COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill

I move, That the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

Let’s just quickly recap what this bill is about. It does two things: it allows for the introduction and the use of vaccination certificates, and it provides greater certainty for businesses who are looking to impose vaccination requirements on their workforces. It makes it clear who can and who can’t, by allowing a very clear framework to be put in place for that, something that businesses have been asking for, and now they are getting it through this legislation. They wanted greater certainty. They’ve been very clear they want greater certainty. This legislation provides the certainty that business has been asking for.

The only thing people who have been following this debate will be confused about is exactly what the National Party’s position is on it, because, on the one hand, they think that vaccination certificates should have been done by now and then, on the other hand, they’re opposed to the legislation that allows for them. On the other hand, the member opposite—Simon Watts, was it?—said that we lacked a sense of urgency and then devoted most of his speech to opposing urgency to bring this legislation before the House. The members opposite have argued that employers need greater certainty around the introduction of vaccination mandates, and that’s presumably the reason why they’re voting against giving those businesses that very certainty that they claim they need! This particular bill does many of the things that the Opposition have been arguing for. They’re voting against—again; not for the first time in the last few weeks—their own policies in the House. So I think members of the public following along might be a little confused about what the Opposition’s position on that is.

So let’s be clear about what the bill is all about. It’s about saying that vaccination matters—that vaccination is how we can turn down the risk as COVID-19 spreads through the community—because Mr Bishop himself, in his contribution earlier, made the very accurate point that COVID-19 is with us and it is going to spread across the country, and it is going to find its way to those who are unvaccinated. The more we can do to slow that spread, the more we can do to ensure that our case numbers stay manageable, the more we can do to reduce hospitalisations, then the better everybody will be.

Now, for those who say it’s all about personal choice, let’s just talk about that for a moment, because we’ve got about 9 percent of eligible New Zealanders, as of now, who have at this point made the choice not to be vaccinated. So, for the 91 percent who have been vaccinated, you could take the view of the Opposition and say, “Well, the 91 percent, they have made their choice, and now the 9 percent live with the consequences of not choosing to be vaccinated.” Except, the 91 percent who have been vaccinated and all those who cannot be vaccinated because they are children do suffer the consequences if COVID-19 starts to spread amongst the unvaccinated and, therefore, is more likely to be spreading amongst the vaccinated as well. And that does mean that those personal choices have an impact on other people.

So the regime that we’re putting in place here says, “Yes, actually, we should be able to say that there are some things that unvaccinated people can’t participate in the same as a vaccinated person, in order to reduce that risk for the whole population.” That is appropriate, and that is what this legislation allows for, because unvaccinated people can still spread the virus, they can spread it to children, who can’t be vaccinated, and they can spread it to those who are vaccinated, who can then spread it to others. Vaccination turns down the risk of people ending up in hospital, but it’s not an absolute guarantee, and, therefore, the more unvaccinated people there are the more risk there is.

And then we could say, “Well, what if the consequences are, in terms of health, only amongst the unvaccinated people?” Well, when someone shows up at hospital to get treatment that is completely unrelated to COVID-19 and finds the hospital is full of unvaccinated COVID-19 people, it will have an impact on other people as well. So people’s personal choices not to be vaccinated have an impact on others, and that is why the Government is saying, “If people make those choices, that’s their choice, but there are consequences of those choices.” And one of those is that they won’t be able to participate in those events that could see them contracting COVID-19 and spreading it to others, and spreading it in such a way that it would become uncontrolled in the community.

Unlike the Opposition—who seem to think that we’re reaching the point with COVID19 now where we should just give up fighting it and let it rip—the Government is taking the view that all New Zealanders, vaccinated or unvaccinated, are still going to be better off if we seek to suppress COVID-19 as much as we can, because COVID-19 is still a deadly virus. COVID-19 has not gone away. COVID-19 has not stopped mutating; that’s what viruses do. There is still a risk. There is still a global pandemic. The pandemic is not over, despite what members opposite might like to think, and so we still have to act responsibly. The Opposition get the luxury that they can change their position every week, as they do in this House, and of course there’s never any consequences of that, because they’ve never had to implement any of the multitude of positions that they have taken since the global pandemic began.

I stand behind the Government’s record on this. We have seen one of the lowest rates of hospitalisations, one of the lowest rates of mortality, one of the best economic recoveries, some of the fewest restrictions of any countries in the world. The results speak for themselves. This is the next step in our COVID-19 response. It is a sensible step. It is a measured and managed step that will ensure that we can transition to an environment where people do have more freedom, where people do see the benefits of high rates of vaccination, but not at the expense of our health system and our health workers, and not at the expense of our children.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 COVID19, 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—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

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 COVID19 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.

This is a split call. I call Penny Simmonds, five minutes.

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 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—

Order! The member’s time has expired. Kieran McAnulty, five minutes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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