. So to do this, the bill will allow for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety to make orders regarding vaccination and testing for specified work where it's in the public interest to do that. 
But vaccination is a really important tool for mitigating the risk in workplaces, and we're seeing greater demand from employers who want greater clarity about their ability to require vaccination or not, and we're also seeing a much greater demand from workers who want to see that requirements are put in place so that they know whether or not the people that they are working alongside have been vaccinated. So employers need the ability to manage the risks associated with COVID-19, and this bill goes a great deal of the way to giving them the certainty that they are looking for. 
It will assist employers to decide whether they should require vaccination for their workers. The bill provides the framework for an assessment tool that will help them conduct individual assessments for their businesses and their circumstances to determine whether vaccination is warranted for the work that is being done. The tool will be prescribed further in the regulations and we will have those in place as soon as we can. 
The bill amends the Employment Relations Act. It provides important certainty for employees in situations where their work could end up terminated because they have not been vaccinated, and they have made the decision that they don't want to be vaccinated but where a vaccination requirement for their workplace is in place. So the changes to the Employment Relations Act clarify the requirement for a paid four-week notice period in these situations if employees aren't vaccinated. If they get vaccinated before the end of the notice period, the termination notice is cancelled, unless it would unreasonably disrupt the employer's business—and we had a conversation about that in question time today. 
These amendments also seek to support employees to be vaccinated by providing reasonable paid time off for the purpose of being vaccinated. That will apply to all COVID-19 vaccination rounds, including future booster doses of the vaccine, and that'll help to increase our vaccination rates amongst people in less flexible working conditions or working in less flexible workplaces so that they can make sure that they can get vaccinated if they can't get vaccinated outside of the work hours.
Cumulatively, these amendments create the framework that we need to provide better protection for New Zealanders in a variety of different settings as we move to a less restrictive environment in the way that we are managing COVID-19. They'll bring greater freedoms to us. They will ensure that those who are vaccinated can be recognised for the extra protection that their vaccination is providing to themselves and those around them. These restrictions will help us. They are justified given the situation that the pandemic and the public health response requires. They'll help us to better manage the public health risks that are caused by those who haven't been vaccinated, because the reality is, now, the key thing to bringing greater freedoms for us all is to encourage those people to be vaccinated. 
My hope is that all eligible New Zealanders will take up the opportunity to be vaccinated, and I hope that while we disagree on many aspects of the COVID-19 response, as we have done over the course of the last year and a half, Parliament will remain unified in its very strong message, that all parties in Parliament have sent so far, that the vaccine is safe, it is effective, and everybody should make the informed choice to be vaccinated. 
So I want to acknowledge the effort of all New Zealanders in the fight against COVID-19. I want to acknowledge the 91 percent of eligible New Zealanders who have been vaccinated so far with at least one dose of the vaccine, and send an encouragement to that last 9 percent to come forward and to do that. The bill creates the new legal framework that will allow us to transition into a world that is more open, that has fewer restrictions, and that recognises that vaccination is the greatest tool that we have in the toolkit in our fight against COVID-19. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is set the motion be agreed to.





CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I want to start by echoing the comments of the Minister, the Hon Chris Hipkins, in relation to vaccination: COVID is here. It is not going away. This summer, Delta will spread throughout New Zealand, and I encourage everyone listening to go and get vaccinated. This pandemic is a pandemic now of the unvaccinated and Delta will find you if you are unvaccinated. And if you doubt that, just have a look at who is in hospital. Overwhelmingly, they are the unvaccinated. So we support strongly the idea that people should get vaccinated, but we do not support this bill, and I want to explain why that is.
The first thing I want to do is to examine what the Minister made mention of in his speech in relation to the Government's response in the last six months. Because there has been an assumption, I believe, by the Government that the elimination strategy would continue forever. The evidence for that is littered throughout the Government's response this year. There was no backup plan, and that is why we now come to the traffic light framework developed on the fly and scrambling. And if you doubt that that is the case, I invite you to read the departmental disclosure statement, which makes it very clear that there has been very little consultation, very little analysis, and very little work done in advance of this. In fact, the drafting instructions for this bill were only issued on 27 October, five days after the actual framework was announced. And now we find it's not going to a select committee. In fact, it will be law sometime this week. 
Again, if you doubt that this has been developed in a rush, I point you to the legal advice given to the Attorney-General for the consistency of the bill under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I quote, "This advice has been prepared in an extremely short time frame due to late receipt of the bill that was not in compliance with Cabinet Office Guidance." I'll tell you what that guidance was. The guidance says "All bills or all policy proposals that go to Cabinet have to have a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act." Guess what? The traffic light framework when it went to Cabinet on the Monday preceding the Friday announcement had had no such analysis done on it by the Ministry of Justice officials. How disgraceful. And if you doubt that this bill has New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications, just read the legal advice, because it impacts at least eight, and you could probably think of more.
So this has been developed in a rush and it reflects a Government that was in denial about the potential failure of elimination. They had no backup plan—they had no backup plan. And I point you to the fact that the official Government documents released to me and to others under the Official Information Act show that the Government only started doing the planning for Delta when Delta arrived—the start of August. They didn't do the specific managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) upgrades until after Delta had escaped. They only established the COVID-19 Testing Technical Advisory Group in August. That's the group that said, "We're too late on saliva testing. We're too late on rapid testing. We're behind the eight ball."; and the vaccine certificates that are the subject of this bill, Cabinet only authorised their development in July, and they only signed the contract with the IT provider a month ago on 13 October. It has been obvious to any reasonable, fair-minded observer for the better part of this year that we would need vaccine proof, we would need a form of vaccine pass. But the Government was on the go slow on it, only approved the work in July, only signed the contract in October.
The Government had to scramble on mandates. I remember sitting here in the Estimates in September saying to Chris Hipkins, I specifically asked him, "Is the Government considering mandates for teachers?" Because every other country, or many other countries, were doing exactly that in response to Delta. And he stood up and said, "We're not considering that right now." That was literally just over two months ago, and then a month later, the Government had to quickly scramble on vaccine mandates for teachers—
Barbara Kuriger: Making it up as they go.
CHRIS BISHOP: Caused enormous unease and anger in the sector. Exactly—and my colleague Barbara Kuriger says they're making it up as they go, and that is precisely the point. Because there was no back-up plan, we have had to scramble in response to Delta, and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Why is it, 18 months into a global pandemic, that there are fewer ICU beds now than there were in April 2020? Why is that the case? When I explain that to people, they literally say, "Well, that can't be true." People cannot believe it. They say, "Well, that can't be correct. The Government's borrowed all this money, they've borrowed $50 billion for the COVID fund.", and I say, "Yeah, but the official numbers don't lie. There are fewer resourced ICU beds now in November 2021 than they were in April 2020." How remarkable is that? Only Labour could borrow $50 billion and end up with fewer ICU beds. Only the Labour Party could do that. It's just unbelievable.
This bill has some useful elements to it, and my colleague Scott Simpson, our workplace relations spokesperson, will talk about the vaccination assessment tool when it comes to business, because we acknowledge that business wants certainty and clarity when it comes to how to apply vaccine mandates in the private sector. But, generally, this has gone through a repugnant process. You just have to read the departmental disclosure statement. Some of these comments are absolutely laughable: has any further impact analysis become available for any impacts of the policy? No. For the policy to be given effect by this bill, is there any analysis available on the size of the potential costs and benefits? No. The potential for any group of persons to suffer a substantial, unavoidable loss of income? No. For the policy to be given effect, are the potential costs and benefits likely be impacted by the level of effective compliance or non-compliance with obligations or standards? No. All of these things are deeply contestable, and it's just unbelievable the level of work that has—or actually in relation to this, has not—gone in.
This bill is so shoddily done that the legislative purpose statement says it will require vaccination where the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries has determined this is necessary. It's not even in the bill. It's literally not in the bill. The legislative statement that the Minister has tabled makes reference to the minute the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries—it's not in the bill. There is no reference, as far as I can see, unless I'm looking at an old copy of the bill, that that is the case. This has been done as a rush job. It has been done in a very, very poor manner.
In relation to some of the substantive items that we object to—and there will be many opportunities to get into many other substantive aspects during the committee of the whole House stage, a lot of questions that the Government will have to answer. The Opposition does not object to the concept of vaccination certificates. In fact, we've been calling for them since February. The question is this: should it be the Government that goes around and says to private businesses in hospitality or hairdressing or retail or whatever that you must do the following things, or should it be individual enterprises and individual businesses and individual people who make up their minds? That should be the starting point for any proper analysis of rights and benefits in a free society.
We say, on this side of the House, that private property and free enterprise should be the guiding principles behind which we examine any legislative proposal. It should be over to individuals to decide for themselves. So it may well be that a bar decides that they only want to allow fully vaccinated individuals into their bar. If I was running a bar, I might well consider that. But that is very different to the Government saying that they have to do that. If I'm an individual and I choose not to be vaccinated—and regrettably, there are some people out there who have made the decision not to be vaccinated. I think they're wrong, but that's over to them, and at some level they will bear the consequences of that decision. If I choose not to be vaccinated, then it's over to me to choose how my interaction exists with the rest of the world. If I find I can't go to a bar or a restaurant because they only allow vaccinated patrons, then I will bear the consequences of that in the same way I will bear the health costs. That should be the starting point, not this massive legislative overreach which is the Government's shoddy proposal.





Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Over the last 18 months, New Zealand's COVID response has resulted in some of the lowest hospitalisation and mortality rates in the world, but the issue we've got now is that our vaccine roll-out has got to a point where we can transition to a framework which allows us to benefit from some of the individual protections that vaccine offers. Just based down in Invercargill, what I'd like to acknowledge is the 93 percent of eligible Southerners who have received at least one dose of the vaccine, and the 85 percent who are now fully vaccinated, because that incredible effort will significantly reduce the risk to our community of COVID-19 and also serve to protect our health service capacity. But, building on the success of that, what this bill does is allow us to introduce a protection framework that will allow us to use the benefits of vaccination.
I'd just like to talk briefly about what the bill allows us to do, and the first thing is create orders that will provide for the issue of COVID-19 vaccination certificates and allow those certificates to be used for entry into businesses and events. Basically, those orders specify how you apply for a vaccine certificate, how they'll be issued, renewed, and extended. But another thing we need to make sure and point out is that it's important to note that the orders will also specify that proof of vaccination won't be required for certain premises, and that's to make sure that people can still continue, irrespective of their vaccination status, to access essential services like supermarkets, pharmacies, Work and Income services—so, basically, it's really important to have that in place. Also, the director-general can make notices specifying what the exemption criteria are so people have got clarity around that, and we're also making sure that there are protections for people's privacy, and a number of those elements have been built into this bill. So this is a significant bill, and I'm very happy to commend it to the House.





Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Here we are, just 10 days out from the implementation of the provisions that this bill seeks to create, debating under urgency a bill that was supplied to the Opposition less than 24 hours ago—a bill that will have no scrutiny at a select committee and no input from stakeholders, and there will be no opportunity for members of the public, vaccinated or unvaccinated, to have a say. People are therefore right to ask, "What is this Government doing? What have they been doing for the last 18 months? Where was their planning?"
Barbara Kuriger: Not much.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: "Not much" my colleague Barbara Kuriger says, "Not much" she says, and she's right, because they've been asleep at the wheel.
I want to start my contribution on this first reading of this bill under urgency in much the same way that my colleague Chris Bishop did, by reconfirming that, on this side of the House, we support vaccination. We encourage New Zealanders to be vaccinated, to be double vaccinated, and we understand the benefits that come not only to individuals from being vaccinated but also to us as a community and as a society. We understand that often the greater good is achieved by individual actions taken by us as individuals. But this is a bill that provides the Government with an incredibly wide-ranging tool kit of regulatory power over the lives, the workplaces, and the day-to-day activities of New Zealand citizens. And for that reason alone, it needs the scrutiny that goes beyond the short process of a bill presented to this House that is going to be passed and rammed through every single stage by the Government's use of their absolute majority.
One of the areas that I want to focus on are the impacts in relation to the workplace. Now, we understand—I think most New Zealanders understand—that businesses need certainty about issues relating to vaccinated and unvaccinated staff in their workplace, and also issues relating to what to do if they have customers or suppliers or contractors who are unvaccinated. What are those issues? This is a Government that has had more than enough opportunity over the last nearly nine months—since the vaccination programme in New Zealand commenced, albeit very late—to have got their act together and to have done some serious thinking on this issue. The Government needed only to have a cursory look at international media and debate and commentary about what was happening in other jurisdictions around the world—countries that actually started their vaccination rollout programme months and months ahead of us—to see that issues relating to the workplace were going to be a crunch point in terms of eventually rolling out a vaccine programme that was focused on managing and living with Delta in our community and in our society, rather than trying to hang on and cling to the elimination strategy that they did for as long as they did.
Now, for all sorts of reasons, Delta is in our communities. It's coming, sadly, to a home, a neighbourhood, a community, a town near us all soon. And the best option for the health and safety of not only workers but of all citizens is to be vaccinated. So issues relating to who decides and how decisions are made about employers confronting employees who choose, for whatever reason, not to be vaccinated, are primary and fundamental to the legislative and regulatory regime that a Government, a good Government, a careful, prudent, and thoughtful Government, should have put in place a long time ago. But no, we are now in a position where businesses are going to be given 10 days to get their situations sorted.
So it's been obvious now for quite a long period of time that an employer actually did have a right to exclude from the workplace non-vaccinated employees, as long as they had gone through an appropriate and detailed health and safety risk assessment. WorkSafe provided guidance for that process, and, actually, many businesses have gone down that path. I note, for instance, that The Warehouse, one of the country's large employers, has actually done that—they have developed a process using that health and safety risk assessment model and that tool. But, for many businesses, that prospect was going to be difficult and challenging in terms of the process, the formula that needed to be applied, and the dotting of i's and crossing of t's. So there is one good thing that's come out of this piece of legislation, and it is the tool that the Government's established that will give employers another option other than that formal process. Now, it's not going to be a tool that is going to be a silver bullet panacea for every single situation, but it will be of help. Businesses have been calling out for months now for some certainty, some clarity, from the Government and some clear sense of what the Government's direction was going to be. Well, finally, this morning, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, Michael Wood, did provide at least that, but it's been very slow to come. So for those that choose not to be vaccinated for whatever reason, what this bill does is actually provide an opportunity for regular testing. And I think that's not a bad idea either, but it's been a long time coming. And it's been obvious for a very long period of time that this was needed, but we've just had a big, big silence.
Now, one of the aspects that's not so good of this piece of legislation is a provision that will mean that once an employer has gone through the process—either the health and safety risk assessment process or the tool kit process that is provided for in this legislation—and a decision is made that an employee can't be redeployed into another role within the business or can't do a different type of job in maybe a different geography or a different building, or somewhere that is going to separate that person away from vaccinated either customers or other staff members, eventually, that employee can have their employment terminated. But what this bill provides for is a situation where that employee will be given, then, paid four weeks' notice—effectively gardening leave for four weeks at the expense of the employer. It's another cost, just another cost. In a year when employers have had so much to bear and such difficult trading circumstances, this Government decides that another four weeks of paid leave for an unvaccinated employee is appropriate and right. Well, I don't think that is right. I think that's wrong, and I think that's unnecessary. But then there are a whole lot of questions about what happens during that period of time.
So the process—and we'll get into this during the committee of the whole House stage of this bill and we'll ask a whole lot of questions. But what's the situation if an employee goes through all that process and then maybe resigns halfway through it? That employee then is still able to bring an action for constructive dismissal, and that will mean a long time in the courts, expense, and uncertainty for the employer. Even if the employee goes through that process and a termination ensues, this piece of legislation still means that a personal grievance claim can be brought by that employee. And that, again, means uncertainty, cost, litigation, lawyers' fees, all that sort of thing for that business. I think that's unfair. So, on the side of the House, we have said for a long time that if a business goes through that process of a health and safety risk assessment and comes to a determination that the employee, the unvaccinated employee, needs to be terminated, then that business should be protected from constructive dismissal and personal grievance litigation action. Because we think that's the fair and right thing to do. But what happens if that employee, halfway through that process—say they've had two weeks of the four weeks' paid leave—then suddenly decides to get vaccinated? Does the employer have to rehire them? Do they have to be reinstated? Will that effectively be a two-week holiday that they have just had? These are questions that the bill doesn't answer and that aren't made clear in the regulation.
So, on this side of the House, we think that businesses should be given the choice. They should be given an opportunity to make sensible, prudent business decisions not only for their unvaccinated employees, but for the employees that are vaccinated, for their customers, for their stakeholders, and for their suppliers. We think, on this side of the House, that these are issues that go to the very core and principle of free enterprise, of property rights, and of the rights of businesses to conduct business as they see fit with whom they see fit. And they will make choices about who they wish to trade with and who they don't.





Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, these amendments provide the legal framework that essentially enables better protection for New Zealanders as we simply transfer to a less restrictive response to COVID-19 and as we move towards what is a careful reopening and one that we've all worked so hard for. 
We've seen, as has been mentioned previously, the incredible efforts from all New Zealanders in the fight against COVID-19 and, in particular, the strong uptake of vaccinations across the country. And it's because of that strong uptake and the sheer number, the vast majority, of people who have chosen to protect themselves and their communities that we can progressively reopen in this safe way. So this bill assists with the implementation of the COVID-19 protection framework, the traffic light system. It provides for orders to be made that will, as the Minister has expressed earlier, differentiate between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, and it provides for the use of the vaccination certificate process in terms of affording proof of vaccination for entry into those certain places and premises. 
Vaccination, as we've said, is an increasingly important tool to mitigate risk, and it's particularly important in the workplace. Employers need the ability to manage their risk, as the previous contributor has already said, and decide for themselves whether they should require vaccination or not. So we've developed tools, risk assessment tools, which are unique to each of the types of work that are being undertaken. 
I would note, however, that the previous contributor talked about paid leave instead of notice periods and managed to mangle several basic industrial relations sort of tenets and parts of that legislation. So I would encourage people and employers to have a closer look at what's just been previously described. 
This is an important bill. I don't need to hold it up any further other than to say that I again encourage people to take up the opportunity to be vaccinated, and I commend this bill to the House.





Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green) Kia ora. I rise in support of the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill, because the Greens have stood by a strong health response, which vaccinations, of course, are a major part of. We have historically been very cautious about the use of urgency, and while we consider that this matter is urgent, a more open and transparent process would have been more effective, we think, for upholding public trust in the Government's COVID-19 response. The businesses and people responsible for rolling out much of this bill could have been available as advisers beforehand, instead of potential protesters and complainants later. In the future, we hope any future amendments and COVID bills will at least be referred to the Health Committee.
We note this bill more explicitly sets out vaccination requirements. Part of it clarifies where people can and cannot go, depending on their vaccination status. Clarity is really, really important, because this is currently in a constant state of flux, and many people are confused about what they can do. Can they hug their family? Can they go into a particular place? What happens when they can't breathe properly under a mask? It also stops people going to specific areas, places, or premises unless they comply with specific measures—that might be wearing masks, socially distancing, or using a vaccine pass to prove they have been vaccinated. Another part requires services to permit individuals to enter a place regardless of vaccination status—so that means that unvaccinated people can still access essential services, such as supermarkets and pharmacies.
So while the Greens support this vaccination effort, we're concerned that people who are not vaccinated are becoming more and more stigmatised and that they're being shut out of many other services because no alternatives have been provided so that the average person can prove they do not have the virus when they need to go shopping for their whānau. We're setting up a place where our unvaccinated are, essentially, going back into level 3 and level 4, along with many immunocompromised people.
I think there's still been insufficient time to educate people about the vaccine. Many have fallen prey to misinformation, and many are genuinely scared. We need to keep that space open for people to get that good information to make those good decisions.
So, in terms of workplace requirements, the Greens think it's really important to have good-faith processes for introducing new workplace requirements. Unfortunately, this has not been able to happen in some places in relation to mandated vaccinations in some workplaces. It's going to take some time, I think, for our workforce to recover from what is happening right now. The Greens are very clear that these requirements should not breach any other law, especially our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We note that the Minister will determine whether mandated vaccinations in a workplace is a justified limit on the freedoms guaranteed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act..
After we received a copy of this bill yesterday, we raised a concern about whether workplaces will be able to require testing as an alternative or addition to vaccination. It was confirmed that the workplace assessment tool will help workplaces decide whether vaccine or testing requirements would be reasonable in the context of that work. We hope that that workplace assessment tool is easy to use and that people have somewhere that they can ask questions about it and clarify what is the point and how it's actually going to work. We note that the person in control of a business or undertaking—a PCBU—would retain discretion on whether to use vaccine testing or vaccine exemption requirements and any other control measures along with that. This bill also covers keeping track of all that personal employee information that's wrapped up with this, and all these processes have now been added to the administrative workload of businesses and workplaces.
So our second major concern was about how that privacy will be protected when collecting the records from employees. We received confirmation that the privacy requirements in the relevant clause are stronger than the Privacy Act and that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner had been heavily involved in the form of those requirements.
So with those key concerns addressed, for now we commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of the first reading of the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill. As a lot of people here will know, there's three votes on a piece of legislation and the hope is that if you support it at the first, it will be improved and maybe as a party you can carry on supporting it further through the second and third votes. On this piece of legislation, we don't have a great deal of hope for a number of reasons that I will cover in this speech. We believe it's important that we at least give some hope and take some sort of constructive approach to a Government that most certainly needs help.
This legislation addresses some very serious needs and we have said throughout this pandemic as a party that ACT would be there to make constructive suggestions when possible, constructive criticisms where necessary, and ask the questions on behalf of New Zealanders that should be asked of this Government and its COVID response. I think that we've played an honourable role in doing that so far, and we certainly will continue to do so. When it comes to this piece of legislation, it is designed to solve a series of problems that people do actually need solved. The most obvious one is what business and employers up and down this country are facing when it comes to vaccine mandates.
I was talking to a hairdresser just yesterday who is looking forward to reopening in Auckland because there's a lot of mops to chop up in that city. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, they're very excited. But one of the additional challenges that they face as a business is that they have some employees who are unwilling to be vaccinated and others who are unwilling to work in a place where there are unvaccinated. Most of their customers want to be assured that the staff are vaccinated and the legal framework for achieving that is very challenging, because under health and safety law they have an obligation almost to ensure vaccination is in place. The Health and Safety at Work Act requires a business or a person conducting a business undertaking—a PCBU, to use the jargon—to identify what risks there are, identify what mitigations there are to reduce the risk, and if there's something they could do to reduce the risk, then they have to do it. So they sit there and say, "Well, COVID-19 is a pretty obvious risk around the world right now. Vaccinations have been shown to dramatically reduce the risk." There's a 96 percent reduction in the chance of serious illness by taking the Pfizer vaccine, according to recent research in The New England Journal of Medicine. The world's greatest medical journal says that. So you see a strong case that as a PCBU, perhaps as a hairdresser, you'd really want to make sure that you were introducing a requirement to be vaccinated in that workplace.
But, of course, businesses face other legal hurdles. They also have privacy law. It's not clear if they are able to address the issues with privacy. So that's a real problem. This legislation, in fairness, does set out the use of vaccination data and any information about vaccination that an employer might have and how they can and can't use it. So that's a big tick. It also offers to have a framework or a tool that businesses can use to work out what their real risk to each employee is of COVID so they can work out if a requirement for that person to be vaccinated is necessary to fulfil their health and safety rules. There's also a conflict between the health and safety rules and employment law, because it's possible to say that a new employee must be vaccinated—if that's your business and that's your rules, you can do that. It's a very conflicted situation for a business that wants an existing employee to be vaccinated. It's not in their employment contract, they don't necessarily have to be vaccinated to continue working. So that puts employers in a very difficult space.
This conflict between health and safety law, on the one hand, and privacy and non-discrimination in employment law, on the other, is something that ACT has been raising for a long time. On 8 October, almost two months ago, we stood up and presented our white paper on this. It actually suggested most of the things that are in this bill to resolve those problems. So we've tried to play a constructive role, and we think that it's necessary that there's legislation that allows business to solve those kinds of problems. So you might be thinking, "Well, this bill does a lot of stuff that ACT has been saying is a problem that needs to be done. Why not support it?" Well, indeed.
There's more. ACT has been saying for the last couple of weeks that vaccination mandates should be vax or test, and people thought this was some crazy thing to say that testing should be a substitute for vaccination. Well, actually, it's Air New Zealand's policy, it's Denmark's policy, and it's now the policy for the Auckland border of the New Zealand Government. Now, in this legislation they're saying that there should be a requirement to be vaccinated or tested. So if you can get a negative test and you show that you're not a threat to people around you, then that can be, in some circumstances, as good as vaccination. So that's another idea that we've put forward that is now here.
So why not support it? Well, there's a few problems with this legislation. The most obvious problem is the one with what happens with employment. You see, if you go to the back of this, on the final page, it says that if somebody is working for you or if you're working for someone and you decide you don't want to be vaccinated for whatever reason—like perhaps you think you might like four weeks off in December—you get four weeks to think about it, and, of course, that's paid. Paid by the employer. So the employer has to foot the bill of having someone that wants to have that time off.
Then there's the question—Tracey McLellan over there, she said, "Oh, the Opposition doesn't understand this, they've missed some very fine legal concepts.", and then she sat down before she explained what they were. I think that's the life of a Labour backbencher. You're so clever, but you're not allowed to tell anyone. That's just the way it goes for them. Now she's impotently heckling over there. She's got nothing else to say. So much for her.
You see, the thing is that you get four weeks paid by your employer. Well, there you go. Then at the end of it, you think, "Oh, well, you know what? I think I might get vaccinated anyway." Well, then you're allowed to take your job back. Except here's the thing: if the employer says "No. That would be an unreasonable disruption.", then actually you're not allowed to come back. So can anyone on the other side—and the Prime Minister couldn't answer the question. Does the person get their job back or not if they decide to take the four weeks and then decide maybe they will get vaccinated having had four weeks paid, and then the employer says, "No. For you to come back would be an unreasonable disruption."? What does this law actually mean? Who pays? How much time? Do they get their job back or not? We asked the Prime Minister in question time—she can't say. But I'll tell you who will be prepared to say for a tidy fee: it will be the employment lawyers of New Zealand. They will be salivating at this, not the business people who have been paying and paying through these lockdowns and restrictions and now get this other law dumped on them.
But there's one more reason why we're very hesitant to support this legislation beyond one vote. The reason is this: it is just abominable that a Government which started vaccinating people in this country on 19 February, 277 days ago, has only today decided to put legislation up to be debated in the House, only last night was able to publish it and show the world before we had to vote on it, and now is giving 10 days before the traffic light system comes in for employers and businesses to be able to digest what it means, start fulfilling all the obligations to keep records, for example, of who's vaccinated in their organisation, to put in place their assessments, assuming the regulations are published—all of the things. They get 10 days. This Government had 277. They didn't even get it checked against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
The problem was this Government spent so long doing victory laps that they forgot to ask simple questions like: "What if Delta gets through managed isolation and quarantine and there's an outbreak in New Zealand? What on earth would we do then? Maybe we'll have a world where we need people to be vaccinated and interact and people will have a conflict of rights." They weren't doing the basic work and that leads to so much uncertainty that it's very unlikely we can keep supporting this legislation, but if they clear a few of these issues up, who knows? We might change our mind. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the time has come for me to leave the chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 o'clock this evening.
Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7 p.m.





DEPUTY SPEAKER: Kāti rā, tēnā rā tātou katoa. The House is resumed. Members, before the dinner break we were debating the first reading of the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill. We'd just completed call number seven and I believe it's call number eight.





Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Fa'afetai lava, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this particular bill, the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill, first reading.
Many of my colleagues have mentioned that this provides a framework in managing the ongoing risk of COVID-19, but I want to speak specifically to why we are in this position, and that's because of the successful vaccination campaign that we've had. It's always a good opportunity to acknowledge the many health providers that have done so well in getting our vaccination rates up, specifically down in South Auckland, Takanini Vaccination Centre, with Whānau Ora Community Clinic, as well as our many Pacific and ethnic providers who are doing the mahi to increase that. I also want to acknowledge the churches, the temples, as well as the sports organisations who have rallied together to increase the vaccination rates for their organisations as well.
This bill sets out the different orders that will provide direction and also clarification, and it is all about the safety of our whānau and ainga and fanau. It goes on to talk about the vaccination certificates, also the process of applications for it, and also prohibiting people from going to certain places if they're not vaccinated and don't hold a certificate themselves. I know it is hard. I've received many emails from both sides of the fence as well, but, again, it is all down to the foundation that keeping our community safe is the number one priority.
I know we've spoken about the Employment Relations Act and how this amends that Act. I want to acknowledge the part where it allows employers to have their employees have time off to go get their vaccinations. And I want to again acknowledge those people and also health providers who have done so to provide and cater for them. So that's why I support this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Penny Simmonds—five minutes.





PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to take this split call to speak in opposition to the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill. After spending much of last week amending the legislation when it was already out of date, we have another bill to amend it, and this bill and the processes to pass it are absolutely indicative of the Government's whole approach to COVID: confusing, lacking in planning, haphazard, slow, self-congratulatory, arrogant, and an affront to democracy in New Zealand. 
Let's have a look at each of them. Confusing—well, we're moving from alert levels to traffic lights, which the Government's own research has says people don't understand. 
Planning: this Government did not plan for Delta. Every advantage that we've had, it's squandered by not planning when we had the opportunity to do so. They spent last year basking in the glory of their success over COVID, which turned out to be not so successful after all, and they should have been spending time getting our population vaccinated so that when Delta hit, we were not sitting at 20 percent of our population vaccinated. 
Arrogant: because they see no need for people to have a say in this. For something that is potentially life-changing for many people, they don't feel that they need to have any say in it. It is something so fundamental to the rights of New Zealanders, but they don't need to have a say in the select committee process. 
So this bill impacts on both vaccinated and unvaccinated, and my colleague Chris Bishop was at pains to say that National is fully supportive of getting as many people vaccinated as possible, but it's really important for this Government to understand how life-changing this is for some people. I spoke to a young man living with a very serious physical disability, in Dunedin last week. He needs to have 24-hours-a-day care to stay alive. Three of his five caregivers are unvaccinated. He has spent two months advertising to get caregivers and hasn't been able to. For another young adult with Down's syndrome, his parents are his paid carers. They are not vaccinated, and so he faces the prospect of being taken from his family. This Government needed to hear from these people to understand the impact and think about how their bill needs to be implemented so that it does not put these people at risk in the way it is going to. 
The traffic light system is confusing. Green is meant to be fairly well "Go ahead" if there is no COVID in the community and it's not going to threaten to overrun our health system, yet the South Island—and, particularly, the lower South Island, which doesn't have any COVID in the community or in the health system—won't be at green. The Prime Minister has said that no region will be at green, so what does a region have to do to get to green if not having COVID doesn't let them be at green? 
So all the people impacted by this: the people with disabilities, the people running businesses who will have to implement the vaccine pass verification, and who knows whether they have to just visually see that or use the app, because the Prime Minister tells them one thing and the Ministry of Health tells them another thing—all these people deserve to be able to have a say. They deserve to be able to scrutinise the legislation, to submit on it, and to have their say. But this Government has said, "No, we know best. We know all, and you people out there, you don't need to be heard on these matters that are going to impact on you. You will just do as we tell you. You will remain controlled by us, without any input." 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired. 





DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka, tēnā tātou e te Whare. I rise to speak to the first reading of the COVID 19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill. Te Paati Māori will not be supporting this bill. Experts and tangata whenua leaders have warned the Government about imposing one-size-fits-all vaccine mandates; they risk dividing Aotearoa and undermining the public health response. Mandates are an important tool that whānau, hapū, iwi, businesses, and communities should be empowered to use where and when they determine a need. We support them setting their own tikanga; rāhui are widely used in our communities. Informed consent must be a guiding principle, so that people can make the best possible decisions to protect their whānau from the virus and fully participate in society. Te Paati Māori are opposed to this Government's vaccine mandate system. The Crown does not have the constitutional right to impose mandates on tangata whenua, as our tino rangatiratanga to make these decisions for ourselves is enshrined in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
This bill is not compliant with Te Tiriti. The process for developing the traffic light system, which received the explicit opposition of many Māori leaders, is a breach of Te Tiriti, as it does not have the active consent of tangata whenua. Upholding Te Tiriti rights and ensuring we can live together collectively is a fundamental part of who we are and how we live. It is the difference between individualised Westernisation and indigenous peoples. This Government has forgotten tangata whenua are the most protocolled people in this country and we always have been. We understand the need to adapt and evolve tikanga to deal with pandemics.
This Government's consistent failings in rolling out an equitable vaccination programme, which didn't acknowledge 70 percent of its tangata whenua were under 40 years, has us now 20 percent behind the general population. This Government's failure to provide data that it gives to Pākehā organisations is another reason why we had to go to court, to get it seen and to get it out. This Government's failings to protect its most vulnerable community in tangata whenua, as warned by health experts, now has us making up nearly 50 percent of those infected with the Delta variant, despite only making 18 percent of the population. We make up the highest numbers of cases, 50 consecutive days. We are now past the 3,000 mark. Six Māori deaths, three Māori men between 40 and 50. All this was unnecessary, and now, due to your failings, we have mandates. And then, we add, we are forced into this urgency while you continue to scapegoat Māori; to divide, marginalise, and, indeed, demonise our communities and whānau.
A much fairer, durable vaccine system that fully acknowledges Māori public health models would have included: requiring hospitals and medical clinic workers to be vaccinated; requiring all front-line health workers not in hospitals and medical clinics to declare their vaccination status to patients and provide a negative test to patients upon request; requiring all unvaccinated frontline Government workers to do the same; supporting mandates put in place by tangata whenua organisations and businesses; strongly opposing any moves to impose sanctions or penalties on workers or beneficiaries who are unvaccinated; requiring all businesses, organisations, and schools to publicise their vaccine rules on the vaccine passport application and across a range of other platforms.
There will be other opportunities to delve further into the detail of this bill, but I want to close my call today by saying how completely unacceptable it is that the Government introduced this bill today, barely hours before it had its first reading. I understand they intend to pass this bill into law this week under urgency, without even a shortened select committee process. The Government has been talking about mandates and the traffic light system for a long time, and yet here we have this shocking process. We will continue to hold you to account and remind our whānau that this Government ended elimination knowing Māori were 26 percent behind the general population, just as they opened up traffic light system knowing Māori are still stuck at the roadworks they set up. Shame on you, Labour, for undermining the democratic and tino rangatiratanga process of tangata whenua in this way. Nō reira, nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.





SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. Forgive me; I've got my mask stuck on my earring. Just give me a sec. I'm standing here this evening and I find it barely believable to hear from the member opposite in the National Party—barely believable to hear—an argument against mandating vaccination for caregivers for people with severe disabilities, people that go from house to house to house like Typhoid Mary potentially infecting those who are most vulnerable. The reason why I find this barely believable is because, if you are unvaccinated, you are far more likely to become infected or to infect others, and if you do become sick when you're unvaccinated, you are far more likely to become extremely unwell, because vaccination gives you 97 percent protection from ICU admission—97 percent. You are 32 times more likely to die if you are unvaccinated when you get COVID-19 than when you are vaccinated, because we do know, unfortunately, as with all vaccinations, you are going to get breakthrough infections, and that's why I am not going to stand here and apologise for a vaccine mandate or for passing legislation that enables us to protect the most vulnerable.
On that note, if you do want to get a vaccination on 27th in Bryndwr, please do. We've tried to find a space that's accessible in the village church on 27th for our lower socio-economic area in Ilam. So vaccination is an increasingly important tool to mitigate risk in workplaces.
Matt Doocey: It's going well in Ilam, we hear.
SARAH PALLETT: Mr Doocey, Ilam is doing well overall, but we have the second-largest social housing area in Christchurch. I know that the National Party is unaware of those who live in poverty in my electorate, but let me tell you, Mr Doocey, I am not unaware of those living in poverty in Ilam, and I would like to commend this bill, which gives a framework, an assessment tool, to employers to enable them to move forward to keep people safe. And that includes, Mr Doocey, those living in poverty. I commend this bill to the House.





SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well, listen to that across the road. You can tell that already they're starting to freckle and panic on this bill. I'm here to talk about the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill at its first reading, obviously as the member of Parliament for North Shore. 
Well, I want to cover three key elements this evening, and I think we've heard from a number of speakers already from the National side and also from the Māori Party in terms of some of the challenges and issues that we have with this legislation. But I think the first aspect that we really cannot ignore is the process by which this legislation has come to this House. What an absolute shambles this legislation represents, a process in which this was only brought to our attention or given to us yesterday—after how long has this country been facing such a significant issue in terms of the management of COVID-19? This Government continues to be asleep at the wheel. 
This bill is a process which is showing that they do not have a plan. Back in September, National released our plan. Here it is right here. If only that side of the House had started to adopt some of this and some of our recommendations, we wouldn't be in the position we are in. What we've heard from the other side is a whole lot of graphs and a whole lot of flip-flopping around, but we haven't seen a plan and, as a result, Kiwis are confused. 
I was having a chat to my local hairdresser this afternoon—actually, just during the dinner break as I came in—and she was confused in terms of what they need to do in order to reopen on Friday. I went on to the website and I tried to see if there is any clear guidance in terms of what are their requirements. But no, there's nothing simplistic around this process. This is legislation made up on the hoof and this personifies what we're seeing across the other side in all regards. 
On Sunday, there was a poll undertaken of Kiwis about whether they understand or not the traffic light system. 
Hon Member: And what did it say about the leader? 
SIMON WATTS: And I can hear the other side—the Ministers are all grappling there. Well, they can't even take their full calls, with respect. 
Hon Kelvin Davis: The Newshub poll?
SIMON WATTS: If they've got some comment, stand up, Mr Davis, and have a chat, because I'd love to hear your comments. 
Hon Kris Faafoi: What did that poll say about your boss?
SIMON WATTS: But the polling that came out during the weekend—they're still gravelling on. The polling that came out in the weekend was very clear, but they don't want to hear the facts. The problem is they don't want to hear the facts. They can't handle the numbers, but when asked, "Do you understand the traffic light system?", 31 percent of Kiwis said yes, that they understood it—31 percent. Well, two-thirds of Kiwis said they do not understand it and they're confused about it. And so what that shows is the voices of Kiwis out there in our community saying "We are not sure what's happening here. We're not sure where this plan is going. We're not sure in terms of how this is going to work in practice." That is a real disappointment. 
We've also had a number of comments, just looking at some of the media that's come out about this bill today. Dr Dean Knight from Victoria University has used the quote "constitutional disgrace"—that's what they referred to this legislation as. This legislation is being passed urgently without adequate consultation and that is unacceptable. 
This is legislation that impacts all of our communities. It impacts Kiwis across this country. It impacts businesses across all of our electorates where we are. My home electorate of the North Shore is not protected from that. They are also confused. This process should have gone through a select committee process, a process in which we could have got experts to come in to provide feedback, to provide comment, to get stakeholders to articulate how this legislation could impact it, and work with officials to iron out the mistakes. Because I can pretty much—and I'm not a betting man, but, if I was, I could pretty much guarantee that we will be back here in the early part of the new year fixing the mistakes within this legislation.
I've nearly lost count of how many times that I have been in this House—and I haven't been in the House very long in comparison to some members in this House here—in terms of how many times we've come back into this House in order to fix mistakes on legislation because it was passed under urgency, it was passed without due consideration, it was passed without getting the stakeholder input and the feedback from our communities and stakeholders in terms of that legislation, and, as a result, it's got errors and we have to subsequently fix it. What a waste of opportunity on something of such importance in terms of a topic. 
The other aspect that I want to get into is absolutely around the fact that this legislation is completely unnecessary. It provides a burden on Kiwis that is not necessary. National articulated in our plan, back in September, quite clear guidance in terms of when this country should begin to reopen. We talked about the quote "around 85 percent vaccination on the 1st of December." Well, I'm sorry, we don't need a traffic light system if we reach the levels of vaccination which we have articulated. It is completely unnecessary. Why is it that when I was fortunate to have a haircut down here in Wellington a couple of weeks ago, I could walk in—
Hon Member: Just checking it out.
SIMON WATTS: Just checking it out—not bad, obviously. I didn't have to show a vaccination passport when I went into that barbers down here in Wellington. But when I go back in two weeks' time in Auckland, I'm going to have to show a vaccination certificate—more procedure, more bureaucracy required, yet our vaccination levels across this country will be significantly higher than where they were in the past. When I go to a cafe and get a coffee in the morning, I'm going to spend half my time scanning in with my COVID Tracer app, and then I'm going to have to scan in with my vaccination app, and then I'm going to want to order my long black and go through a whole lot of process and bureaucracy.
Meanwhile, the business is actually just trying to do what they're meant to do. And again, it is unnecessary. It is not based on a clinical requirement in terms of risk mitigation, in terms of vaccination. It is a completely unnecessary piece of legislation. And again, if that side of the House had actually read some of the recommendations that we made in late September in terms of introduction of rapid antigen testing—how's that going, Mr Bishop? How's this Government's rapid antigen testing policy going, eh? Have we seen any progress on that, eh? Even though it's available in pretty much every other country in this world, but not here. No, it's still illegal. It's still banned unless you're one of those big corporates that has been able to get a special exemption.
Again, that side of the House do not trust Kiwis. They don't allow Kiwis to take personal responsibility for managing their own healthcare, for getting on and doing what they know is right, for taking some responsibility, and to allow our businesses to get back on their feet and to trade is the only sustainable way that we should be able to help our businesses to get back on a front foot. 
I also want to go into some of the aspects around the confusion around this vaccination passport—and we all saw the issues pretty much when that came out. The system pretty much crashed immediately and continues to have a number of system issues around that. We have had a significant amount of time in order to prepare for where we are today. There are no excuses for why we have not done the adequate planning required to put in place these processes and procedures and framework. The other side all say, "Well, old Delta came along. It sort of, you know, was all very different." Well, I'm sorry, that is absolutely rubbish. They have simply failed to plan, and they have failed to get ready for what we are faced with at the moment, and they lack that sense of urgency that is absolutely fundamental in the survival of our businesses. And they just simply do not understand some of the implications that this legislation will impact. 
Hon Kris Faafoi: I preferred Maggie.
SIMON WATTS: Lastly, Mr Speaker—I'm looking forward to that call!
Hon Kris Faafoi: Bring back Maggie!
SIMON WATTS: You can hear the Minister. He's yapping and he's loving it—I'm hopeful he'll take a call later on. But the other aspect is around the length of this legislation. There is no end date in terms of when this will finish up. When will these restrictions end? I've articulated already that there's no basis in terms of these undue regulations in terms of when they come in. But again, this bill fails to have any clear articulation in terms of when this will actually end up finishing and when Kiwis can get back to real life. 
So, as I've said, this legislation is being passed through urgency without adequate consultation. It is a constitutional disgrace, and National oppose this bill. 





TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, what a pathetic form of hyperbole that we've just heard from the member who's just resumed his seat, Simon Watts. He started off talking about a shambles. I'll tell you and the member what is a shambles. The shambles is the position of the Opposition on what is a significant and important piece of legislation. They lecture us on the importance of vaccination, yet they're not prepared to actually do anything about it.
Now, I also know that while Mr Watts and I are both new members of this House, I will give the member a little bit of free advice, and that's this: it is not a good move to start quoting recent polls when actually the trend doesn't look as rosy as it should be. The member should look closer to his left as members on his left continue to get closer and closer, day by day.
I am proud to be a member of a Government that is looking to continue to protect and provide a level of safety for all members in our community. You know, I really want to acknowledge, actually, my colleague Dr Leavasa. He has acknowledged that he has returned to the House, and I want to welcome him. I know that he has been working hard on the front line alongside other members who are out in our community. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the good, strong work that people like Dr Leavasa and others are doing.
Hon Member: Dr Sharma.
TANGI UTIKERE: And Dr Sharma. Thank you, Miss Pallett. Because they are making a difference. This particular bill that the House is spending its time on at the moment will make a difference as we transition to a new protection framework that will be vital, that will be so important. Members opposite have queried, have asked, "What has the Government been doing over the last 18 months?" Well, perhaps they've been asleep—perhaps they've been asleep. Because this Government has been working hard to protect our communities, the communities that I love, the communities that my whānau love and that will make an absolute difference.
So it is absolutely shameful that at first reading members opposite are not prepared to support this bill. I am, and on that basis I commend it to the House.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 85
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 35
New Zealand National 33; Te Paati Māori 2.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.





Second Reading
Hon 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 COVID-19 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.





CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. One could be forgiven for listening to the Minister for COVID-19 Response and his remarks around how this is the logical next step, it's all part of this well-coordinated Government approach to COVID, and you'd be forgiven for thinking that this was all very well thought through. The reality is the exact opposite. This is a bill that was thrown together hastily in the last month or so, basically at the last minute. It's been dropped on the Parliament with six sitting days to go before Christmas, and the Parliament is being asked to put it through all stages under urgency with no public scrutiny whatsoever. And that just goes to show what a mad scramble the Government's response has been in the last six months. I will give the Government credit for their response last year, we entered 2021 with freedoms that many other countries did not have, and we should be proud collectively, as a community, about that. But what we cannot be proud of as a Parliament or a society is what we have seen in the last six months. This bill is emblematic of the Government's mad scramble, basically making things up as they go.
The COVID-19 framework was announced on Friday, 22 October, but the drafting instructions for the bill weren't issued until five days later. No New Zealand Bill of Rights Act analysis, scrambled through the Cabinet and the various legislative processes. So hastily done that the legal advice for the section 7 report that didn't end up materialising says that the time frame was so short that it was not in compliance with the Cabinet Manual. This is not a bill that was put together in a comprehensive, well thought through way.
I want to address some of the remarks of the Minister in his speech. He said that there's a contradiction in the National Party position between arguing for vaccine certificates but voting against this legislation. That is a trite characterisation—with respect, a very superficial and trite characterisation of the position. Because we had been arguing, on this side, for proof of vaccination since February. That's when Judith Collins first asked the Prime Minister about it, and she was assured that the work was under way. Well, as we now know, that's actually not true. The work hadn't begun. Cabinet didn't actually authorise vaccine certificates to be developed until July, and the Government didn't sign the contracts with the IT providers until a month ago. So we are on the record in favour of vaccine passes and vaccine certificates.
The second thing he pointed to was this idea that we want vaccine certificates as a matter of urgency, but we voted against the urgency. Of course, the real point is that this is not an appropriate way to make extremely significant, far-reaching decisions. We want things done quickly, but we wanted them done quickly in July, in August—not in late November 2021. We wanted them done in July and August, when Delta first turned up, not at the very tail-end of the Parliament for the year 2021 in a mad scramble to get things underway for Auckland and the rest of the country on 3 December, when the country will begin to open up again. So a sensible, competent Government would have been working on this during the year. They would have been developing the certificates and would have been developing the framework.
As Dr Dean Knight from Victoria University of Wellington Law Faculty has said, this bill is a constitutional disgrace. It should have been worked on for quite some time. And the reason for that is actually the reason highlighted by the Minister in his contribution around choice. He made the correct point, which is that the decisions that some people make to be unvaccinated have externalities. He didn't quite phrase it like that, but in economics terms, that's what they are. They have externalities. My decision not to be vaccinated has a consequence, not just for me—that's true, in a personal sense—but it also has a consequence for the health system and for others, because kids can't be vaccinated and there are other people who can't be vaccinated. And it's worthwhile having a debate about that.
The level of intrusion on personal freedom and civil liberties because of the impact that a decision by an individual to not be vaccinated has is worthy of debate and it's worthy of ventilation. But the appropriate place to do that, I'm sorry, is not at 9 o'clock at night on a Tuesday with six sitting days to go while we try and figure it out and basically yell at each other about the bill for a while—that's not the appropriate place. The appropriate place is before a select committee, with legal experts turning up, with public policy scholars tuning up, and with health advice and health experts. What the Government's saying, through the very quick passage of this bill, is that they know it all, that they've got all the answers, they've got all the solutions. Actually, there's quite a lot of people out there in the public domain who don't agree with that. As you will have seen from people's email inboxes, in relation to mandates and passports and things like that, actually a lot of people don't agree with all of those particular measures. And all of that is not an argument to say that those people are right, that is an argument to say that their concerns are worthy of respect, they are worthy of discussion, and they are worthy of listening to—not necessarily agreeing with, but they are worthy of discussion, debate, and a voice. The whole point of the select committee process is to allow those concerns to be ventilated.
But there's a further the point in relation to this, which is that when you allow people the chance to be heard and to have their concerns addressed, you can engage in a dialogue in which you can actually persuade people that what they are saying is wrong. I'm sorry, the people who are opposed to vaccine passports, their views will be entrenched and solidified by the very quick passage of this bill. I can see my inbox right now, there'll be people emailing and they're going to be emailing backbench members opposite too, including Tangi Utikere, who's been here a year and decides to hand out free advice from the backbench of the Labour Party. Well, thanks very much, champ, but I don't really need your advice. I'll tell you what, Simon Watts, who was the deputy CFO of a DHB doesn't need the advice from someone who doesn't understand the health system, so thanks very much, but we'll leave that one alone.
So I'm telling the Government backbench now, and Government Ministers as well: the people who are opposed to vaccine mandates and vaccine passports are not going to change their mind as a result of the fast passage of this bill. In fact, it will be the opposite. You are actually just entrenching the divide in society between those who are opposed to mandates and those who are opposed to passports. A sensible, competent Government that was trying to take people with them rather than divide them—trying to take people with them—would have moved expeditiously to develop the framework, but then sent it to a committee for debate and discussion. Because I'll tell you the one thing about select committee processes, it can shatter some myths and it can allow people to have their views heard and allows people to have their say. And, actually, you can do some persuasion through the select committee process.
I believe in vaccination. I believe in vaccine certificates, I believe in private property rights, and I believe in free enterprise. I believe that, in 2022, there will be businesses out there who decide to limit their customers to being vaccinated. They'll say, "You have to be vaccinated to enter my restaurant", "You have to be vaccinated to go to the Shihad concert down the road", or whatever. You know, frankly, I would probably agree with businesses doing that. I'll tell you what though, there's quite a few people who do not agree with that, and the very fast, expeditious passage of this bill tonight without any public scrutiny whatsoever will not change the minds of those people. In fact, it will just entrench them.
Finally, in relation to Mr Hipkins' remarks about the Opposition just wanting to give up: nothing could be further from the truth. Most of our 17,000-word document is about the opposite of giving up. It is about adopting tools and techniques that other countries are using that we are not. I'll give you the example of rapid antigen testing. I can walk into a supermarket in Melbourne, Victoria right now and buy a rapid test. It'll give me a COVID result in 15 minutes. Can I do that in New Zealand? No. Can I go down to Thorndon New World and buy a rapid test? Absolutely not. You know why? Because the Government's decided in its infinite wisdom that they should be banned—unless I work for Wellington Airport or Mainfreight or one of the 30 large corporates that the Government has deigned to give a rapid test to. Why can I not buy a rapid test? And, actually, it's not just me who thinks that we should be able to do this, there is a variety of public health experts out there who agree with me as well—including the chair of the Government's own testing advisory group, who came and told the select committee last week that what we've been saying about rapid testing was completely correct. That's in our document.
So it's not about giving up on COVID, it's about using modern tools and techniques like rapid testing and like saliva testing—I don't know, like pulse oximeters, for example, as well. If you ask the Government, you get four different answers to the same question as to whether or not people get pulse oximeters in home isolation. The answer is: we probably don't know. But Dr Bloomfield says one thing, Grant Robertson says another, Jacinda Ardern says another, and Chris Hipkins says another. So there are sensible things we should adopt like that.
This bill is a constitutional abhorrence, and we will continue to oppose it on those grounds.





Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. So while New Zealand has done incredibly well over the last 18 months, what we've found is that a number of workplaces have become locations of interest. On a number of occasions, we've actually seen transmission happening in the workplace. So while we've got a whole lot of tools that we can use to reduce the risk—we're talking about mask wearing, we're talking about social distancing, working from home, and we're all pretty much familiar now with Zoom—what we've also become increasingly reliant on is vaccination protections as the vaccination roll-out has occurred.
But when I've talked to a number of employers over the last few months, one of the things that's really, really on their mind is: how do they protect their workers, how do they protect their customers from COVID-19? One of the things they've really, really been grappling with is: do I need to require my workers to be vaccinated? I think that's a really important conversation. So what this bill does is it provides that framework for the assessment tool to be developed that helps employers to assess whether it's reasonable to require their workers to be vaccinated. While we've already provided some guidance on that, what this bill will allow is regulations to be developed, which then, basically, provide a mechanism for people to weigh that up in a very, very firm basis.
I think the other thing that this bill will do is ensure that workers, if they are required to get vaccinated, can actually go out and do that in paid work-time. So it puts a requirement or an onus on the employer to make sure that the employee can go and do that. There's a very, very narrow range of areas where they may not be able to do so, but, basically, it means that we can get workers going out and getting vaccinated.
But one of the other things I'm just wanting to highlight is the protections of privacy. We've already addressed this with contact tracing and just making sure, now, that any data that's collected—identifiable information—for the purposes of vaccination or complying with the Act is protected so that it cannot be used for any other purpose.
So this is just an important bill that takes us through to the next step in our COVID protection framework. I commend this bill to the House.





Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Slow and late—slow and late—that has become the hallmark of this Government in their response to the Delta outbreak that now besets our nation. Nine months ago, when the vaccine programme was first being rolled out—slow and late compared with other countries of our sort—they should have been considering some of the aspects of the legislation that is now before us tonight under urgency, which is without the scrutiny of a select committee, and without the input from stakeholders, academics, businesses, and people who have a role in considering the constitutional matters that are going to impact on the lives of every single New Zealander once this legislation becomes law.
There was a time when the Labour Party used to speak proudly about constitutional democracy and the efficacy of select committee process and the shamefulness of legislation that was passed quickly and without scrutiny by our democratic processes, but not today—not today. They have long ago forsaken those lofty principles that they once held so dear and that they once aspired to, because these days they have an absolute majority in this Parliament and they are determined to make the most of it and put to one side all the checks and balances that go with our historic processes in this Parliament and benefits that come from that analysis and interpretation and scrutiny.
So this piece of legislation, as one academic has said, is a constitutional embarrassment—I think, was the exact term, Mr Bishop. It was a constitutional disgrace, I think the academic has said, and part of the reason for that is if members choose to have a little look at the rather thin material that accompanies this piece of legislation, the Ministry of Health has prepared a departmental disclosure statement. Well, it doesn't take long to read, and it doesn't contain much.
Most of the elements of the departmental disclosure document refer to things that haven't happened. One of the questions is about the regulatory impact analysis. "Were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this Bill?" Answer: "NO". "Extent of impact analysis available … Has further impact analysis become available for any aspects of the policy to be given effect by this Bill?" Answer: "NO". "For the policy to be given effect by this Bill, is there analysis available on: (a) the size of the potential costs and benefits? NO (b) the potential for any group of persons to suffer a substantial unavoidable loss of income or wealth? NO", and so it goes on. The level of detail is practically non-existent.
I want to concentrate on the matter in the bill that relates to workplace relations and the ability for this piece of legislation to provide a tool. I'll be fair: I think it's a useful tool that employers and businesses will probably welcome, because the process that has been available to them to date is a little bit complicated and it's a little bit cumbersome, but it's a process none the less. That's using the existing workplace health and safety risk assessment process, and some of our bigger firms have actually already done that—organisations like The Warehouse are using it.
But for many small businesses—and remember we are, of course, a nation of small businesses—they have been grappling with the conflicting issues that they find themselves in in terms of what to do if they are a small employer and they've got, say, 20 staff members and one of them chooses for whatever reason not to be vaccinated. That then puts the employer in a very challenging situation, because under the workplace safety legislation that we have in New Zealand, they are required to ensure a safe working environment for their employees and their customers and other stakeholders. So the question that they then need to confront is: "Is having a non-vaccinated employee in my business a risk to the other employees in the business who have chosen to be vaccinated? Is it a risk to my customers? Is it a risk to the people that I trade with, the suppliers, the contractors, the people who ensure that the services that my business need are going to be safe and secure as well?"
So the tool that is provided is, I think, at least a start along the way, but it should have been in place and been thought about months ago—months and months ago. Here we are—as my colleague Chris Bishop has said—with only six sitting days of this parliamentary year yet to go, this legislation will become effective for businesses in 10 days' time, and they are only today being given the details of it. If nothing else, it's a completely disrespectful and also hopelessly shambolic process.
The analysis done by the Ministry of Health goes on to say that in relation to the provisions regarding the Employment Relations Act, "Amendments are also being made to the Employment Relations Act 2000 to provide for reasonable paid time off for employees to be vaccinated." Well, most prudent employers would, I think, already be doing that. It would be a very unreasonable employer, in my view, that wasn't allowing an employee paid time off to be vaccinated. But it goes on, and it says, "In addition, a four-week termination notice to be provided if the employer requires vaccination, but the employee is unvaccinated."
Now, members on the other side might choose to dance on the head of a pin about what that is called, but it is, effectively, paid leave. It is a period of grace paid for by the employer in which time—four weeks—the unvaccinated employee can then have a good think about whether they want to be vaccinated or not.
But the real, detailed problem in this legislation is that questions remain unanswered about what happens if halfway through or three-quarters of the way through, or even on the very last day of that four weeks of paid leave, paid and funded by the business owner and operator—who, let's face it, is already struggling under incredibly difficult economic conditions—that employee then decides, "Oh well, I'll get vaccinated after all.", three weeks and four days into the paid leave. Oh well, it's all OK, except that there is a provision that says that's unless that decision creates an unreasonable impact on the employer's business. Well, that's going to be deeply problematic and—as a previous speaker in the first reading debate made the point—it's going to be an employment lawyers' field day.
Not only are there issues and questions to be answered about what happens in that four-week paid leave period but this bill provides for legal ramifications that are, effectively, a sword of Damocles hanging over the head of the employer. If they make a decision using either the tool or the workplace health and safety risk assessment model and they decide to actually exit an employee from a position, that employee can still, under this legislation, take out a personal grievance case. If the employee decides halfway through the process that "No, I'm not going to stick around. I'm going to resign.", well, that means that there is still an action around constructive dismissal that will be available to them, and, again, it'll be the employment lawyers who are smiling all the way to the bank over this piece of legislation.
What will it mean for the poor employer? Well, what it means is more time, more resource, more energy, and more focus distracting from the core business and into legal matters that will have to be litigated either in the Employment Relations Authority or the Employment Court, and, then, probably on to higher judicial authorities as well for further judicial interpretation and a decision.
That's going to be deeply problematic, because the 9 percent of people who, at this stage, have chosen not to be vaccinated are probably people who have now had an opportunity to give their personal position very careful thought. They are probably increasingly feeling that they are locked into a position that they feel they have to defend, and if it means for them that they are going to lose their job, well, some of them will be prepared to make that sacrifice. It's not a choice that I think that they should be making, because I would actually like them to be vaccinated. But some will choose not to, and when they don't, it has consequences not only for themselves, because any decision we make as individuals—whether it's about vaccination or not—has both consequence and responsibility, and those consequences and responsibilities actually go far beyond us as mere individuals.
So this is a piece of legislation that is a bit like the curate's egg. It's good in parts, but in terms of the process and in terms of the parliamentary scrutiny, it is an abysmal failure and one that we do not support and will not support.





Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill. This bill is a pragmatic bill. It's a very necessary bill. It, quite frankly, is the logical next step because it provides the mechanisms now for us to safely reopen.
The bill primarily makes amendments to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, and in doing so it affords provisions for broadening the orders to better reflect the new measures and intentions under the new COVID-19 Protection Framework. It also provides for forms of acceptable evidence of compliance with those particular orders.
As the Minister said earlier on, the fundamental intentionality here is to support and encourage increased rates of vaccination, because we know that that's an absolute important tool. It does so by doing two things: it allows for vaccine certificates to be used, and I note that more than well over a million people have downloaded that already, so there's clearly appetite and support; and it also allows for greater certainty for businesses about who and how they can operate to safely reopen, which is something everybody is looking forward to.
I also agree with the Minister when he says that he's prepared to stand behind this Government's response. I too absolutely echo that and stand behind this Government's response, not just last year but this year and all of the work that's gone into balancing the myriad of complex issues that are at play here. You know, certainly, when we're looking at metrics, the lowest mortality rate, which, you know, let's not forget is the death rate—one of the lowest case rates and some of the best examples of economic recovery.
Also, I'd just like to note that when we talk about consultation, in the development of this bill, consultation was undertaken with business and community groups, the Council of Trade Unions, Business New Zealand, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the Small Business Advisory Group, Retail New Zealand, the Ministry of Justice, and various other bodies, including the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, who was also consulted on these proposals. All of that feedback was taken into account. So I am very happy to commend this bill to the House.





Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. The Greens are very big on appropriate decision making, that the people most affected by a decision should have a say in it. Generally, when I rise for a second reading, I refer to what happened in the select committee—the issues raised by submitters who are engaging with our democratic process, the advice that the Health Committee received to make its considered and usually unanimous report on how to make the bill better. Even under urgency, this has generally been able to happen in some form: a week turn-around of submissions—pretty outrageous at the time—or just advice, even, from the Minister and key officials. Instead, I stand up again to speak on the second reading, but, of course, nothing has changed.
So far, we have stood by the Government and its strong health response to the pandemic, despite some misgivings on how that response has rolled out, particularly to Māori. However, the Greens will be calling for a select committee review after this bill inevitably passes, with refinements based on that review.
On the second reading, I'll consider how these vaccination requirements will affect Māori and rainbow people. As most people here know, not only do Māori have the poorest health in this country based on every measure available, as my colleague from Te Paati Māori pointed out earlier, Māori are half of the COVID cases. With the nature of our underlying health conditions, our shorter life spans, we are more likely to get infected, we're more likely to be hospitalised, and we are more likely to die. We see those numbers are happening right now. I look at some of the family that I have who are refusing to get vaccinated, and I wonder what tangi I'll be attending myself.
So we have the lowest vaccinated rates in the country, particularly in the 20 to 40 age group. According to the latest statistics on the Ministry of Health website, nationally, we're at about 65 percent second dose and 85 percent first dose. In the Tai Rāwhiti and any place where there are large numbers of Māori, though—and a large proportion of Māori—those numbers are much, much lower. For us in the Tai Rāwhiti, 62 percent second dose, and 78 first. While 11 of the 20 DHBs have reached that first dose of 90—the magical 90 percent—none of them have done so for their Māori populations. None of them. This is significant because the framework introduced through orders under this legislation will significantly curtail the freedoms of people who are not vaccinated. So Māori will become even more stigmatised, and, I would say, even less inclined to get vaccinated.
As the Government transitions away from the elimination strategy, we acknowledge vaccination requirements are the most reliable way to keep our people safe. We suggest that that would include more spot-checking provisions at the Auckland border over the holiday period to reduce the risk of spread to areas outside of Auckland and into the areas where there are high populations of unvaccinated Māori. Of course, our position is that the traffic light system should be fully tested before Auckland opens its borders at all.
As I noted earlier, this bill covers how business and employers keep track of all the personal employee information related to their vaccination status because of the requirements of their position or of that particular workplace. It's not very common that an employer would have all of this personal health information of every single one of its employees. So privacy is a real issue. We have been assured that, as with the contact tracing information, that information will be kept very secure.
The risk for trans, intersex, and non-binary people, takatāpui with diverse genders and sex characteristics is that a lot of these requirements and the things that appear, particularly on your vaccine pass, is what's in our National Health Index database, and that doesn't always match the name they use in the workplace. It might not match the gender marker that they use in their life. So having an employer, and presumably some people in the HR department, depending on the scale of the operation, having access to all of that information, (a), not having a pass that reflects who they are—that's bad enough—but that some people in our community will be put at risk and experience additional discrimination because those documents are no longer matching with who they are.
So we're concerned some people will still get left behind with this bill because they're on the wrong side of the digital divide. People who will struggle obtaining a vaccine pass include the approximately half a million New Zealanders who do not have regular access to the internet; elderly people; people with learning difficulties or other disabilities; people for whom English is not their first language, including recent migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers; but just people without the suitable ID. So we recognise this has been rushed through, but there's a whole lot of infrastructure, a whole lot of administration, operational things that need to be put in place for this to actually start working, even though people are going to need to have those passes, probably by next week.
Finally, we believe that everyone should have free and equal access to these passes and that everything needs to be put in place in hope that it's going to happen. We commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the second reading of this COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill. Now, only a few hours ago we supported the first reading because we entered into this debate with a spirit of goodwill in hope that even in this compressed time frame, the Government might come forward in the same conciliatory way saying, "Actually, we accept we got a few things wrong and we're going to be prepared to clarify and make it better.", and what did we get from—
Hon Scott Simpson: Delusional optimism.
DAVID SEYMOUR: Scott Simpson from the Coromandel, he says that's delusional. Even the Labour Party deserves hope and forgiveness, Mr Simpson! Never forget it.
I have to say that when I heard Chris Hipkins get up in the second reading speech—having raised a few questions about, for example, what happens if somebody takes four weeks off then decides they did want to get vaccinated but their employer says, actually, it would be an unacceptable disruption for them to come back to work, do they keep their job or not? I thought maybe Chris Hipkins, the Minister for COVID-19 Response, would get up and say, "Yes, this is very difficult. We're asking Parliament to operate under extraordinary circumstances, passing a law overnight with far-reaching consequences and no New Zealand Bill of Rights Act accreditation or check on whether it's consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act." What did Chris Hipkins, the Minister for COVID-19, do? Well, he stood up and he spent most of his time criticising the National Party.
Now, how is that helping the future of New Zealand or the welfare of New Zealanders to have somebody who is put in a position of being the Minister for COVID-19 Response in, as he said, a global COVID-19 pandemic to get up and give a six minute speech playing politics? So it's become very clear that we have a Government that is not serious at all in changing any aspects of this bill, in making any improvements, or conceding that it might have got anything wrong despite this incredibly rushed process. We just can't support that. You know, we're good guys and girls. We're trying to be user friendly and help people work together when we can. But the truth is that it's a two-way street and the Labour Party is not prepared to meet anyone halfway. So we're opposed to this bill from now on. 
This has to be seen in a much wider context, where free societies are grappling with the challenge of trying to fight an enemy that is a different species; that is a virus attacking humans. It matters because we live in a global world where there will be more epidemics. There may even be more variants of this virus next winter that are more challenging than what we've faced so far. But even if we beat COVID-19, there will be more in my lifetime and yours, Mr Speaker—probably within the next decade. And the question is how will free and democratic societies respond in comparison with totalitarian ones? Because, right now, the only society that's really managing an elimination strategy is the People's Republic of China, a totalitarian state that, for example, just had a case of COVID-19 in Disney world and locked up 10,000 people and wouldn't let them leave till they were tested. Now, the facts are that we need free societies—
Hon Scott Simpson: Don't tell Labour!
DAVID SEYMOUR: —to be able—the National Party is saying Labour might do that, too. Don't give them any ideas, Scott Simpson! You could find yourself spending an extra few days at Rainbow's End next time you visit!
This is a serious topic. We need free societies and democratic societies to work through the challenge of facing down a pandemic, and we need them to do it better than totalitarian societies and, right now, it's not obvious that we are if you just measure effectiveness of fighting pandemics. It's critical that we do better than them because they have so many other problems, whether it's democracy or civil liberties or whatever. One of the things that a free society needs to do is to be able to maintain its social cohesion, maintain its democracy, maintain its due processes and its consultation, its bill of rights analysis, and its regulatory impact statements. It needs to keep doing all the things that democracies are supposed to do while fighting COVID-19. 
What we're seeing here tonight is a bill being rushed through under urgency with none of the things that a democracy should do when trying to make laws and fight a pandemic. Have they done public consultation? No, they haven't. There will be no select committee process, not even a shortened one. They're just going to skip straight from the first reading to the second reading. In fact, we're on the second reading already. Even I missed it. Have they done the regulatory impact statements—the regulatory impact analysis that is the hallmark of good Government, asking what are the costs, what are the benefits, who pays the costs, who gets the benefits of this law or regulation? Well, the attempt at a regulatory impact statement says, "We don't know. No information was available because we were forced to do it so rapidly."—
Hon Michael Woodhouse: The bill says it's not even required.
DAVID SEYMOUR: —and there's Michael Woodhouse from Otago, he's reading it out. He knows how bad it is and he's been shocked. He's clearly so indignant he took his mask off, that's how angry he was.
Have they made sure that this legislation is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? Well, no. They said, "We didn't have time to think about that because we were so rushed." This is not the way that a free and democratic society should be acting when making laws against a pandemic. If we can't do it better and fairer with greater consultation and analysis than the other guys, maybe we should just join them. It's not what I want for this country. I want our freedom and democracy to be maintained even as we rally to fight against a pandemic.
Some people might say, "Ah, but it's an emergency." Well, actually, this Parliament has been incredibly generous to the Government, incredibly understanding throughout this pandemic, and incredibly good at accepting that the Government needs room to move and needs to move rapidly. We've allowed them to make orders that are binding on all New Zealanders and said, "Don't worry, take it to the Regulations Review Committee, Parliament will sign it off later. You can do it any time you like as much as you like." We've let them do that. We've had the Parliament shut down, unable to come here and ask questions of the Prime Minister at various times. We've done an Epidemic Response Committee by Zoom. We've been incredibly supportive and constructive throughout this pandemic; putting forward ideas, offering constructive criticisms where necessary and helpful suggestions whenever possible, asking the questions that New Zealanders need. But can we honestly say that the Labour Party has joined into the spirit of an open and constructive democratic response to COVID-19? I don't think we can. I think we saw it in Chris Hipkins' speech on this second reading that the ACT Party opposes.
Did he get up and say, "Look, other members of this Parliament have raised questions about how this will really work and when the regulations that this legislation allows Government to make will be ready."? Did he get up and say, "Look, I need to explain what will actually happen if someone takes the four weeks to get vaccinated, gets vaccinated, tries to come back, and the employer says that's an unacceptable disruption to their business. I understand that might confuse some people and I want to clear it up."? No. All Chris Hipkins did was get up and play politics by attacking another political party. That's not the tradition of a free and democratic society facing a crisis. That is a Government and a political party that has spent too much time doing victory laps or doing a little dance, as the Prime Minister likes to say, and not enough time getting prepared to pass the laws in a proper and democratic way with analysis, with consultation, taking people with them and having the debate using persuasion instead of coercion to maintain New Zealand's social cohesion and to keep this country together so we actually come out of this crisis with more social capital than we went in.
Instead, we've got a Government that forgot to order the vaccines—and that will come out sooner or later—eventually started vaccinating people after the rest of the world, and, even with all that extra time, forgot to do really basic things like maybe if we're going to vaccinate people, they'll want some proof of purchase. You know what they could have done? They could have engaged RUSH, the people that did it for the NHS. Oh, and they made the COVID-19 tracer app for the New Zealand Government and then they got dumped and disengaged—don't need anything more from you. We could have had our vaccine app and our scan and tracing app in the same app, but, instead, New Zealanders are going to have to go to a pub or a hairdresser, wherever, and get out one app to show they're vaccinated and another app to scan in, and that in itself is going to weigh heavily on New Zealanders. It's going to show them the Government just wasn't organised. Not only are they disorganised but they are sacrificing democracy and the consultation and analysis of a free and democratic society that goes with it, and that's why—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.





SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise for the second reading of the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill with great pleasure.
I just want to begin by just addressing a couple of points that have been brought during the evening, and, in particular, I absolutely need to address the question of rapid antigen testing that was brought forward by Mr Bishop. Mr Bishop, it is incorrect that the COVID-19 Testing Technical Advisory Group, led by Professor Murdoch, said that the National Party were right. The reason why they did not say that, as they explained, was that the rapid antigen test has a 30 percent sensitivity rate. What that means is that three out of—
Hon Member: That's not true.
Hon Member: That's not correct.
SARAH PALLETT: As low as—as low as 30 percent. They said that. Please check Hansard. A 30 percent sensitivity rate for rapid antigen testing, which means that three in 10 of positive tests can be missed. We've seen the impact of this this evening in the news where negative rapid antigen testing has been shown to be a positive COVID test on polymerase chain reaction. So please, I just need to correct that point because it's really important. It's really important that the National Party is strongly advocating vaccination today, and I'm very glad to hear that.
I'd also like to talk to the My Vaccine Pass, which is actually addressed in this legislation. It has been enormously successful in the first few days, with one million people logging on successfully. But I do recognise, as my colleague Elizabeth Kerekere said earlier, that for some people who maybe don't have a smartphone or easy digital access, it's going to be challenging. There will be, and there are, very good ways of responding to those concerns and questions. So I do encourage people not to have any anxiety around that, but merely to call the 0800 number when they can.
The NZ Pass Verifier app is now live. I took 30 seconds to download it just now. It's working very well. So I'd just like to say in closing, I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Penny Simmonds, five minutes.





PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to address a comment that the member who has just sat down, Sarah Pallett, made when I gave the example of the gentleman that I had been discussing his issues with, the gentleman living with a disability, because her comments and her criticism perfectly illustrate why this bill should have gone to the select committee process. That young man that I spoke to is an employer. He has individualised funding and he is an employer of his caregivers. So he had the right, as an employer, to choose whether those people who fed him, bathed him, toileted him, and dressed him could continue even if they weren't vaccinated. But this Government has taken that choice from him, because his funding would be withheld if he carried on with carers who were not vaccinated.
Now, had that matter gone to the select committee, we would have asked for health advice, we would have asked for legal advice, and we would have shown the due concern that we should show when an example like that comes up—where there is going to be an impact and implications that have clearly not been thought of by this Government. That is what a select committee process is for. Instead, this gentleman faces the prospect of having no caregivers when he needs them. That is not a good alternative.
The other example that I gave was the young adult with Down's syndrome, whose parents are his caregivers—a young man who is not verbal; he can't articulate his concerns. Has the member who criticised this any idea how distressing it is for that young man and that family, thinking that they may be separated because this bill did not go through due process and did not have the opportunity to consider nuanced responses that need to address these kind of concerns?
People are genuinely worried about their civil rights. Everyday people are worried that this Government is giving itself more control than is necessary over their lives. And this Government prides itself on being kind! Well, if anybody had listened to Stuart Nash casting aspersions on those good Groundswell people last week, they would know this Government is not kind on anyone who threatens to have opinions other than theirs. People are genuinely worried about how controlling this Government is, and this most transparent Government ever is doing nothing to quell those concerns. In fact, they are stoking the fires of suspicion and conspiracy theorists by taking away people's opportunity to have a say.
We know, from years of managing people, that you give as much opportunity to get on board as possible, to take people with us. Taking their voice away is not giving people that opportunity. Taking their ability away to explain the impact on their lives, to explain where there will be anomalies that need to be addressed, takes away any power that they might have to influence this legislation and to get those minor tweaks and changes that would ensure that they understand and they are confident about the legislation going through. But this Government has wiped away the opportunity to take people with them, and has instead pushed even further the concerns that people have, has made those people who were a little bit anti absolutely dig their toes in—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired. Kieran McAnulty, five minutes.





KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): What we're seeing tonight is politics at play. What we are seeing tonight is the National Party desperately clinging to any possibility of regaining support in the community that they possibly can. Right up to this point, they have said to the public that they agree with the vaccine mandates. Then the Government introduces legislation to allow those to occur and the National Party say they oppose it because it is going under urgency. Here is a fact that the House should reflect on: in the nine years that that party was in Government, they used urgency far more frequently than this Government ever did. And then when we bring it in, they use that as an excuse to play politics. I'll explain why: because, as the next 12 months plays out, they want to be able to say on one hand they supported the mandates at every opportunity they could, and then, if things don't play out as we would like, they would like to say, "That's why we voted against it." This is politics at play. This is the negative, the divided, the desperate National Party clinging on to relevancy.
I do not, when we consider this bill, criticise the ACT Party, because, actually, their position is consistent with their values. But the National Party, when you consider their public statements, this is totally inconsistent. They are trying to play it both ways, and I think what the New Zealand public is seeing tonight is the two sides of the National Party playing out in public. But, once again, it is the fundamentalist conservative side that is winning out, and I commend the types of Chris Bishop and Nicola Willis for actually putting aside their values and just standing up for the party's position. I don't believe they believe this, because right throughout they understand that this is the right thing to do.





Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to go back on to a point I made earlier regarding how the bill amends the ERA—or the Employment Relations Act—by supporting the employees to be vaccinated by providing reasonable paid time off for this purpose.
I just want to highlight that many of our health providers have been trying to cater for our shift workers and those with less flexible time. So this particular clause in the bill will actually help our health providers who are dealing with business as usual as well as testing, as well as vaccinating, and also trying to cater for our community who work these different hours. So I like this particular clause in the bill. 
I also look to the four-week termination notice period for the employee to be able to have that time, and we've heard the different reasons why we would vote yes or no on this particular clause. I would just like to focus on those employees that need that time because some of our employees would make an easy choice to take the vaccination, and others would have to consult with other people.
I'd just make the point to our employees: please, speak to your trusted medical health profession first, your GP or your clinic nurse whose been looking after yourself and also your whānau—for these employees—so why would they give you the opposite advice against the vaccination? So, I guess, that's my sort of plea to our employees: to make sure that you speak to your trusted health professional before you make that decision.
There are different things in the bill that I like to support, and that's why I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.





SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I rise on behalf of National as the member of Parliament for North Shore. I must say, when I listened to the Minister get up and provide an opportunity to articulate some simple responses to the many questions that we've heard from this side of the House, all he could do is make comment in a negative way in terms of the members sitting on this side. He could not articulate at all any explanation for why this is rushed through without proper consultation.
He also mentioned about these people who are not vaccinated who could pose a risk to other Kiwis, and he's right, but what he failed to mention was that we are in this situation because this Government has been complacent—that has led us to this position. Their failure to act throughout this year to get our population vaccinated has put us in a position where we are vulnerable, and we are paying the price for that. That is disappointing, and that has implications on all Kiwis across this country.
I also wanted to just come back to a point that was raised before around the select committee process. We had the technical committee in around COVID testing last week. I'm a member of the Health Committee and it's a good committee. We've got many members across the House who are a part of it—good, smart committee. It's a shame that this bill did not go through due process; it did not go through a select committee process. And while we have different views from the political spectrums around that table, generally we can come to some consensus in terms of improving legislation and avoiding the reality of which we'll be faced with early next year when this bill comes back and we will need to correct a huge number of errors. 
We heard before around rapid testing, and Mr Bishop mentioned quite earlier about the Government's failure in terms of rolling out rapid antigen testing to this country—testing, of course, that's widely available internationally but is still not available in New Zealand. We heard a number quoted across this side. She had the audacity to say that we were misquoting, I think was the point. Hon Scott Simpson, I think you were quoted as misquoting—
Hon Scott Simpson: Oh, it was a shameful attack.
SIMON WATTS: A shameful attack. Well, I've actually got the Hansard in front of me from that select committee, Hon Scott Simpson, and do you know what this Hansard says?
Hon Scott Simpson: Do tell.
SIMON WATTS: Well, I tell you what. What she's quoted there was Mr Murdoch at the committee stated that the lowest point at which rapid antigen testing could be effective is 30 percent, but what she failed to advise is that the highest point is 80 percent. It is a range. So she is scaremongering once again in terms of saying these percentages were not providing the whole picture. And that personifies the lack of transparency from that side of the House, and it is a disgrace.
Legislative change that seriously implicates or has implications on the rights of Kiwis needs adequate consultation; that is from commentators around this bill around this country. Well, that feedback has fallen on deaf ears by this Labour Government. It is an indictment in terms of the fact that they do not want to take due process, they want to rush this bill through without due consultation, and the implications of that are that mistakes will be made, errors will be had, and this legislation impacts Kiwis across this country. It's going to impact everyone across this summer break that's coming up and beyond, because, of course, we have not had articulated in terms of when this will end.
So 8 percent of Kiwis at the moment have not had a vaccination, so that is hundreds of thousands. And, of course, on this side of the House, National strongly recommend that all Kiwis should be vaccinated, absolutely, it makes sense. But this legislation will affect a large number—thousands and thousands of workers. And, again, this process hasn't been through due consultation with select committees and hasn't had an opportunity for members to provide comment and to improve it.
We heard before the fact that this legislation does not have a regulatory impact statement. No costs and benefits. Well, I tell you what, I'm not surprised. That seems to be the status quo from this Labour Government in terms of when it comes to passing legislation through this House. No signoff in terms of implications around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, right? Aspects that should be part and parcel of legislation that comes through this House. Well, I'll just ask a question. I might ask, again, the Hon Scott Simpson. Has this been through the human rights commissioner, do you think?
Hon Scott Simpson: I doubt it.
SIMON WATTS: Do you think this legislation would have been through that?
Hon Scott Simpson: It should have. Surely yes.
SIMON WATTS: Well, how much do you want to put on it? A little bit of it? Well, I'll tell you what, it hasn't. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt has said that the use of urgency was a considerable concern—and I quote—"and given the human rights implications of this, this is critically important to go through due process", another example of the fact that this bill has not been consulted at all widely with a number of stakeholders to ensure that this is correct.
I want to spend a little bit of time on the Kiwis that this legislation will impact: those hospitality businesses that are across our electorates and particularly in Auckland where I come from—a hospitality sector that has had nearly a hundred days with no revenue. The consequences of this legislation in terms of that sector has been significant. Members of that community—members that I have been speaking to on the phone, members that I have significant numbers of emails from every day, and I'm sure across the House we would get that—still remain confused in terms of how this will work in practice.
The other aspect that this legislation touches on is managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ). And I don't think we've talked much about that this evening, but I want to spend a little bit of time around the implication. This bill adds layers and layers of complexity in terms of that MIQ situation, and yet we've got thousands of fully vaccinated Kiwis that are trapped overseas in that lottery of human misery that is MIQ. 
Hon Stuart Nash: Oh, for goodness' sake!
SIMON WATTS: And they've got an opportunity—and I hear one of the Ministers saying, what was that? What did he say, Chris Bishop? Did you hear that?
Chris Bishop: "Oh, for goodness' sake." he said.
SIMON WATTS: "For goodness' sake." I think we were picked up earlier on today around that language, but anyway.
Chris Bishop: Another faux pas by that Minister.
SIMON WATTS: Ha, ha! He's right, it is. It is an absolute travesty that Kiwis are overseas, who are fully vaccinated, who can be getting a negative test before departure, and come over to this country, and can they home isolate, Christopher Penk? Do you think that would be reasonable? No, of course not. They have to go into MIQ. They have to go into MIQ and spend a seven days and then a further three days, yet someone who is positive for COVID has to go into the MIQ situation. This bill touches on some of that legislation. In December, any Aucklander with a negative test result can pretty much move around this country. They can go anywhere around this country, but, as I said, Kiwi expats, negative test before they leave their offshore country, double-vaccinated, don't have COVID, aren't allowed to go into our community because they are—and I challenged the director-general on this. I said, "What is the clinical risk difference between those two individuals?" And he said, "Simon, it's not a clinical risk, it's a public health risk." Well, what is that?
Chris Bishop: There's been zero cases.
SIMON WATTS: Absolutely. There is no basis. And what we've heard also is that that shows a lack of consistency in terms of the application of processes and procedures for Kiwis within our community, and that level of inconsistency causes confusion.
I want to go back to that Health Committee, because it was raised before in terms of some of the feedback around that. We had Professor Murdoch come to our committee, and he stated that the Government had been very slow in terms of its adoption around the rapid antigen testing, which is such an important tool in our arsenal. So I just wanted to reinforce that that's what some of our technical experts have said around this.
I think the issues with this legislation run much deeper than what we're going to have time this evening to be able to grasp, because, of course, we haven't had a select committee process to be able to go through this and provide commentary and feedback and get that input from officials. But what this bill reflects is a Government that does not have a plan, a Government that is making up legislation on the hoof, a Government that is not providing certainty to the people that need it most, and that is our business community, particularly in big cities such as Auckland. That is an absolute disgrace, because that is avoidable. If they had planned earlier in terms of where we should have been by now, that would have been sorted. They could have dealt with that if they had been in control and were over the detail, and they were not.





TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take, I think, the final call at second reading for this bill, obviously in support because this bill does focus on the framework, the COVID protection framework, and how risk can be managed to allow people more freedoms and a more open environment. So it is significant as it is a less restrictive response to COVID-19.
The bill itself does align with an ability for orders to be made for the issue of COVID vaccination certificates, and colleagues have already referred to that. I know Dr McLellan and my colleague Sarah Pallett have talked about the high uptake in terms of the My Vaccine Passes. And just a plug there to remind people that the 0800 number is obviously available and that the support is there to support the community through that.
But when I look at the bill and the definition as to what actually is a COVID-19 vaccination certificate, it is outlined as part of clause 4, amending section 5, the interpretation section. When we look at that, it means "a certificate that is issued to a person in accordance with … [an] order made … certifying that the person is—(a) vaccinated; or (b) an exempt person." And the bill then goes on in its interpretation to define who is classified as an exempt person—someone who is obviously granted a vaccination exemption—and there is a process around that.
So it does provide for those who are vaccinated, and it's always pleasing to see that those rates are increasing, even in my own community within the MidCentral DHB area, but also for those who have, for whatever legitimate reason, received an exemption—and noting that the criteria is specified. So that is one aspect of the bill, and I think it's an important one as we move towards increasing vaccination. I continue to commend this bill to the House.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Noes 45
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.





DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill.
In Committee
Part 1  Amendments to COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The House is in committee on the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I welcome this opportunity to get into the detail during the committee stage. We haven't had the opportunity at select committee, but it is very important we do what we can in the limited time we have to get to grips with some of the detail here. I've a number of very genuine questions that I want the Minister to just spell out for the committee.
The first is—it's kind of a minor one, but I think it is of note—the legislative statement that's been presented to the House under Standing Order 272 says that the bill amends the original Act to require vaccination where the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries has determined that's necessary to facilitate access for specified products. I can't find that in the bill. Maybe it's an old copy of the legislative statement that may have been deleted from the bill, but can we just have a bit of clarity around exactly how that works, and maybe we can tidy that up for the third reading.
The second question is in relation to how the vaccination passport system will work with the mandate system for businesses that are affected by the traffic light framework. So what I mean by that is: the Government has said that businesses that have limits placed on them unless they use vaccine certificates as part of the traffic light framework, at orange and green—that use vaccine certificates, people who work in those businesses will be required to be vaccinated, and that makes some sort of sense. You've got the corollary of: if you can only enter if you're vaccinated, you can only work in the business if you're vaccinated. That makes sense. I can't find in the bill the empowering provision that allows the Government to do that. I thought it was new section 11AB, which allows the Government to make orders for specified work, but if you look at "specified work", it's around the public interest in terms of continuity of services essential for public safety, national defence, or crisis response. So I don't think that is the provision that the Government is relying on when it comes to authorising orders for, basically, levelling up vaccination mandate requirements alongside vaccination passport requirements. In fact, I'm generally interested in what the purpose of new section 11AA and new section 11AB is generally.
How exactly—I suppose this is the third question—are those sections different from the existing empowering provisions in the current Act that allow the Government to impose vaccine mandates for specified industries? So, just to give a bit of context, the Government has already promulgated, pursuant to the existing Act, vaccine mandates across the health workforce, teaching, and border workforce. That was the first one, they've been well in place, they enjoy, generally, widespread consensus. What I don't understand is, given that those mandates have already been put in place pursuant to the existing Act, what is the purpose of new section 11AB in clause 7 of the new bill? What is the purpose of it? Why does the Government need to give itself those powers—genuinely interested in exactly what the purpose of that is?
A couple of other questions before I hand over, because I know my colleagues will have things to say as well. Is it envisaged that the—and I'm referring now to clause 4 and subsection (3)(a) in relation to the vaccination exemption criteria. So the bill proposes the director-general may make a notice, for the purposes of any legislation under the Act, what the vaccination exemption criteria will be. Now, my understanding is that the Government has essentially shifted the criteria to the director-general, and he is exercising those exemption criteria already. Is it the Government's intention that that just carries over once the new bill becomes an Act, that the director-general will just continue to do that pursuant to the criteria that he has published already? Or is it envisaged that there will be some further clarification on that?
There's quite a lot to cover in that contribution, for the Minister to respond to, so perhaps I'll just leave it there. Thank you.





Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Thank you, Madam Chair. It may assist members to know that I'll answer as best I can any questions on this bill, but I also have my colleague the Hon Michael Wood, who is also one of the Ministers named in this legislation, and he is also available in the Chamber to answer questions on those provisions in the bill that relate to his portfolio as well.
With regard to the last question that Mr Bishop raised—which is irrelevant, I think—to the top of page 5, which is the COVID-19 vaccination exemption criteria, this formalises something that the director-general has already been doing. Perhaps if I could deal with—actually, maybe I should deal with an earlier question that he raised first, which is why we have, on pages 6 and 7, those provisions set out in new sections 11AA and 11AB, and it does relate to some signalling by the courts, I think it would be fair to say, where, in recent court cases, they found that vaccination requirements were justified, and the case of some challenges to those vaccination requirements, but sent a reasonably strong hint, I think, to the Government that they would prefer to see those vaccination requirements mandated in primary legislation rather than under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act, as it existed.
So it was the courts' view—and I can't remember which of the judgments it was in, off the top of my head, but I can certainly recall reading it. There was a signal there from the courts that they thought it would be better if there was a specific provision in the Act that related to vaccination mandates, rather than using the more general provisions of the Act, which is what the orders have previously been made under. And, therefore, these amendments, and the one that I mentioned about the vaccination exemption criteria, formalise arrangements that have already been put in place using the more general provisions in the Act, but make those more specific and make the legal footing for those more specific.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I hope we get, through the committee of the whole House, the opportunity that we haven't had through the regulatory impact statement or the select committee process, to tease out what it is the Government is actually doing with, effectively, a piece of legislation that gives them a huge amount of regulation-making power. There are a number of questions about what those regulations are going to look like. I think it behoves the Ministers who are responsible for this bill to make sure that we at least know what is being planned.
Now, one of the things that staggered me through the last eight to 10 months of this process is the almost complete ignoring or overlooking of a very important piece of legislation that I was the responsible Minister for, and that was the Health and Safety at Work Act. It really surprises me that the Government hasn't taken the opportunity to remind persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) of their obligations under that piece of legislation. Instead, they have, effectively, run over the top of it with this bill and many others, I have to say. But I want to remind the committee, before I ask my questions of the Minister or Ministers, what the primary duty of care under the Health and Safety at Work Act is, that is for the PCBU to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of the workers who work for the PCBU and whose activities, in carrying out that work, are influenced or directed by the PCBU. In paragraph 36(3)(g) "that the health of workers"—the health of workers—"and the conditions at the workplace are monitored for the purpose of preventing injury or illness of workers arising from the conduct of the business or undertaking.", and the fact that the Government has completely overlooked this, I think, speaks to the low level of trust that they have in business to do the right thing.
One of the things, I think, having been the Minister that ran the gauntlet for 18 months in the passage and introduction of the Health and Safety at Work Act, is that not a single word of that Act has actually been changed by this Government in the four years they've had the opportunity to do so. Indeed, the previous Minister has said that it was actually in very good shape.
Now, here's my first question, and I should add, and the Minister was quite rightly pointing out that he's responsible for parts of it, even in Part 1—but the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is available, I note, and I would encourage and welcome a response through a call from the seat that the Minister's in, rather than being in the formal chair, if that's appropriate. But in clause 4, "Section 5 amended (Interpretation)", the definition of an "affected worker means a worker who was employed or engaged by a PCBU to carry out specified work". And that key word there, I think, is "engaged" because the definition of "a worker" under the Health and Safety at Work Act includes a contractor or an employee of a contractor. So I'm assuming, and I need this confirmed, that the affected-worker clause in this bill means also contractors and employees of contractors and subcontractors. That's important because what we're then setting a regulation, potentially, to do is to extend the reach of a workplace beyond one's own employees and into the employment relationships of other businesses. So my question is: is that what's intended, and, if so, what is the expectation on the requirement for somebody to be vaccinated and then be, effectively, put off. Because it's easy to say, "Well, I don't want that subcontractor in my workplace.", but it's another thing altogether to then have some kind of obligation for a four-week notice period and a payment of compensation.
The second question in this call is relating to proposed new section 11AB "Orders that can be made under this Act", and this is where, really, we've got to get to tin tacks. "The Minister may … make an order for 1 or more of the following purposes: (a) specifying work, or classes of work, that may not be carried out … unless the affected worker is vaccinated,". Then in subclause (b) "specifying work, or classes of work, that may not be carried out by an affected worker unless the affected worker reports for and undergoes medical examination or testing for COVID-19…". So we've got a class of workers where they must be vaccinated and a class of workers where they could be vaccinated or tested regularly. What I'd like to know, I think the committee would benefit is: what would the jobs—[Time expired]





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Rather seamlessly, I'd like to follow on from that and just ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, about clause 4—Part 1, clause 4—which amends section 5 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. It changes the interpretation. There's quite a number of new terms introduced into the legislation. There's a "vaccination authorisation", a "vaccination certificate", a "vaccination exemption". There's "exempt person means a person who has been granted a COVID-19 vaccination exemption", "specified COVID-19 vaccination exemption criteria", "vaccinated". These are all the new terms that are introduced.
Now, what I find interesting, what I really want the Minister to address, is where do these testing requirements come in? Because, as Michael Woodhouse, who was speaking just a second ago, pointed out, the bill very clearly contemplates that some people who are required to do work will be able to meet the criteria by being vaccinated or tested. And this is not only important in the context of the bill, which contemplates vax-or-test, it's important in the context of the response to COVID-19 globally. Because, in quite a number of different theatres the requirement is to be either vaccinated or tested, not just vaccinated. And once you think about that, you have to start asking, well, what is the purpose of this piece of legislation?
Now, some of the Labour members—and I don't know if they were reading the bill notes that they were provided or they're confused or just not sure how to fill in their whole two minutes, but a number of them said that the purpose of this legislation was to raise overall vaccination rates. Well, the Minister should tell us, is that the purpose? Is this legislation there to incentivise the wider public to get vaccinated? Because, if that's the case, I would suggest there are other ways to achieve that, and, at the margin, we're pretty much as far as we're going to get. We need incentives and persuasion, rather than coercion.
But I think the Minister should tell us, you know, the underlying purpose. I mean, there's no purpose statement, there's no amendment to the purpose statement of the principal Act. The purpose is really helpful to know, and once you know that purpose—if it's to increase vaccination rates overall, then what we've seen in the interpretation section makes sense: it's all about vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate. But, actually, there is another purpose that the Minister himself has raised. He stood up and said, "Well, actually, this is about protecting people from harming each other.", that a person who is not vaccinated is more likely to have a bigger viral load and pass it on to someone who, you know, may be either a child who can't be vaccinated or somebody who is vaccinated—but, as we know, even those of us who are very strong proponents of vaccination against COVID-19, it's not the 100 percent sterilising immunity silver bullet that some of us had hoped for. You know, you can harm somebody else.
So, if the purpose of this legislation is actually to stop some people harming others by carrying COVID-19 and potentially affecting them, then you'd have to ask: is the way to address that purpose not to ensure that somebody is actually vaxxed or tested? Because, you know, if vaccination protection is not 100 percent, then there must be some frequency of testing that actually gives an equivalent guarantee that a person you meet is not going to pass on COVID-19. And I wonder why, in the interpretation section, there's no mention of what it means to be tested. It's all about vaccination, even though testing is mentioned elsewhere in the bill.
It's also important in the wider context of a response to COVID-19—and Madam Chair, this is important, so I hope you'll grant me at least a few more minutes on this call. You know, you look around the world, the vax or test idea is being widely embraced—Denmark, for example. I mean, they have an app that says if you show that you're either vaccinated or tested, to demonstrate that you're unlikely to harm somebody else with COVID-19. Air New Zealand, much closer to home: for domestic flights they're not insisting on vaccination only; they're saying it's vax or test. And then there's the New Zealand Government, even closer to home: the Minister himself is saying that when people leave Auckland—and I know this is a bit of a sore point, so I'll try not to bring it up too much for this Minister—but people will be able to show their credentials for leaving Auckland and that they're either vaccinated—[Time expired]





CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I note that the Government has already dropped its own Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) on to the floor of the House, SOP 100. In fact, the Government had an SOP on the floor of the House before the Opposition did. That's how poorly and shambolic this process is. So I suppose my question is to the Minister, Michael Wood: what is the purpose of SOP 100? And if he could enlighten the House as to how that missed out the bill drafting process? And you know, if it's OK with us, it'd be good to know what the other SOPs are that are coming down the line, if, indeed, there are any further amendments.
One in particular that I'm looking for, that we didn't get an answer from the Minister in the chair before in relation to, is, again I go back to why the legislative statement that's been tabled makes reference to the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries. It's a genuine question. Why is that person mentioned in the legislative statement when it's not in the bill? So we look forward to finding out exactly what's happened there; something's gone awry there.
But, of course, this is what happens when Parliament is put into urgency to pass a bill through all stages. I'm going to make a prediction now. I'll make a prediction: we will be back at some point in the next six months to fix up this bill. There's just no doubt about it. I mean, the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill, I understand, needs fixing as well. That's the one that we only passed two weeks ago, and we made a mistake in passing that, too.
So, anyway, a further question is a very genuine question, and I asked it before and we haven't had an answer yet. But I want to know what particular part of the bill allows the Government to make rules in relation to vaccination mandates for specified workers. And I'm reading from an article in which the Minister of Workplace Relations and Safety, Michael Wood, is quoted this morning—in fact, it's based largely on a press release that he issued—which is that unvaccinated staff and businesses where vaccine mandates will not be able to continue their work unless they are fully vaccinated against COVID 19 by 17 January. The Government, on Tuesday, set out new requirements for workers to be vaccinated at businesses where customers need to show My Vaccine Pass under the new traffic light system. Makes perfect sense, in some ways. If you have to be vaccinated to enter the business, you have to be vaccinated to work at the businesses; that make sense. It brings things into line. It's the logical corollary of having a vaccine certificate system for some businesses. The question is just this: where is the provision in the bill that allows the Government to make rules regarding that? That's fundamental—that's critical. The Government put out a press release about it this morning and has made much of those requirements. And I may be missing something here, the Government may be relying on clause 6, which is the new section 11—well, section 7 which is amended—but I can't see it in the legislation. We've got the shadow Attorney-General here, Mr Penk. He may want to comment on that, as well, but I can't see it. And so it's a genuine question from officials as to what is the empowering provision in the legislation?
A final further question before I hand over to other colleagues is in relation to the risk assessment framework. Now, again, we had a press release from the Minister this morning saying, "Don't worry about it, guys. There's a risk assessment framework coming, Parliament will legislate for one when it comes to businesses making up their minds as to who needs to be vaccinated and who doesn't. It's all under control. Don't worry, we'll publish the regulations in mid-December." And, of course, this has all been done very, very hurriedly.
Hon Member: Another announcement of an announcement.
CHRIS BISHOP: Well, yeah, exactly. Another announcement of an announcement. And there's no constitutional problem with Parliament passing an empowering provision to allow the Government to pass regulations, obviously. But it is a bit unusual that the Parliament would give the Government the power to promulgate something and put out a press release simultaneously on the same day without getting any real indication as to what will be in the framework. That is slightly unusual. And so I suppose one real question is: would it be better for the risk assessment framework to actually be in the primary legislation? In fact, that is a really genuine question: why the risk assessment framework is not actually in the primary legislation.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill. I'd like to just ask a few questions in regards to clause 7. And I guess my first question to the Minister is: we've heard a lot about the traffic lights which have been announced by this Government. And my question here is: is the new section 11AA the empowering provision which the Minister and the Government intends to put New Zealand into reds and oranges and greens—I hear Auckland's meant to be the great red light district next Friday, is what they've announced. The rest of the country is going to be the orange light district, but we still don't know what green means. The question I've got for the Minister—I've got a number of questions, actually.
Chris Bishop: That's Wellington Central.
SIMEON BROWN: Wellington Central, well, maybe that will be Green. That's where the Greens hang out, isn't it?
But I've got a number of questions here. New section 11AA starts by saying, "(1) The Minister may make a COVID-19 order under section 11AB in accordance with the following provisions: (a) the Minister must be satisfied that the order does not limit or is a justified limit on the rights and freedoms in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990;". My first question relates very much to that point, which is the fact that all New Zealanders have accepted their rights being limited in the past 18 months in regards to COVID-19. And I think most New Zealanders would accept the need for their rights to be limited in some way going through what has been a global pandemic. But the question I've got coming through this is when it comes to how the Minister is satisfied going forward—because we've spent the last 18 months dealing with what initially was a major crisis, a new disease which no one knew much about. Now we're moving into a traffic light system, which is apparently safer, and we've, obviously, got the vaccine, we've got boosters, and we've got rapid antigen tests. We've got so many tools that we didn't have 18 months ago to be able to manage and address COVID-19. And so my question here in regards to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is: how is the Minister going to be satisfied that an order does not limit or is a justified limit on the rights and freedoms in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? 
I do just note that this process that we're going through tonight does not give me much confidence that this Government is actually going to take this seriously. On 23 November, the Hon David Parker, which I believe was today, got sent the Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill report. And it says in paragraph 2, "This advice has been prepared in an extremely short timeframe due to late receipt of the Bill that was not in compliance"—not in compliance—"with Cabinet Office … [guidelines]." It's not like this bill doesn't address or impact on many people's human rights at all. I mean, it only impacts on your right to refuse to undergo medical treatment. It only impacts on freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, freedom of movement, freedom from discrimination, right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. That's all the rights which are impacted by this piece of legislation, and the letter was received this morning, or maybe it was this afternoon. But that's how much thought this Government put into how much impact this has on people's rights and freedoms.
We've had 18 months to be thinking through this—well, at least if you think Delta arrived in New Zealand in April, from April to now to think through what's the framework, given vaccinations, given all the other tools that have been developed since this pandemic started, all that time since April to actually think this stuff through, but their letter arrived this morning. So can the Minister give me some confidence and answer the question: what it means to be satisfied that the order does not limit or is a justified limit on the rights and freedoms? And what consultation is the Minister going to undertake with Government departments? Or what legal advice or opinions is he going to seek?
Chris Penk: Will he release it?
SIMEON BROWN: Is he going to release—it's a very good question from my colleague Chris Penk. Will he release that opinion or that legal advice? Is he required to get legal advice as to whether it is a breach or whether there's a limit or how that's being balanced up? These are questions I think New Zealanders would actually like to have an answer for. These are the types of questions which should have been fleshed out at a select committee, but we are having to ask these questions here during this process in the committee of the whole House. 





Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I'll run through a variety of the issues that have been raised so far, and perhaps if I start with some of the general themes first.
The provisions in this bill that relate to vaccinations very much follow a similar format—or, effectively, the same format—as the existing legislation, which is that they are quite broad, empowering provisions that do allow those questions of detail to be established through the orders that can be issued under the Act once it has been passed. And I would note that, when the original legislation was passed by the House, there was actually broad support across the House for that, recognising that these rules are complicated and that, in dealing with a global pandemic, you are often dealing with a situation that changes quite quickly and that there are a lot of unknowns and you do need to be able to change and adapt. You do need to be able to fix things, because almost everything related to COVID-19 has been done quickly—more quickly than would be done in a desirable set of circumstances—and, therefore, there will be areas where we need to go back and where we need to correct things, or we need to change things because the circumstances have changed. So, by having reasonably broad, empowering provisions, we create the flexibility to be able to do that.
I'll run through some of the questions. In terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the requirement for the Government to follow the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, we still have to do that. The obligations upon Ministers in implementing orders under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act do still continue, and the same requirement exists in these provisions as for all other provisions in the Act. And I note that many of the orders already made under the Act have been supported by the Opposition, and, in fact, in many cases over the last 12 months or so, they have been demanding to know why we haven't been more limiting of people's rights in some of the provisions. I think about some of the debates we've had around managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ), for example. I know they want to suddenly do away with it now, but it was literally, it feels like weeks, it may be a few months ago now, they were thundering, demanding in this House, why we weren't being more strict in our MIQ arrangements. So the existing provisions that apply to existing orders apply to the new orders.
In terms of the empowering provisions for the vaccination certificates and the workforce mandate, section 11 will be done as an amendment to the existing vaccinations order.
In terms of the purpose of the Supplementary Order Paper to ensure absolute clarity for employers about how the paid notice of termination provisions operate, it's to ensure that the payment is just for the notice and that there's no notice compensation on top of that. So it's a clarity issue.
In terms of the Government policy statement—the statement that I tabled in the House referring to the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries—the members are correct; that does refer to an earlier version of the bill, and those sections were decided to be not required. So they're not in the version of the bill that is tabled. So the version of the bill that is tabled is correct.
I'll let the Minister concerned speak to the issues around a person conducting a business or undertaking—or PCBUs—that Michael Woodhouse has raised.
If I run through quickly now, because it is a good opportunity to do so, the Supplementary Order Papers tabled by the Opposition and set out the Government's views upon those. The first of them is in the name of Chris Bishop and concerns changes made in the House under a different piece of legislation last week, regarding COVID-19 testing consumables. I would argue that that is outside the scope of the legislation, although that's not my decision to make. But I would say that it would directly contradict a decision made by the House just last week.
In terms of the requirement suggestion, by Chris Bishop again, that the House of Representatives be required to review the Act, of course the House is the master of its own destiny; it does not need a legislative requirement to do that. If the House wishes to conduct a review of anything, it can do that. And if the select committee wishes to conduct a review of the Act, it has the power to do that now. So, therefore, those provisions are unnecessary.
In terms of Simeon Brown's suggestion that the vaccination provisions exclude religious places of worship, I would note to him that, actually, some of the biggest clusters of COVID-19 cases that we have dealt with in the time that I have been leading the COVID-19 response have, sadly, involved places of worship. And, in some cases, people have died after contracting COVID-19 at a place of worship. So I would oppose that. In terms of within the traffic light framework, people will still have the ability to attend places of worship if they are unvaccinated, but there will be limits on the number of people who are able to participate in those services. And that applies to a number of the amendments that are proposed by Simeon Brown.
He has also proposed that tangihanga be exempt from the vaccination requirements, which I think is interesting from somebody who, in this House, has been questioning why the Mongrel Mob, in their tangi, didn't have to follow the COVID-19 public health response guidelines. He now suggests that that should be enshrined in law—that they wouldn't have to follow those guidelines. The Government does not believe those amendments would be in the public health interest.
In terms of the remaining issues that, I think, Simeon Brown has proposed, a series of amendments that relate to human rights, as I've already indicated, the Government continues to follow the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in making its decisions under this Act. In terms of the process questions that the member has raised, the Government gets advice from Crown Law on every order that we make under the Act, or every order that I make I get advice from Crown Law on that. And I also get advice from the Director-General of Health on every order that I have made under that. Crown Law advice, as the members opposite who have been Ministers will be aware, is subject to legal privilege.





CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak in this, the committee of the whole House stage of COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill. Like colleagues on this side of the House, from at least a couple of parties, we do have significant questions about a piece of legislation that is being rushed through. The ink is barely drying on it, and we have the prospect of this becoming the law of the land in a hugely complicated, hugely significant way, potentially in less than 24 hours plus the time it takes to have Royal assent given.
I have very significant misgivings, which I would like to be allayed by the Minister's responses to questions I have in relation to the courts and tribunals of New Zealand. This is a portfolio area of mine, but should also be of interest to every member of Parliament and all those who care about the reasonable conduct of public life in New Zealand as protected by the courts. So my question, which is an overarching one, which I'll break down into a number of more specific points, is: what effect does this legislation have on the courts of New Zealand? For example, are judges who are duly appointed—and are not subject to political or, indeed, other branches of Government interference as to their employment—affected by the vaccine mandates or the operation of these orders in a way that would cause them to conduct the affairs of their courtroom in a way that is, effectively, directed by the Executive? For example, is a witness to a court case required to be vaccinated, and if he or she is not, is he or she able to participate or not participate in accordance with this so-called traffic light system, which we'll use by way of shorthand? Likewise, defendants, plaintiffs, those who deserve to have their day in court—a constitutionally protected right under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which, along with other rights and freedoms contained therein, you would not necessarily know if you're a casual observer, but which we were assured by the Government, it bears in mind, as the Minister has stated, perhaps in slightly patronising tone, those on this side of the House who have been Ministers before know that such advice is privileged. Well, others know that too, and that doesn't lessen our desire to see the working, see the justification, at least to understand where the Government's head is at in terms of some of these restrictions.
Of course, it may be possible that there are justified limitations, but the thing about justifying limitations is that one has to justify them. If one doesn't spell them out and if one spells them out in the form of a letter that is arriving on the desks of the legislators, indeed, the Attorney-General himself only received today, presumably—23 November 2021 being today—the advice in relation to the consistency of this legislation with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, it begs belief that we should be expected to believe that a robust scrutiny has taken place in relation to consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
What about jurors? Can either of the Ministers, indeed, any of the Ministers—and I note that the Minister for Courts is here in the House, I don't know if it's within the rules of the committee to allow him to comment in that capacity. Certainly, I would welcome him taking a call, even unofficially, to provide his advice in relation to this, if, indeed, he's turned his mind to it. What about jurors who are supposed to be selected? "Twelve good men and true"—of course we'd say "good people" in this day and age—randomly selected by way of population, not subject to limitations as a zealous Government might impose for, you know, perhaps perfectly valid public health reasons. What is the impact? What is the effect of that? The work that they would be undertaking, you know, affected work, perhaps, specified activities—who knows?
How are the courts and tribunals of this country to be conducted in relation to this? Are they separate because it's a separate branch of Government and it's not for the executive or, indeed, Parliament to interfere with that? Or will they be required to play ball along those lines as well? Do the dictates of open justice, which would allow, all things being equal, that members of the public can attend court hearings? What if we have more than 100 warm bodies in a courtroom—a number of whom would be, sort of, participants proper, others who might be observers—does that fall foul of the traffic light system in certain levels, according to this legislation?
Huge constitutional implications. I would be surprised but delighted if the Ministers opposite have given any thought to it, and I would certainly welcome the opportunity to hear from them now about what provisions they've made for that, if indeed any at all, and I look forward to then being able to ask a number of other questions in different relevant areas.





Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought I'd just take a fairly brief call at this stage to address a couple of the specific points that were raised earlier on in the debate by the Hon Michael Woodhouse relating to the relationship to the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) in terms of the bill that the committee is considering. I take the point of the member on board that the Health and Safety at Work Act remains the primary vehicle that we have in place that places a primary duty of care on employers in respect to the health and safety of workers for whom they are responsible. The assurance that I would give the member is that that does remain, and that is not affected in any way by the provisions of this bill. In fact, I'd note clause 33AB on page 11 of the bill. I'll just quote directly from it, which might provide some assurance and clarity here: "To assist a PCBU in meeting their primary duty of care under section 36 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, the PCBU may, in accordance with the assessment tool, conduct an assessment of the work carried out by workers". So we have a very clear link here between this piece of legislation and that primary duty of care that employers do owe.
Just to delve further into that point: the issue that the Government is attempting to address here through the creation of the vaccine assessment tool is not to replace any requirements under HSWA but to give greater support and clarity to employers who are trying to exercise their duties under HSWA.
We've heard a very, very clear message from, actually, interestingly, both employers and unions largely in unison around this, that while there are existing health and safety assessment tools that employers can use, and some are—particularly larger employers are making use of them at the moment—that especially for smaller employers who might have more limited access to HR and legal resources, a simplified assessment tool will be extremely helpful for them in terms of coming to reasonable judgments about whether it is reasonable to require a vaccine for certain kinds of work. That is the intention of the vaccine tool that is enabled by this piece of legislation. Again, I just affirm that that links through to the primary duty of care under HSWA, as set out by clause 33AB.
The second point that the honourable member raised related to the definition of "affected worker". I think he was really just seeking clarification as to whether the definition of "worker" that we are using within this piece of legislation is consistent with the definition of "worker" that we use under the Health and Safety at Work Act, and I can confirm that that is the case. We do want to have consistency between the legislative regimes. If I can just point out why that's important, if we think, for example, about the provisions that we're working towards when orders come into effect that will require workers in COVID-19 vaccination certificate worksites to be vaccinated, we would most certainly want there to be a consistency of application by someone who might be employed as an employee or a contractor. If, for example, we're talking about a hospitality venue, regardless of whether you, as the customer, are being served by someone who is an employee or, if for some reason, that person is a contractor, we would want consistency in terms of the way that the vaccination requirement plays out across both of those people. So that's why the definition of "worker", consistent with HSWA, is the one that we have used there.





Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm pleased to take a call on what is a very important piece of legislation, the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill. The Minister in charge, Chris Hipkins, referred to the fact that the Opposition has supported some of the COVID orders in the past. And I just want to put on record a couple of things. Firstly, when the outbreak first occurred last year, there were lots of elements that were unknown, and the Opposition was very careful in carrying out its responsibility to support the Government as much as possible, at a time of crisis when it was a national emergency, to ensure that New Zealanders understood the importance of what was occurring. I think the difference, in terms of where we stand here—and my colleagues on the Opposition benches at this point in time—is the fact that this is a Delta outbreak, which, of course, the Government has known about for quite some time and had a lengthy period of time to plan and prepare for.
So to be here on 23 November, debating legislation under urgency that will have a significant impact on New Zealanders' rights and freedoms with zero opportunity for the public to be involved, is quite abhorrent. That is why the Opposition will be ensuring that the voices of the public are brought into this Parliament, if not by the Government—who, in many peoples' view, the fact that it is the first majority Government ever places a higher bar of responsibility on ensuring that power isn't abused. And in legislation like we are debating today, there is a serious obligation—one that in my view, and the view of the public, the Labour Government is not discharging with any form of responsibility.
So I've got a couple of questions—
Dr Duncan Webb: Oh good!
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —for the Minister, and I think the senior whip should be a little patient and shouldn't trivialise a debate in this House under urgency.
Dr Duncan Webb: You're halfway through.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I'm not clock watching, and I suggest that that member doesn't, because that member is trivialising every single person in the New Zealand population who has on multiple occasions contacted every member of Parliament and Opposition members—hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of emails, thousands of people who have signed petitions, shocked and disgusted at some of the decisions that the Labour Government is making and ramming through in Parliament tonight.
So a couple of my questions, one is reflecting on my colleague Chris Penk's comments that were related to the courts. I note clause 7, inserting new sections 11AA and 11AB, which is all around orders in relation to specified work. And as the Opposition spokesperson for social development and employment, I'm particularly concerned about those New Zealanders who have a range of challenges who have to interact with Government agencies, one of which is the Ministry of Social Development. I have not seen any confirmation—I've not been reassured in any way, shape, or form that no New Zealander will be excluded from a Work and Income office if they are not vaccinated. I think these are the sorts of practical issues, when we're passing legislation like this, that New Zealanders want to be reassured about. So I'm specifically asking a question—actually, I want a guarantee. I want a guarantee that no New Zealander will be excluded from a Work and Income site. As we know, many people have had to interact online or by phone, and for many people that is not the way they are most comfortable. So to be able to turn up to a Work and Income office—and many people have complex challenges that they want to discuss with someone face to face—I want an absolute reassurance and commitment from the Government—[Time expired]





MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'll apologise to my colleague the Hon Louise Upston who actually had quite a lot to actually say, no doubt—like most of us.
It seems a little bit ironic, me standing in this House to debate something in the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill, because it is almost like Groundhog Day, where we are actually dealing with certain things that I thought were, apparently, dealt with completely and utterly 100 percent securely last week. But we have new legislation which actually fixes something that we apparently passed last week.
So I have a question for the Minister: does the Minister stand by his statement to the New Zealand Parliament during the committee stage of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2) that, and I quote, "The advice that the Government has had is that this provision isn't actually necessary because the existing provisions that are in place already make that clear. However, we have heard the concerns from others that they would like to see that explicitly stated in the Act. That is the reason why we have agreed with the committee's recommendation to insert these additional provisions." These relate to my speaking in the House in relation to my Supplementary Order Paper 85 and my concerns regarding data protection and privacy concerns related to the bill that was actually passed last week.
So I'd like to ask the Minister if he actually stands by his statement. If so, why? If not, why not? There are also a couple of other questions that I'd actually like to ask. In terms of that, I note that the new legislation will amend the recently inserted section 34A of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 that was only just debated last week, as I said, Groundhog Day. In particular, it amends subsection (1) to add the following further subsection as new subsection B, and I quote, "enforcing the Act or a COVID-19 order (including for the purposes of proceedings against a person for non-compliance)". Why does the Minister actually believe this new section is, in fact, needed, when he said we didn't need to actually amend anything last week?
Also, did the Minister make a mistake when he informed the House that new section 34A of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2) provision isn't actually necessary, as he said last week? When the Minister stated during the committee stage of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2) in this discussion of new section 34A that he wanted to "underscore the public's desire for clarity."
Why is he now further confusing the public through additional amendments under urgency just one sitting week later? Does he believe that he made a mistake last week; if not, why not?





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to thank the Minister for answering some of the questions that were asked, but sometimes it's the questions that the Minister doesn't get up and answer that are the most revealing. Now, I just want to restate, as I was asking last time I had the call on this committee—I want to understand what the purpose of this bill is. Is it to get overall vaccination rates up, as some Labour Party members have claimed during this debate? Or is it to protect people from each other, acknowledging that some people who are vaccinated are less likely to infect people who are not? And if it's the latter, which is what the Minister said, and I think that's what should be the purpose of this legislation, then why is there so much reference in the interpretation section, and, indeed, most of the bill, to "vaccination", but very little reference, certainly in terms of interpretation and definition, to what it means to be tested and what sort of testing regimes might be put in place?
So that's one question the Minister hasn't answered to date about the purpose of the bill and what the relationship between testing and vaccination is in achieving the purpose. Has, for instance, the Government got any guidance on what frequency of negative tests might give a person equivalent assurance that a person who is not vaccinated is just as unlikely to pass on COVID-19 to them? It's a very important number, and you'd hope the Government sought some data on that, so I'll leave that for now. But that's a question that hasn't been answered and that the Minister should get up and answer. 
The second question has been alluded to by a number of people who have gotten up and given speeches, but I'm not sure that it's really been put together the way it might be, which is: how does this piece of legislation connect with the traffic light system? Because we've got a Government that almost seems to be confused between governing by press release and governing by statutes—you know, primary and secondary legislation made by this House and passed under the authority of the House as regulation by Ministers. They seem to be confused by the two things. 
I think that's why the Prime Minister frequently announces that she's going to make an announcement. It's almost as though an announcement is, in fact, a policy or a solution, and forecasting one of those is as good as forecasting doing something. 
Chris Bishop: Real Fitzgerald and Muldoon.
DAVID SEYMOUR: And we saw it—well, we saw it with the requirement—
Dr Duncan Webb: Talk about the bill at any time you like, David!
DAVID SEYMOUR: —for people to be—we saw it—what was that?
Dr Duncan Webb: You can talk about the bill, at any point.
DAVID SEYMOUR: Oh—ha, ha! Now, you can see why Duncan Webb was a law professor, because if he had to make his money as a comedian, he'd be broke, you know. Good old Duncan Webb. Look—do you have something else to say?
Hon Member: He's gone all red.
DAVID SEYMOUR: No, he's gone red behind his mask. It's pretty hard for someone to show that their face has gone red through a mask that's coloured black, but Duncan Webb has actually managed it. In any case, thanks for playing.
Look, there's some serious matters to be debated here, and one of them is: how exactly does this legislation fit with the traffic light system? Because we saw, in the case of the mandate for medical workers, the Government did the announcement that medical workers had to be vaccinated, and it was another two weeks before the order was actually passed into law. That was a real problem, because people who are actually in the business had enormous practical difficulties. You know, they're saying, "Well, which staff exactly are covered and what's the consequence if they're not vaccinated? And, you know, how do we actually verify that they are or aren't?" All of those things. It took two weeks to sort that out. 
In the end, the law only dropped on the Monday, and I think it was the Friday that actually the first dose had to be had by. That's a real problem when you start doing announcements or lawmaking by announcement or by press release, and I worry that it's going to be kind of the same with the traffic light system. We had the big announcement, although I'm not sure that it was as politically effective as the Government hoped, but that's another story. But only now are we getting legislation that might help bring it to pass. And yet, you know, there's so many serious questions around how it will work—for example, I asked the Prime Minister in question time today, "What's going to happen when the regulations haven't been drafted?" [Time expired]





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to join Mr Seymour in acknowledging the Minister's attempts to address at least some of the questions, and I agree that it's not what he answered; it's what he didn't answer that's important. I think that as we try and tease out what these regulations might look like—because all we've got is another bill to create a regulation-making power, the details of which we are unaware—I'd remind the Minister that as far as I can tell, he didn't answer the question of which classes of work will be required to have a worker vaccinated, or vaccinated and tested. We didn't get an answer to that, and I've found it fascinating that he spent more time in his answers addressing the National Party's Supplementary Order Papers than he did on answering substantive questions on the bill, as if he's as busy as Dr Webb is—a bit busy and important to be bothered with the, sort of, technical details—and he just needs to be somewhere else. Well, I'm afraid we need better answers than that, Minister.
I want to continue the line of questioning from my friend the Hon Louise Upston, and for me it relates to section 11(3)(h), which inserts a clause "requiring persons to permit individuals to enter a place or receive a service whether or not those individuals are vaccinated,". So the majority of the bill is actually about preventing certain things and constraining people's freedoms if they are not vaccinated, and then we have this mysterious clause in here, which basically says, "Oh, by the way, for some individuals, they're going to have to just let an unvaccinated person come into their place of work."
Now, we have that already, albeit, actually, vaccination status isn't yet a barrier and it will be by Friday week. So, actually, everybody can go and get a haircut down my way; by Friday week, they won't be able to. Everybody can go to the pharmacy. I presume this is what this clause is about, Minister, but it would be quite good to have a better clarification about who is intended to be affected—
Hon Chris Hipkins: Which clause is this? Remind me which clause?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: This is clause 6(3)(h), amending section 11(g), on page 5. It's, basically, saying that even if they're not vaccinated, they can come in. Now, for a private organisation, I think that's a really big reach into the autonomy and decision making that a business may make not to allow an unvaccinated person to come on to their premises. 
Now, it may have what the Minister believes is good intent. It may relate to a healthcare setting, for example, but even then, I think we need to know what we're empowering the Government to do. Take a GP practice. A GP practice may make a decision not to allow unvaccinated people on to the premises. Maybe they'll do consultations by Zoom. Maybe they'll get blood tests picked up by an authorised test-taker. The hospital I used to manage in Dunedin has already issued a policy that says that patients must be vaccinated before they are admitted. Visitors can't come in unless they are vaccinated. Now, that's a pretty big step. I'm not sure I would have taken it quite so black and white. But is the Government now going to pass a regulation that forces them to accept an unvaccinated patient or an unvaccinated visitor? Does it apply to the pharmacy? Does it apply to the supermarket?
At the moment, supermarkets, or dairies, or whichever convenience store it might be, haven't been prevented from having an unvaccinated person—service stations. We have no idea what the reach of this regulation-making power is. We don't know, under clause 7, new section 11AB, who is going to be specified as needing to have been vaccinated, vaccinated and tested, or tested, and we equally don't know what the Government intends to do in respect of requiring people to be accepted, even if they're not vaccinated. We've got to tease this out. We've got a few short hours to get the best understanding about what the Government is intending, and these are important questions.





Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Thank you, Madam Chair. If I run through a variety, or as many of the questions as I have not already answered. A number of members have questioned about whether or not the bill allows for a vaccination or test requirement, and, yes, the answer to that is: it does. So it's not specific on the context in which a vaccination or a test requirement should be required. It allows the orders to determine, though, that a test requirement could be put in place in lieu of a vaccination requirement. So the legislative framework that the Parliament is being asked to pass now absolutely allows for that. So that, as the orders are drafted, if the decision was to allow, in a particular context, people to be either vaccinated or have a test, an order made under these provisions, that Parliament's being asked to enact, would be allowed for there.
In terms of Louise Upston's question, the Government has been very clear that no person would be excluded from a Ministry of Social Development Work and Income office on the basis of not being vaccinated. That falls into the category of, effectively, what we're calling, loosely, "life-preserving services", where a vaccination requirement should not be in place. So that also includes supermarkets, healthcare services, pharmacies, and so on.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Private healthcare services?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Any healthcare services, health and disability services, broadly defined, where people rely on those, they should not be excluded from those by a vaccination requirement.
In terms of Melissa Lee's questions around privacy provisions, do I stand by my statement? Yes, I do stand by my statement. They were very good statements, in fact. And, in fact, the position that I put forward was that people have asked for additional clarity and just additional certainty. That was absolutely the case when we passed those provisions last week. The reason that we're inserting additional provisions in this bill is because we're inserting additional requirements, and so we're providing additional reassurance there.
In terms of David Seymour's question around what the purpose of the legislation is, a tip for the member, he'll find that on the front page of the bill, under the "General policy statement", "The amendments make vaccination a more prominent part of New Zealand's COVID-19 response framework." I am being a little facetious to David Seymour, and I think he knows that.
But the wider questions that he had around this particular topic around, for example, what level of testing would be sufficient to provide people reassurance that it was a satisfactory alternative to vaccination, the answer to that question is it very much depends on the context and on the frequency of the testing, and that that situation can actually change as the situation we're dealing with evolves. So the frequency, for example, of our border worker testing has recently changed as a result of the changed risk profile that we are dealing with there.
In terms of his comments around announcements of policy, and he quoted the oft-referenced Fitzgerald v Muldoon case. I think it's worth remembering in Fitzgerald v Muldoon, Muldoon was making an announcement with no reference to Parliament or no delegated ability by Parliament to do that, and, in fact, he was doing so whilst not allowing Parliament to even meet. So I think the Government is a long way away from that threshold. The Government that—
David Seymour: How is this different? It's not different at all.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, we're here in Parliament debating the empowering provisions that will allow the Government to be able to issues orders around vaccination, around testing, and so on. So that is exactly the purpose of these provisions.





CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister genuinely for that engagement. Just in relation to one of the points he made in relation to my colleague Louise Upston's argument, the Minister just said that the Government's been very clear that there's a range of life-preserving entities and settings where people will not be required to be vaccinated—and I'm assuming he's relying on clause 6(3), which says, "After section 11(1)(g), insert (h) requiring persons to permit individuals to enter a place or receive a service whether or not those individuals are vaccinated, have a vaccination certificate", which is fine; that's great. That gives the Government very broad power. My question is: would it not be better for Parliament to specify the range of circumstances that those orders should be made to? That would be Parliament spelling out for the Government the powers with which the Government should act, and also giving some direction to the Government around which scenarios the House thinks that people should, essentially, be able to access.
That is also the second question I have, which relates to the legality of what the Government proposes to do once the bill passes. The Minister, earlier on in his remarks, made mention of one of the judgments to do with mandatory vaccination at the border, and he made mention of one of the judgments of Justice Cooke. I've gone and read those judgments—or I read them a while ago, but I've now re-read them—and the critical point that Justice Cooke made, in relation to the border mandates, was that he found that they were, in the legal parlance, vires. So he found that they were legal—Parliament had authorised them—but that was not a slam-dunk argument. That was not something that the court found definitively. In fact, if you read it carefully, he's quite worried about them. So, at paragraph 76, he says that the applicant's arguments are not ultra vires, but, at 77, he says, "I note … that this is not a self-evident conclusion. It is perhaps of some surprise that such an important aspect of the response to the risk of COVID-19 has been implemented through a section that makes no express reference at all to vaccination."
Now, the critical take-home point from that is that the courts are saying to Parliament: "Parliament, you must be very clear with what powers you are giving the Government, and the Government has to follow the law that Parliament lays down." And the Government has turned up here with new section 11AA and 11AB—and the Minister made reference to that before. And I accept that those new provisions will make it easier for the Government to impose vaccination requirements for some industries later. But here's the critical point: I am worried about the overall legality of the framework. And I can't see, in the legislation that is before the House right now, the empowering provisions that allow the Government to, firstly, impose the various restrictive settings at each traffic light colour, for want of a better phrase—red, orange, and green. And then, secondly, I come back to the point I've made before, which I haven't really had an answer to, and I think we deserve one, which is: what is the provision in the legislation that allows the Government to set in place a rule that you have to be a vaccinated worker or employee to work at a place where vaccination certificates are required?
So, to use the vernacular, if I'm a hairdresser and I use vaccine certificates to say that you have to be vaccinated to come and get a haircut at my salon, what is the bit of the legislation that allows the Government to say, "To also work at that salon, you must be vaccinated." It's a very, very important point, because, if the bill doesn't allow the Government to do that, then the Government's got a massive legal problem on its hands, because the whole framework and the architecture that they are purporting to establish will fall down. So we need to know what the provision is, and if it turns out that a Supplementary Order Paper is required and the Government's overlooked something, well, then we'll have to have a look at it, but we need to know what the answer is.





Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I just want to acknowledge that fine contribution from my colleague Mr Bishop, because I think you are raising—and I'm talking to Mr Bishop here—a very strong point about the legality of this bill.
I also just want to ask about the same clause, clause 7, which inserts new section 11AA. I note that the Minister may make a COVID-19 order under new section 11AB in accordance with the following provisions: the Minister must be satisfied the order does not limit or is a justifiable limit to the rights or freedoms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and the Minister must have consulted with the Prime Minister, the Minister for COVID-19 Response, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Health, but may have consulted with other Ministers. But before making the order, the Minister may consult with the director-general and must be satisfied that the order is in the public interest.
So I just want to clarify: as I understand it, we haven't yet had a bill of rights consideration of this bill, and I'm just looking at Mr Bishop there. It is one of the issues I would have thought that was pretty paramount. When you are talking about a Government that is looking to make quite significant changes to an operating framework for businesses and individuals, I would have thought that raises quite significant issues.
So one of the questions I'd like to put to the Minister is: given these overarching powers to create new regulations on the hoof, in effect, why was consideration not given to specifically make any changes subject to consultation? And it may be a "must" or a "may", but I'd prefer if it would have been a "must". First of all, the Chief Human Rights Commissioner, Professor Paul Hunt, would have been a natural person to specify in that case, as a way to make sure that any of these provisions are actually appropriate for New Zealand and for New Zealanders who, some are, quite naturally—and I know that my good colleague from the ACT Party is very much on the same line of thinking here that people do have freedoms. I think it's important that they are protected and that bills like this do not overreach and actually unnecessarily impinge on people's activities to be able to go about things that they like to do on a day-to-day basis. 
And the second one is: why wouldn't the Opposition be subject to consultation on this? Why wouldn't the Leader of the Opposition, and maybe the leader of ACT, but certainly Opposition parties be at least consulted on this? It may not mean that they need to be involved in the actual determination, but at least the requirement that the Opposition parties be consulted about some of these far-ranging elements that could be passed under these regulations. 
And the third one is: why wouldn't the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, John Edwards, be part of that consideration? That is really important, because privacy issues are, again, a major consideration around COVID issues. I think I would like to ask the Minister just to respond why none of these issues or parties were deemed to be appropriate. 
The last point I want to do before closing out, because I'm very conscious that we're getting close to 10 o'clock—but why is it, before making the order, the Minister "may consult the Director-General of Health"? I would have thought of all of them that there would have been a requirement for "must". So why is it only a "may"? Because all we've heard from the Government over the last 18 months is that they listen to science and, of course, the science has been provided in advice from the Ministry of Health. So that's been the underlying reason why the Government has chosen to take certain actions, because, in essence, it's been subject or as a result of advice provided by the Ministry of Health. So why the sudden change of plan? Why does it become appropriate that Ministers think that they can now do whatever they want without having regard to the Ministry of Health? 
And so I am very much looking forward to the Minister at least discussing these issues, because I think it cuts to the core of what New Zealanders want to know, and they want to make sure that regulation is not slipped through at the dead of night, at three minutes to 10, which is what's happening tonight, and that their positions are protected, and they can go about doing their daily work, as they so wish.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The time has come for me to suspend the committee for this evening. The committee will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.
Debate interrupted.
Sitting suspended from 9.58 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday).