Tuesday, 12 May 2020

TUESDAY, 12 MAY 2020

TUESDAY, 12 MAY 2020

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business of the House

Business of the House

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I thought it might be useful, following discussions across the House, for me to update the House on the Government’s plans for the rest of this sitting day. The Government intends to follow the Order Paper for item number one, which is the second reading of the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill, first up after question time. We will then move urgency to pass through all stages the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill that has just been introduced, and the remaining stages, then following that, of the further management measures bill. So that’s the ordering sequence that we’ve agreed for this afternoon and this evening’s sitting session.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I thank the Leader of the House for that indication. Earlier in the day there was some discussion about the Cabinet advice or ministerial advice on the second bill that you’re proposing to pass through urgency today being provided to the Opposition. I’m just wondering what the progress might be of that arrangement.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I’ll make an inquiry during question time and get further feedback on that—it should be coming.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Social Development

1. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Associate Minister for Social Development: Will Budget 2020 make our communities safer by supporting family violence services in Aotearoa New Zealand; if so, how?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children) on behalf of the Associate Minister for Social Development: Budget 2020 includes nearly $203 million in funding for services and support for all those affected by family violence. This includes victims and survivors, people who use violence and want to change their behaviour, and people who have experienced non-fatal strangulation. This sector has done and continues to do incredibly important work, but they have done so without adequate funding for far too long, and we are beginning to fix that.

Jan Logie: How will these Budget initiatives support family violence services such as Women’s Refuge?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: For decades, family violence and sexual violence services have not received the funding they need to do their work. We are changing that and finally beginning to fund organisations based on the actual costs in delivering their services, including provision for fairer wages, training, supervision, and management of staff. I acknowledge under-secretary Jan Logie, who said yesterday, “We want these services to be able to focus on their work, not running sausage sizzles to survive.”, and Dr Ang Jury of Women’s Refuge, who said, “This will mean they can recruit and retain workers without burning them out.”

Jan Logie: Why is it important to fund services for people affected by elder abuse?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Data from the New Zealand Longitudinal Study of Ageing concluded that 10 percent of people aged over 65 and living in the community experience abuse. Elder abuse is a form of family violence. It can be physical, psychological, spiritual, or financial, but it is often not recognised when we speak of family violence. I know that my colleague the Minister for Seniors has advocated consistently and is particularly pleased that we are now doubling the funding over the next four years for specialist organisations to respond to this specific sector of an overarching problem.

Jan Logie: Why is the Government putting funding into the response for non-fatal strangulation?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: It is well documented that strangulation or suffocation is a significant risk factor for future violence. People who are victims of non-fatal strangulation can be up to seven times more likely to be killed. This Government, building on the work begun by the Hon Amy Adams, made non-fatal strangulation or suffocation a distinct offence at the end of 2018. The funding announced as part of Budget 2020 will support our police, health, and justice systems to provide victims with the psychosocial help they need, and properly resource and train forensic services to ensure successful prosecutions.

Jan Logie: And how significant is this funding in the context of the whole-of-Government response to family and sexual violence?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: These initiatives represent the second-biggest Budget package for family violence and sexual violence in the history of New Zealand. It is only surpassed by last year’s Budget, which contained $320 million in funding over four years. It is also significant because of the joined-up, all-of-Government approach which has been taken and which is essential to properly responding to and ending this terrible violence. I commend all the Ministers, under-secretary Jan Logie, and the respective chief executives who have come together to take collective responsibility for addressing it.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the Government’s decision to move to level 2 as soon as possible. This will mean on Thursday this week, retail, malls, cafes, restaurants, cinemas, and other public spaces, including playgrounds, can reopen. On Monday, 18 May, all children and young people will be able to return to school and early learning, and on Thursday, 21 May, bars—under the provisions that already exist around Easter Sunday and Anzac trading for the week prior—will then after that be able to open under normal legislative provisions. This will mean that in 10 days’ time, we will have reopened most businesses in New Zealand, and sooner than many other countries around the world. This has only been possible because of the strong measures we have put in place, and the hard work of New Zealanders, who have all joined together and united against COVID-19.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is Westpac correct that Government debt is likely to increase by more than 50 percent of GDP in the next few years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: For any future forecasting and speculation, I ask the member to wait, as others are, until Budget day.

Hon Simon Bridges: When was the last time net core Crown debt in New Zealand was over 50 percent of GDP?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I can tell you is that it currently sits around the 20 percent mark under this Government, which is lower than what we inherited.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that every single dollar of debt her Government borrows will need to be repaid with interest by future generations?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely, which is why we worked so hard, as a Government, to reduce the debt that we inherited after the last Government. I also want to point out that relative to other countries, we have come into what is a global economic shock in a much better position, with debt relative to GDP around the 20 percent mark. That is better than the UK, than the United States, than Australia. We came in better and we hope, of course, to come out stronger as well.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is Westpac also correct that the fiscal deficit in each of the next two years could equal around $30 billion?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I don’t want to get into speculation around the Budget, but what I think it is important to point out is this is a global pandemic. The impact, internationally, is being widely felt. New Zealand was never going to get out of this scot-free, but what we could do is take us into it in the strongest position possible. We always said that what we wanted to do was prepare ourselves for any potential shock that we might feel. In fact, I recall, it was not so long ago that many pointed out that we were running surpluses, and questioned whether that was the right thing to do. We always argued that New Zealand is a country that needs to be prepared. We have been, and the rainy day has come.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will this week’s Budget show Government deficits for the entire 15-year forecast period?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member does not need to wait long to see some answers for some of his questions. But, again, what I also think it’s important to point out is some of the forecasting that’s been done, or assumptions that have been made from international institutions—which I think gives us helpful context, because New Zealand is not going through its own pandemic; we’re going through a global one—does demonstrate that the likes of the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization (WTO) have pointed out that New Zealand’s relative position will be stronger than most. In terms of recovery, if my recollection is correct, around growth, roughly about 1 percent better than, on average, other advanced economies, and for the WTO, they are predicting that some of our trade is looking more heartening than, for instance, even Australia.

Hon Simon Bridges: To limit the debt burden on New Zealand taxpayers, will her Government reprioritise existing spending that currently delivers low value for money, such as fees-free?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I think what we have always taken into account is that we have to be prudent in our spending, and we have always said that. That’s demonstrated in the fact that we did get debt down from what we inherited. We’re also very mindful that when you’re in a period such as this, that what we need to invest in is people and skills. We will not be a Government that takes on a challenge and confronts it through austerity and cuts and by hurting people; instead, we will invest in people. That, equally, is the best way to stimulate the economy, get growth going, and get us into a better position to recover.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister assure us that there is no intention—and that she’s had discussions with the Minister of Finance as well—to multiply New Zealand’s Government debt over eight times, such as the last Government taking Government debt from $10 billion to $82 billion from 2009?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think what the member demonstrates is that, of course, that side of the House should have a good understanding of what significant global economic shocks can do to an economy, that can do to unemployment, that can do to debt, and the suggestion from the member that somehow New Zealand now, having been through a global financial crisis, will isolate itself completely and feel no impact from this global pandemic is just incorrect.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can she rule out extending the fees-free policy this Budget?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I will answer the same now as I have for every question: the member only need wait till Thursday to see what announcements the Government will make, and I just simply won’t get into any speculation he chooses to get into on announcements.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can she rule out announcing a significant slush fund in the Budget that her Government can use in election year for anything she chooses?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I’m not going to get into speculation around the Budget, but I think the member would do well to remember that we will be, in the next year, having to rebuild the economy and rebuild New Zealand. The election, for many people, is going to be at the back of their minds; instead, we have to focus on what’s best for New Zealand.

Question time interrupted.

COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill

Cabinet Advice

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If I respond to the shadow Leader of the House, that paper has now gone to him and to the chief of staff for the Opposition. And I’ll actually also check that it’s gone to ACT.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s emailed, is it?

SPEAKER: Probably email.

Question time resumed.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made and undertaken.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding his statement last week that “it is far from business as usual”, will his Budget reprioritise spending from nice-to-have projects to saving jobs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I am always focused on saving jobs, creating jobs, and creating decent work with good pay for all New Zealanders.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he stand by his statement on 25 March that measures including the $6.25 billion business finance guarantee scheme show that business and workers “we have your backs”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think the full range of initiatives that the Government has brought in over the last six or seven weeks are doing exactly that. In terms of the business finance guarantee scheme, the member will be aware we’ve made some changes to that scheme, and I continue to consider what other changes we can make to ensure it operates well. I would also add that, since that scheme was put in place, we, of course, have also put in place the small business loan guarantee scheme.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that the Government-backed loan scheme that he announced on 24 March has failed, given the scheme has only so far lent 0.37 percent of what it was supposed to have lent?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t think that at any point we thought it would be $6.25 billion in the first few weeks of operation, so I don’t accept that overall premise of the member’s question, but I do accept—as I’ve said publicly—that that scheme needed to be changed from its initial design. We’ve done that, and I continue to look at further possible changes.

David Seymour: Did he ever think it would only be $27 million in the first few weeks of operation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think we have to put that in the context of the overall amount of lending that banks have done in this period: around $5 billion worth of additional support that they have provided. As I said, the scheme has been tweaked. I’m considering further tweaks, and obviously—as of today, in fact—applications are open for the small business loan guarantee scheme which we announced subsequent to that scheme.

David Seymour: What was the point of the scheme if banks were going to lend anyway, as the Minister just said?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The point was to ensure that banks didn’t just lend to the customers that they were 100 percent comfortable with. We wanted to make sure that medium-sized businesses in particular had an avenue to go there, that’s why we guaranteed it at 80 percent of those loans. I’ve been very public about the fact that there have been some examples presented to me where I haven’t thought that the scheme was operating the way that it should. We’re continuing to work with banks on that. And I also would pick up the words of the Bankers’ Association about the point at which that particular scheme may become more useful as people are more certain now that we’ve moved into level 2.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has any cash been given back to businesses under the Government’s loss carry-back scheme that was announced two weeks ago?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe the Prime Minister addressed this matter in her press conference today, actually. I think somewhere in the region of $60-odd million has, and I expect that to grow considerably.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can he assure New Zealanders that programmes funded by the Budget will deliver more than that $6 billion business finance guarantee scheme?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think the member needs to look at the full range of support that the Government has delivered, including the wage subsidy scheme which has delivered $10.7 billion. All of the suite of measures that we’ve announced are important and useful and, yes, the Budget will also contain ones that are important and useful.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What announcements has the Government made with respect to Budget 2020?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): While the vast bulk of the Budget remains for Budget day, as is the tradition of Governments of the past there have been some early announcements. Our plan to combat the global COVID-19 pandemic has three stages: respond, recover, and rebuild. I’ve announced that Budget 2020 will focus on laying the groundwork for the recover and rebuild stages. It will strengthen our public services and provide significant investments to get New Zealanders back to work and to begin tackling some of our long-term economic challenges. These are necessary investments, given the extremely difficult global and domestic economic outlook that is ahead of us. This will change our fiscal outlook substantially and, as I have said before, with higher debt and deficits for an extended period, I remain committed to managing our books carefully and responsibly. And, right now, being responsible means investing money to support our people, our businesses, and our communities to get through this and to rebuild.

Kiritapu Allan: What announcements has he made regarding funding for health in Budget 2020?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This morning I announced alongside the health Minister, Dr David Clark, that Budget 2020 will deliver the biggest ever increase in the funding of district health boards. The different abilities of Governments around the world to respond to the global COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted just how important it is to have well-funded public services like our health system. The $3.92 billion boost to DHBs is a 9 percent increase of funding following on from 5 percent and 4.5 percent increases in the previous years. It is added to by $282.5 million for a planned care catch-up programme. Budget 2020 will continue this Government’s record of tackling the legacy of underfunding and neglect of our health system.

Hon Paula Bennett: Will there be more money going to horse racing than Pharmac in this Budget?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely not, but, since the member raises it, it is worth noting that the 15,000 people directly employed by the racing industry and the 60,000 people indirectly employed by the racing industry will be pleased to know that the Government values all jobs in New Zealand, not just the ones the member picks out.

Kiritapu Allan: What other announcements has the Government made regarding funding for education in Budget 2020?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On Monday, education Ministers Chris Hipkins and Tracey Martin announced Budget 2020 investment of $320.8 million in early learning support, higher quality early learning for every child. This includes a $151.1 million funding boost for the pay of up to 17,000 qualified teachers working in education and care services, $122 million to fund a 2.3 percent increase in subsidy rates for education and care services, and additional help to professionalise home-based early learning and support for playcentres. As we respond to the impacts of COVID-19 on our society and economy, we must have strong public services, including our early learning system, to protect and improve our collective wellbeing.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

5. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Is her Government the most open and transparent Government New Zealand has ever had?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): This Government has certainly worked hard to be open and transparent, and we have done, for instance, a number of things to improve transparency, like, for the first time, introducing a policy for the proactive release of ministerial diaries and Cabinet papers. We’ve responded to record numbers of Official Information Act requests (OIAs), with Government agencies completing responses to 19,829 OIAs just between July and December 2019, compared to 14,000 roughly in 2017 for the same period. We’ve responded to a record number of written question requests, answering 103,117 so far this term, compared to 41,000 last term. In addition, just through COVID-19, obviously, we’ve tried to make sure that daily we’ve been available. I’ve done, personally, over 30 press conferences. The Epidemic Response Committee was set up in the absence of Parliament to allow questioning and the Opposition to have a voice and apply accountability. We released 317 documents on Friday as part of a proactive release to provide COVID material. This is alongside reporting, like weekly reporting from Treasury on the fiscals, weekly reporting now on benefit numbers through COVID-19 as well.

Hon Paula Bennett: Did a leaked email from her office on Friday say that “I would like to sign off and see all written responses. Do not put Minister up for interviews on this.”, and, if so, is that working hard to be open and transparent?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is quoting from an email from a member of my staff, so I feel I should just clarify that, when she quotes “I”, that wasn’t a reference to myself. I’m only saying that because, of course, it is not my expectation I receive those personal requests personally. We have received some feedback that the time of day of that release was an issue. We have given a commitment that we’ll look to provide that kind of information now in the mornings, and that we will signal in advance when that information is being provided to try and ease, for instance, the gallery’s coverage of what was a large amount of information that we did want to make sure that we provided for the purposes of transparency.

Hon Paula Bennett: Did the Prime Minister see the memo before it went out?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, I only saw the email in preparation for question time, anticipating that the member would ask me questions about it.

Hon Paula Bennett: So if all communications have to go through the Prime Minister, then why didn’t this memo?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, it was a reference to coordinating responses to a large amount of information, which is not unlike what the member did when they were in Government also. But also, you’ll note that I was not the first person to speak on these documents. Actually, Dr Clark was, and Minister Shaw also commented on the proactive release.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did the Prime Minister get any communication—because this is about communication—of thanks from Mr Bridges or Paula Bennett for insisting upon the 10 people at funerals rule so that the National Party MPs couldn’t meet and roll their leaders?

SPEAKER: I think there’s just far too much irony in that question.

Hon Paula Bennett: If, as she says, it is about lining up communications, then why did the leaked memo say, “There’s no real need to defend. Because the public have confidence in what has been achieved … Instead, we can dismiss.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is not language that I would use. Again, to come back to the substance of the issue, what we’re debating here is, actually, the release of 317 documents, and if the member would like to ask me any questions about any of those documents, I’d be happy to oblige.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she have confidence in the senior adviser that wrote the memo and does she stand by the statements that he quite clearly made in the memo that “There’s no real need to defend. Because the public have confidence in what has been achieved … Instead, we can dismiss.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: To answer that question: yes, I do have confidence in that member.

Hon Paula Bennett: Is her office’s belief that “we can dismiss” the reason officials are no longer allowed to provide an assessment of the regulatory impact of her Government’s legislation?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I refute the basis of that question.

Hon Members: It’s true.

Hon Grant Robertson: That’s just not correct at all.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Just be very careful about the use of that word.

Hon Grant Robertson: With respect to the primary question, has the Prime Minister seen the letter from Dr Ashley Bloomfield, the Director-General of Health, dated 7 May 2020, to the Hon Simon Bridges which corrects the factual inaccuracies that Mr Bridges presented to Dr Bloomfield at the committee, and has she heard whether or not Dr Bloomfield has had an apology from Mr Bridges?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have heard reports of that exchange.

Hon Paula Bennett: Is there a regulatory impact statement for today’s COVID legislation, and why was that legislation, if we’re working with the most open and transparent Government, only given to the Opposition less than 24 hours ago when the Government has had weeks to work on it?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That member has that legislation because we provided an exposure draft for the Opposition. Equally, we’re providing it to others who have an interest in this area because these are extraordinary times—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Can the people just stop shouting the Prime Minister down—the two senior members of the Opposition.

Hon Paula Bennett: I’m not shouting her down, sir—I’m not shouting her down; I’ve got an opinion.

SPEAKER: You were.

Hon Paula Bennett: It’s called a debating chamber.

SPEAKER: Stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Paula Bennett: I withdraw and apologise for arguing with you.

SPEAKER: Stand, withdraw, and apologise without any reflection on the Chair.

Hon Paula Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I am very happy to answer the member’s question, though. There is no expectation or assertion here from the Government to do anything other than try and be open around pieces of legislation that we’re having to work at great pace on. There is no politics in a pandemic response. But there is an issue around, of course, timing. As the member is well aware, there just hasn’t been the same time usually available for the full drafting of legislation and process that we would usually want. We’ve tried to mitigate that through, of course, the select committee process the member has been a part of, and through providing documents and advice to the Opposition as quickly as we’re able to.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why, then, did Cabinet decide not to have a one-day select committee on the bill that’s being moved through urgency today as recommended to Cabinet?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Ultimately, it is about trying to get input on the bill in a meaningful way. The determination was we would try and do that through an exposure draft, because an afternoon at the select committee may not have been able to provide that space for meaningful feedback, and we are still seeking to do that through alternative means. I think the point is that effort is being put in here to do what we can in the time we have available, but the member would do well to remember this is a pandemic and we are working very hard under the circumstances we have.

Hon David Parker: Is the Prime Minister also aware that the reason why that one-day select committee didn’t proceed was that that would’ve left a one-day gap between the earlier stage 2 start, which we’ve managed to bring forward by a day but which would’ve left an enforcement gap had the bill not been passed.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That, equally, was a factor. But, actually, also members did discuss that we did want input from those who had significant interest and expertise in these legal matters, and we felt by directly providing an exposure draft that would give us the ability to try and do that as well.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Prime Minister been advised that, following the Christchurch earthquakes, Parliament passed legislation without regulatory impact analysis that also had an impact on people’s human rights and their property rights?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, and I know the member who has asked the question knows how difficult it is to balance speed but whilst also allowing due process, and we have tried to do our best.

Question No. 6—Environment

6. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister for the Environment: What confidence does he have that there will be sufficient support in Parliament to pass all stages of his bill to allow fast-tracking of consents for certain projects?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): It’s not for me to prejudge the determination of parties in this House. We do, though, have the support of governing parties to first reading and further consideration of the bill following the select committee process.

Hon Judith Collins: Does he believe that the process of introducing this bill meets the goal of being the most open and transparent Government ever?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, in the circumstances. I would note that the select committee period, which is yet to be determined, may be up to 12 days long, which, in fact, is 300 percent times the Kaikōura earthquake select committee process, which was just four days.

Hon Judith Collins: Does he realise that the Kaikōura process that he’s just referred to referred to one project and not to multiple projects over the entire country?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes.

Hon Judith Collins: Is it correct to say that this bill that he would like passed next month has not yet been drafted?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The drafting has not been finished, but it has been started.

Hon Judith Collins: What are the criteria that he will use in deciding which projects would be fast-tracked?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The primary criteria will be employment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister, would that be an essential for the Government now if the previous nine years of the previous Government had have done anything whatsoever with the Resource Management Act (RMA)?

Hon DAVID PARKER: If the RMA had been earlier reformed, it may not well be. In truth, the underlying RMA takes too long, costs too much—

Hon Member: You never voted for it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You had the majority.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —and has not protected the environment.

SPEAKER: Order! Would the pair of senior members just let the Minister answer. Former Minister.

Hon DAVID PARKER: In truth, the underlying RMA takes too long, costs too much, and hasn’t protected the environment, and that’s why we’ve got that root-and-branch review of the RMA going on at the moment. I’m expecting a report back from that panel led by retired Justice Randerson QC before the election.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister expect that the governmental parties will pass this legislation and are not going to throw the responsibility on other parties in the Parliament like the previous one did, who blamed members of the Opposition, when they had a majority, for not passing their own legislation?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m confident that we will pass this legislation.

Question No. 7—Education

7. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to address low pay and funding disparities in early childhood education?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Good news: as we respond to the impact of COVID-19 on our society and our economy, the Government remains committed to fair pay for lower-paid workers, especially the workers who have helped to get the country moving again. Yesterday, as part of Budget 2020, I announced that $151.1 million over the next four years will help to improve the pay of up to 17,000 qualified teachers working in education and care services. A significant pay gap has built up over time between these teachers and those working in schools and kindergartens, following a decision 10 years ago to stop passing on to education and care services the funding rate increases that kindergartens got to meet the cost of pay settlements. Now, from 1 July, the minimum salary for teachers working in education and care services will increase to $49,862, bringing it into line with kindergarten teachers’ pay. We’ve got a way to go, but this is a very good start.

Kieran McAnulty: What response has he seen to this announcement?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Teachers have welcomed the announcement. The NZEI, speaking on behalf of early childhood teachers, has described it as “fantastic news”. They’ve called it a significant first step towards pay parity for early childhood education teachers, and a clear sign that the Government is hearing the call to further invest in early childhood education.

Kieran McAnulty: How else is Budget 2020 addressing funding disparities in early childhood education?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m very pleased to say that yesterday, in conjunction with my Associate Minister Tracey Martin, we also announced that there’ll be an extra $3.1 million invested in our Playcentre movement. This will help to increase funding rates for Playcentre from July, supporting more than 400 playcentres up and down the country so that they can continue to provide what is a unique early learning choice for 9,500 children and their families. That means that Playcentre rates will increase by 7.6 percent, the largest increase they have received in a very long time. We consider that the ongoing sustainability of playcentres would be compromised without this additional funding, and we look forward to working with Playcentre to ensure their long-term sustainability.

Question No. 8—Tourism

8. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Tourism: Does he know what proportion of tourism and hospitality businesses will be profitable under alert level 2 restrictions without additional Government financial support?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Tourism): Many tourism and hospitality businesses will be able to operate under alert level 2. The Government’s economic package, which includes wage subsidies and tax provisions, is ongoing during this time, and I’ll be announcing on Thursday additional support and assistance, including a tourism recovery package on Budget day.

Hon Todd McClay: What does he say to those businesses that told the Epidemic Response Committee today that a large number of tourism, accommodation, and hospitality businesses are likely to fail under level 2 restrictions, even with further support?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Under levels 3 and 4, there was absolutely no tourism and no movement around the country, and, under level 2, it’s the beginning of the recovery. The businesses have all been able to make use of the business support package that the Government has offered them, and, as I said, there is a tourism package being announced on Thursday.

Hon Todd McClay: Is the event sector able to organise business meetings of up to 100 people under level 2 from Thursday if they meet the same social distance requirements as cinemas, restaurants, or political party caucuses?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Events are an important part of the tourism sector and drive regional tourism. Officials continue to work with them on what level 2 means for them, and we expect a plan for the event sector early next week.

Hon Todd McClay: Why are Government agencies cancelling meetings and events for the end of this year, as heard in the pandemic committee today, rather than providing support and confidence to the hospitality, event, and travel sectors?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: As I said in the select committee today, Government agencies are just like any other business. If they can operate in line with the guidelines, well, then they will do so.

Hon Todd McClay: So is the Minister saying that Government agencies can’t operate within the guidelines and that’s the reason that they are cancelling events and meetings at the end of this year and not showing support or giving confidence to the hospitality, travel, or accommodation sectors?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Government agencies are no different to anyone else. We need to obey the guidelines and follow the guidelines in order to make sure that we don’t spread COVID-19. The last thing we need is a spike because people haven’t followed the guidelines, and then we end up reverting back up the levels, which is no good for anyone—for the economy at all or any tourism business.

Hon Todd McClay: So if Government agencies cannot organise meetings by following the restrictions and guidelines provided by his Government, how can a single other tourism, hospitality, or accommodation business in New Zealand plan to do the same thing today, if the Government can’t follow their own advice?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The member needs to get his ears cleaned because that’s not what I said. What I did say was that the Government agencies must follow the same guidelines as everybody else.

Question No. 9—Health

9. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by the restrictions for alert level 2?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes. In particular, I stand by the decision to use a staged approach to the resumption of some activities such as the reopening of bars, which we know from the experience of South Korea can pose a particular transmission risk.

Hon Louise Upston: What is the public health evidence that supports a limit on funerals to 10 people over the original 100 people?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The advice I have received relates to the number of people at a gathering and the risks that pertain thereto. I have to say that in respect of funerals and tangi, this was one of the most difficult decisions that we had to take as a Cabinet. I personally found it very challenging to work through, but we didn’t want to see a double jeopardy, which has been seen overseas at funerals, where people come together to grieve and then the virus is transmitted, leading to further tragedy.

Hon Louise Upston: Does he agree with the president of the Funeral Directors Association that restrictions on funerals are “a cruel and heartless blow to the thousands of New Zealand families who have lost loved ones and is unjustifiable.”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Funerals are a time when people, naturally, need physical comfort from each other. The decision to restrict that was not one we took lightly. I do disagree with those comments as they’ve been presented by the member.

Hon Louise Upston: What does he say to the family who delayed a funeral under alert level 3 because the guidance for alert level 2 announced by the Prime Minister last Thursday included gatherings up to 100 people, only to be told yesterday that the restriction is now only 10?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I do reject the premise of the question, and I do, again, want to acknowledge that this is a particularly difficult issue for people. As I’ve said, I know that I found this a difficult decision—to restrict the attendance at funerals—and I know the Prime Minister did and other members of the Cabinet also. But we do not want to see community transmission, and we do not want to see the kind of tragedy that’s happened overseas at funerals where people have come together to mourn a loved one and then further tragedy has ensued. We hope that in a short period of time, we will continue to see the risk diminished, and then we will see the ability for more people to gather. But when people gather and are in funeral situations—having conducted them myself, I know that people want to physically console each other, and it does not seem fair to put people in a position where there is risk to them and to the wider community.

Hon Louise Upston: What does he say to the man whose wife, sadly, passed away from cancer, who has to explain to his young daughter that under level 2, a rugby team of 15 can have physical contact and play a game, but that she can’t have all the support she needs when she says her final goodbye to her mum?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Naturally, I feel very sad for that family. This is the kind of situation that is not an easy one at any time—when grieving their loved ones. In terms of the specific matters the member raises, I would observe that professional sport only at this stage is progressing, and that is with strict contact tracing in place. But, equally, I’d go back to the main point that I’ve made before that tangi and funeral are places where people come together to grieve and physically support each other—physically support each other. This is a difficult thing, and I, as I say, am hopeful that in time we will be able to ease these restrictions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was the Minister encouraged by listening to a Polynesian undertaker on Morning Report this morning, who set out that he fully understood the Government’s position and how difficult in the Pasifika and Māori setting it was to keep people apart in that most difficult emotional moment—

Hon Judith Collins: Does this undertaker have a name?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —at a tangi or a funeral, and he backed the Government in the full—

Hon Judith Collins: Or is it enough to refer to him by his race?

SPEAKER: Order! Judith Collins has just lost two supplementaries for her side.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Sorry, Mr Speaker, I missed the last part of the member’s question.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m going to ask the question to be asked again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was he encouraged by the Polynesian undertaker on Morning Report this morning, who understood—

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: The member can’t interrupt a question unless it relates to this question.

Hon Judith Collins: Mr Speaker, perhaps if you listened to me, I find it deeply offensive—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. Winston Peters, complete the supplementary. Start your supplementary again, please.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That member just made a comment about “his race”. What did she mean by that?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: How can he take a point of order and she can’t?

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order of the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Hon Judith Collins: Thank you.

SPEAKER: And just to make it absolutely clear, one may not interrupt a supplementary question for a point of order unless it relates exactly to that point of order. Once interrupted, however rudely, a further point of order can be taken. Speaking to this point of order, the Hon Judith Collins.

Hon Judith Collins: Mr Peters has asked a question. My concern is that he has referred to the undertaker by that man’s race as though that is actually relevant. Either he has a name, this undertaker, or he is an undertaker. Why is it necessary to bring the man’s race into the issue?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I can answer that question. I referred to his race because he clearly understood the Pasifika or Māori tangi setting. That’s the only reason why I referred to him—not to be ethnic or racial about it. But he just might understand more than some what the setting was all about.

SPEAKER: Now, I just want to check that the Minister got the gist of the question—

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think I’ve got the gist of the question.

SPEAKER: —probably—from what went back and forth.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have had representations from members of the Pasifika and Māori community saying that they understood the reasons for having this separation, and, indeed, it is very difficult to maintain physical separation in those funeral settings because of the desire to physically comfort one another and because of certain cultural practices.

SPEAKER: Question No. 11, Simon O’Connor.

Simon O’Connor: If I might, actually, I think Paul Eagle was next—

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Simon O’Connor: —if you don’t mind.

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry.

Simon O’Connor: If you’d give us two supps back. Otherwise, I’ll take the call.

SPEAKER: Did the member say he wants two supps taken away?

Simon O’Connor: I’m not sure my hearing’s so good.

SPEAKER: Well, the member had better sit down.

Question No. 10—Trade and Export Growth

10. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What role does international trade have as part of the Government’s response to COVID-19?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Our immediate trade response to this crisis has been to keep trade flowing, with supply chains moving in and out, and to push back against protectionism. Together with my Singaporean colleague, I led a process that now involves 11 trade Ministers, including G7 economies Canada, Australia, and others, to push back internationally against rising protectionism. That has evolved into a bespoke supply line arrangement with Singapore and New Zealand. It’s also led to other initiatives, including a New Zealand - Singapore declaration which eliminated tariffs on goods essential for fighting the pandemic. This practical action is, we think, stimulating some of the other measures abroad: an initiative with Australia, Canada, Singapore, and Korea, where we’re working together on similar things—and the eventual movement of essential persons is another example.

Paul Eagle: What are the next steps of the trade response to COVID-19?

Hon DAVID PARKER: With the measures I’ve already described behind us, we can now focus on the medium-term response, which we are terming the three Rs: retooling exporter support by scaling up economic diplomacy, with offerings including the trade barrier portal, exporter helpline, our tariff finder website, and expanding market intelligence; we’re refreshing our existing trade architecture, not just for the World Trade Organization but the China upgrade and the digital economic partnership, which we position as signature-ready projects, and, of course, we’re looking to launch the free-trade agreement negotiations with the UK; and the third of the three Rs is reinvigorating and refocusing our trade relationships as we turn volume to value and seek to diversify our exports and markets.

Paul Eagle: How will Budget 2020 support exporters?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Minister of Finance will announce the details of the Budget on Thursday, but I can say today that it’s critically important that we reconnect our exporters with overseas markets. It’s difficult for them to travel at the moment, obviously, so we need more boots on the ground as our overseas markets recover from COVID-19, because exports are critically important for New Zealand and our economy, and so our Government will provide support for our exporters.

Question No. 11—Health

11. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by the restrictions for alert level 2?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes. In particular, I stand by the balance those restrictions strike between reopening our economy and continuing to keep people safe by, for example, continuing to use physical distancing and limiting the size of gatherings such as funerals and church services.

Simon O’Connor: Why has the Government singled out temples, mosques, synagogues, and churches for discriminatory treatment by, effectively, banning their gatherings?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I reject the premise of the member’s question, but what I would say is that, in accordance with a cautious approach that seeks to manage the public health risks, the limit on gatherings is initially no more than 10. I understand that will limit traditional church services, which do have close interaction between people. In fact, that is one of the main reasons for them to be held—the fellowship that they have in those worship settings. The intent is to increase the limit over time as we become more confident that that loosening of controls is not leading to an increase in infection. The member will be unsurprised to learn I do not wish to limit church services or other religious services any more than is necessary to protect public health.

Simon O’Connor: Are freedom of association and freedom of religion—as described by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—still relevant in New Zealand today, or are they just a nice to have?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: They are still relevant.

Hon Tracey Martin: Did the Minister hear a minister of the cloth this morning on the radio saying how they’ve been running their church services online, and that while they understood that only 10 people could gather, they would continue to run their church services online, and, actually, they’d had more people come to their online congregation than they had in the in-person congregations, and they would continue to run online services post-COVID restrictions because of that uptick?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I did not hear that particular interview; however, I can confirm that the parish that I normally attend has been offering services online in just that fashion.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister confirm that the restrictions placed on New Zealanders under alert level 2 are far more liberal than many other countries we would compare ourselves to, including Australia?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I can confirm that. We are in the fortunate position of having gone hard and having gone early, and having had a public willing to make sacrifices to ensure the success of that approach. When we look overseas to countries like the UK or like Italy or Spain—other countries around the world—they are facing lockdowns and many more restrictions for a time to come, and not only the economic consequences of that but also the social sacrifices they’re going to have to continue to make, all the while facing challenges with people dying from COVID-19

Question No. 12—Health

12. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about what Budget 2020 will mean for district health boards and the services they provide?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): This morning, the Minister of Finance and I announced a record investment in hospitals and health services. We announced that Budget 2020 will deliver the biggest ever increase in funding for district health boards, as well as additional funding to deliver approximately 153,000 surgeries and procedures, radiology scans, and specialist appointments to help clear the COVID-19 backlog.

Kieran McAnulty: Why has the Government prioritised this spending in Budget 2020?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: A good question. Historically, successive Governments have under-invested in health. One of the key lessons of COVID-19 is the need for a strong and sustainable public health and disability system. Budget 2020 continues this Government’s record of tackling a legacy of neglect. Around the world, COVID-19 has wrought devastation on underprepared health systems. It is absolutely critical that as a country we continue to invest in and build up the capacity of our health system. That is what the Government is committed to doing.

Kieran McAnulty: What types of procedures will be funded by this new money?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The record investment in DHBs of an extra $3.92 billion over four years will help improve their financial sustainability and clinical delivery. It will also enable them to meet the costs of a growing and ageing population and already agreed wage increases. Ministers have also approved $282.5 million, including $50 million of capital, to deliver an estimated 153,000 planned care procedures such as elective surgery, radiology scans, assessments and follow-ups, and procedures completed in outpatient facilities. Although critical and urgent care continued even under alert level 4, we know that many procedures were delayed. Our hospitals are now returning to a more normal level of service, but it will take time to recover and deal with the backlog.

Urgent Debates Declined

COVID-19—Crown Law Advice on Alert Level 4

SPEAKER: I’ve received a letter from David Seymour seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the New Zealand Herald article purportedly based on Crown Law advice on the Government’s decision to move New Zealand to alert level 4 in the COVID-19 alert system. A newspaper article is not a matter for which there is ministerial responsibility. If the subject of the application is the Government’s decision to move to alert level 4 on 25 March, then the application or an urgent debate on that matter should have occurred before the House sat on 28 April. The application is therefore declined.

Bills

COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

I’d like to acknowledge the work of the Epidemic Response Committee for the careful deliberation on this bill, given the very, very tight time frame they were given to do that. In particular, I understand I should acknowledge the acting chair of the committee, Michael Woodhouse, for being a steady pair of hands in shepherding this bill through what was undoubtedly a very short select committee process. I’d like to thank everybody who made a submission on the bill. I know that the Epidemic Response Committee were impressed by the way, at very short notice, submitters had carefully considered the amendments in the bill, and I believe that the bill has been improved as a result of those submissions and the committee’s deliberations.

Before I go into the changes recommended by the committee, I do want to give a brief overview of the bill. The important purpose of the bill is to manage the response to COVID-19. The fact that it amends or modifies 45 different pieces of legislation—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: I’m just going to warn the member, the thing will finish in a minute.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh yeah, that’s all right. The fact that it covers 45 different pieces of legislation does show the wide-ranging effect that COVID-19 has had on the New Zealand economy and society. There are two tiers of amendments in this bill. The first tier deals with more significant amendments that enable businesses, local government, and others to effectively manage the immediate impacts of COVID-19 and to mitigate unnecessary and potentially long-term impacts on society. These include changes to insolvency and corporate law to increase the prospects of businesses surviving the COVID-19 response; changes to property law to support commercial tenants and borrowers to manage situations where businesses are unable to pay their rent or meet their mortgage payments; changes to parental leave to enable COVID-19 response workers to temporarily return to work to assist the response to COVID-19 without being disadvantaged and losing their entitlement to certain leave and payments; changes to local government by-election timing to enable key stages of by-elections to be postponed until movement restrictions are no longer in place; changes to the Gambling Act to enable the Heart Foundation, the Coastguard, and the Countdown Kids Charitable Trust to send and receive forms and take payments for their lotteries online or by phone.

The bill also includes a number of minor and technical changes that are necessary to respond to and recover from COVID-19. These will include deferring new regulatory requirements in circumstances where Government agencies or businesses would have difficulty implementing new legislation or requirements that are due to come into force while New Zealand is still responding to COVID-19, deferring existing statutory deadlines and other minor exemptions where compliance would not be possible or would be unreasonably burdensome, mitigating impracticality issues that have arisen through the response to COVID-19—for example, changing the Coroners Act 2006 to enable a coroner to direct a pathologist to takes swabs to test for COVID-19 as part of a post-mortem exam situation where the deceased is suspected to have had COVID-19—to mitigate problems with legislative compliance that have arisen due to physical presence requirements and other technological reasons.

As I indicated, the Epidemic Response Committee has recommended several changes, and these have been presented to the House in the form of a Supplementary Order Paper. They have suggested that the bill should clarify the amendments in relation to hearings, examinations, and appearances by use of audio-only link as opposed to audiovisual link. They have suggested there should be some minor changes to the Unit Titles Act to maintain consistent language and to clarify that the changes will apply from when the epidemic notice came into force and will have effect for 12 weeks after the notice expires or is revoked. They clarify that during the extended duration period, for firearms and dealers licences that may have expired during lockdown, the application fees for the new replacement licensing will be the same as those that applied on 24 March.

A new Schedule 14A should be added to the bill to modify the Rating Valuations Act. This is because it may not be possible for some councils to practicably complete a credible general re-evaluation to statutory deadlines due to the likely impacts of COVID-19 on the property market in the latter half of the year. There is clarification for the bill to ensure that it is clear that a temporary return to work as a COVID-19 response worker is not a return to work from parental leave for the purpose of section 14 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act.

There are also a number of changes recommended to the insolvency and corporate law - related amendments in the bill as a result of the submissions made to the committee. Briefly, these recommendations include changes to modification and exemption provisions in Part 2 of the Act to change the expiry date for the corporate governance modification and exemption provisions from 30 September to 30 November 2020, to add voting integrity provisions in relation to electronic meetings, to add counting people for quorum purposes to the list of electronic meeting permissions, and other minor and technical changes to make the modification and exemption regimes more effective.

Changes to safe harbour provisions are to add a purpose clause to assist with understanding of the scope of safe harbour and providing that Ministers must have regard to that purpose when making regulations relating to safe harbour; to make it clear that any entity incorporated before the date of announcement of the safe harbour on 3 April 2020 can have the benefit of it, provided that they meet the threshold test. Changes to business debt hibernation provisions are to ensure that the business debt hibernation provisions regime is easy to understand and navigate for small businesses, noting that Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment websites will have educational and guidance material available, including removing the need for a statutory declaration to enter the business debt hibernation scheme; clarifying the scope of protections to businesses through the moratorium; making it clear that creditors with large over the whole, or substantially the whole, of the property of the business—general security arrangements holders are not bound by the moratorium; clarifying the voting rules; and modifying the way that the voidable transactions provisions will apply when a business is in a business debt hibernation mode.

I have also released Supplementary Order Paper 493. This is a technical Supplementary Order Paper, which amends two clauses to the bill that calculate the periods of time in reference to the orders or other restrictions under section 70 of the Health Act. In both cases, it adds a reference to an order made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 so that the calculation of time can also be done with reference to an order made under the Act.

So once again, I’d like to thank the Epidemic Response Committee, my ministerial colleagues and their officials who have worked on these amendments, and the numerous officials who have worked on the bill. The effects of the COVID-19 epidemic are being felt widely across the country. This bill does assist New Zealanders to respond, and I commend it to the House.

Debate interrupted.

Speaker’s Rulings

Officials—Devices in the Chamber

SPEAKER: Before I call the Hon Michael Woodhouse, I should just indicate to the House that I have agreed to relax normal restrictions with regard to officials supporting the House and the committee and their use of either laptops or phones for text-type communications, not for use of phones but for those purposes, especially because of the restriction in the numbers that we are applying here. So I thought it was important to tell the House.

Bills

COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I, firstly, thank the Minister Chris Hipkins for his acknowledgment not of me but actually of the committee’s work. Before I go into the details of that, I want to just segue a little bit away into something else that’s been going on during the lockdown, and which is relevant to the process we just followed. I was asked if I would represent the New Zealand Parliament at the World Bank Group Parliamentary Network Briefing on Pandemics and Covid-19, which I was very pleased to do, and I’ll be reporting to Mr Speaker on the discussions on that and the Asia-Pacific World Health Organization forum. In the early hours of Anzac Day, actually, between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m., I was on this virtual meeting and didn’t stand at dawn that day but stood instead at 3 a.m. It was a very helpful dialogue to understand what was going on around the country, but in the chat that accompanied it, I was struck by the number of MPs and representatives from around the world who were worried about the degree to which Parliaments were setting aside the normal scrutiny process of, in our case, the executive. The representative from the Italian Parliament described this as something that was going on in his country but also in what he described as “weak democracies”.

I’ve been reflecting on that in the context of the last bill that this House passed last week, this one, but also another bill that may be before us in the not too distant future. It highlights—for me—that weak democracies are not necessarily developing nations in far-flung parts of this world, with autocratic leaders and family dynasties; actually, Westminster democracies with strong and proud histories of passing bills carefully and over time risk undermining that legacy through the crises. What I would say is that, actually, the rule of law and the process of passing bills is most needed during a crisis, whether that’s a war or a war-footing such as a pandemic. It is not a time to set them aside, and so I was very pleased to see that this bill, and another, was referred to the Epidemic Response Committee last week for what was a very short but, as the Minister said, quite thorough examination of the bills—that came to us in good shape, actually. There’s obviously been a lot of thought, and I commend the Government for what the submitters told us was a degree of engagement with them during the writing of the bill, but also for, clearly, Cabinet’s but definitely the department officials’ willingness to take good ideas and make the bills better.

I won’t steal the thunder of my colleagues who will speak after me, because they are the subject matter experts in areas like the Companies Act and the Courts Matters Bill and so on, but I do want to acknowledge that this is actually a pretty good exemplar and an example of what can be done in emergency without setting aside due process, without setting aside the necessary scrutiny of the executive that is so important in times of crisis. I worry that we are going to fall below that standard again, and we will see what that means for the freedom of movement, the freedom of expression, and the freedom to live our lives without fear of interference from the Government and the State, even in an emergency.

So I commend the Minister for this process, actually, and I sure as heck commend not only the members of that committee who worked so incredibly hard in what I described in the first reading as a herculean effort, but it was made easier, frankly, by the fact that officials burnt the oil, literally—Stuart Smith and I were still examining the proposed committee report at about 11 o’clock last night, having only finished the meeting process but a few hours earlier. And the quality of that support was high. Once again, we can have an extraordinary confidence in the quality of our public sector.

But the public and the public sector have a right, I think, to expect the same in return from its executive, and this is the place where we examine, where we scrutinise, where we make better, where we hold the Government to account for their actions and inactions. I hope, in commending the Minister and the Government for the ability to be able to do that in this case, that we can continue to do that, because we know laws made in haste—and we saw an example of that last week—can be very, very difficult to fix, or can undermine what we’re actually trying to achieve.

Can I particularly point out a couple of the areas that I know my colleagues will elaborate on, that I thought was a very sensible change that the submitters first came up with, and that was particularly around the use of audiovisual equipment and audio equipment only in the courts and corrections process. We heard from our submitters and they said, “Look, this is understood, but we need to have a hierarchy.”—that there was a standard, firstly, of face-to-face, then audiovisual, and then audio only if that was a last resort. I was really pleased with both the nimbleness of the response and the amendments that were made, which I’m sure the Minister of Justice—who is nodding—had a part to play in, but also there were concerns around when that might be used, particularly in relation to the mental health Act but also sentencing. So we had a very sensible amendment—an improvement to the bill—that made that part of the bill better.

The one that was really vexed—and I know Mr Hudson will elaborate on this. We all want to make sure that as many companies as possible can survive this, and, boy, I’m sure colleagues will agree we’re getting some horror stories about what’s happened and what will happen if we can’t give them the means to get through the next period of time. So the business debt hibernation scheme and the directors’ safe harbour is going to be so important in doing that. I hope it works. I think the directors’ safe harbour is one where we’re actually asking directors, who are conditioned generally to be cautious—because the law requires them to be—to be a little less risk-averse, at a time when they are seeing risk at every turn. So while I’m hopeful, I’m not overly optimistic that this will make more than a minor impact on the bill, but we’ve got to give them a go. We’ve got to give them the conditions as best we can to enable them to be able to survive.

But the best conditions—I’ll finish on this point—that we can give them are the conditions that enable them to trade. So we need to get back to a new normal as quickly and as safely as we can, and I do worry that we have the balance not right in that regard, because they’re telling us that they can trade safely, that they can re-open, and it’s only then will we give them the truest safe harbour that they want, and that is something of a return to a normal. But with that, I’m very pleased to have been part of this process and to continue to support the bill.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I begin by echoing the sentiments expressed by my colleague the Hon Chris Hipkins, and indeed the member who’s resumed his seat, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, in acknowledging the tremendous work that the Epidemic Response Committee did in scrutinising this bill and coming back with, in some cases, some quite significant changes. Clearly, the committee understood and undertook their role with due seriousness, gave a detailed examination, and have come back all with very sensible and important changes.

Can I also acknowledge the comments of the Hon Michael Woodhouse, too, in his adumbration of the circumstances that we are in—when I say “we”: this House is in—in a country that, like the rest of the world, is in crisis. We have to be very careful when we adjust and adapt our democratic institutions, and this—this institution, the apotheosis of our democracy. When laws have to be made, when rights and interests have to be legislated for or against, the need for scrutiny, the need for accountability is, as I think Michael Woodhouse said, even more paramount, is even more important. And so, as I think this House has proven on many different occasions, under many different Governments, it is important to be nimble and agile about adapting our processes and our structures to enable that to happen, and I think we’ve demonstrated that that has been possible over the last five or six weeks.

But I also agree with the Hon Michael Woodhouse that we should not get used to this. This is not a set of processes—this not a way to run a Government. We need to be able to respond to the circumstances and we need to restore stability and certainty, and then we need to come back to allow every member of this House to discharge their full privileges and responsibilities. For the Opposition, it’s calling the Government of the day to account; for the Government, it is about proposing and putting up laws and policies and measures that augur for the wellbeing and the goodwill of the country. So I acknowledge the sentiments that Michael Woodhouse expressed. They are the sentiments of a parliamentarian. We are all part of that equation, and it’s incumbent on all of us to make sure we make the system work and that accountability happens.

I just want to comment on a couple of points in the bill, or the Supplementary Order Paper, as it now is, with the changes recommended by the committee, all of which I agree with. I’m thankful for the changes made in relation to the Courts (Remote Participation) Act. I think it was right for the committee to look very carefully at the possibility that sentencing might be conducted on an audio-only basis—I think there was a bit of an overreach there, for which I take responsibility; I signed off the original provision. It is right that that more limited means of remote participation should be confined to procedural matters only, and when it comes to sentencing it is important that there is a fronting-up. So I acknowledge that.

In relation to the Property Law Act changes, which are very important, I think, I acknowledge that apart from one correction to a cross-reference, there is no material change there, and I’m thankful for that improvement and for that provision coming back largely unchanged. That will, I think, make a big difference to both tenants and landlords, but particularly commercial tenants, who are grappling with the fact that they had reduced or, in some cases, no income and have been having to deal with some landlords—not all landlords, because many landlords have done the right thing and come to terms with their tenants—who are still holding out to continue to receive their full rental payments even though the circumstances simply do not allow that.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the significant work that the committee did in amending and, I think, improving the business debt hibernation regime. Obviously, very careful consideration was given. They are good changes that have been made. That’s an important initiative, a temporary initiative, to get businesses through and the New Zealand corporate community through what will be a challenging few months ahead. Some businesses, as we know, will take longer to recover because of the industry that they’re in and the circumstances that they’re in. Others, as consumers return, as markets restore, and revenues are recovered, will be able to restore themselves more quickly.

The initiative is an important one, as indeed are the safe harbour provisions that are provided for in the amendments to the Companies Act in the original bill.

To draw again on the spirit of the Hon Michael Woodhouse and the parliamentary comments that he made, we know that these are measures to respond to an immediate crisis. They should be temporary. They by and large are. I think there are one or two measures that the committee agreed ought to be made permanent, and so that is there, but by and large most of these measures are temporary. If we are to make permanent changes along these sorts of lines, they should be subject to the full level of scrutiny, with the appropriate time taken, and the expertise drawn upon both in the community and from within this House. But in the strange circumstances such as we have them, the committee has done a tremendous job, and on that basis I too commend the bill to the House.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I rise, too, in support of the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill. I’d like to echo the sentiments about this necessarily truncated process. None of us want to see this as part of the new normal which faces New Zealand and New Zealanders in coming weeks and, possibly, months, but I particularly want to reiterate the comments around the officials who supported us over these few days that we had to scrutinise this bill.

We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that, while it is their job to support the committee to work with submitters and to provide advice, they too are people that are living, as we all are, with the circumstances we are under and the challenges that that presents to our society, to our families, and to individuals. Their work was exemplary and their response was, quite frankly, fantastic. It was a challenging set of circumstances, to do all the work in such a truncated time, but all the more so because the committee members had a number of questions and challenges that they posed to officials, who were very, very good, indeed, at responding to those.

But if I look at the bill and the nature of the process we had to go through and the purpose—particularly to the areas I want to spend most of my contribution on, which are the safe harbour and the business debt hibernation—I look at them and I think of the work that we had to do, and I think the fundamental principle in terms of what we could do with the legislation could be summarised with the maxim “First, do no harm”, because, unquestionably, when dealing with such a tight time frame, there is a real risk of unintended consequences, of overlooking certain things. So top of mind, certainly for me, was to make sure that what we brought back to the House was, first of all, not going to introduce harms, particularly to creditors and customers—or, indeed, risks to directors, if we talk about safe harbour—that would be undue and would actually unravel or undo the principles of what we were looking to achieve. I do believe we achieved that; in fact, I’m very, very confident that we have achieved that. But linked to that is a nagging doubt as to whether or not the measures that will be brought in, should this bill be enacted, will make a large-scale material difference.

We heard that there is a view amongst directors—a misapprehension, we were told—that too many of them believe or perceive that their personal risks, particularly around offences related to reckless trading—they believe that those provisions are all too similar to those that exist in Australia. We were told that that isn’t, in fact, the case, but the fact that the perception persists was one of the principal reasons for instituting a safe harbour for this period of time so that directors who might otherwise be too keen or too pressed into potential liquidation of a company that might otherwise actually be able to trade out of the current challenges might feel themselves pressured into taking a less than optimal route. So the safe harbour provision gives them some confidence that they won’t expose themselves to the sorts of personal liability that they perceive that they could be placed under, even though some advice we received says that that level of risk isn’t there in practice—in New Zealand, at least.

So, absolutely, going into it we supported the idea of the safe harbour and we still support it on the way out. But I questioned in the first reading and I questioned again through the select committee process, if our directors are, quite rightly, quite conservative, quite risk-averse, if we look at the safe harbour provisions and the conditions they still place upon directors, not only must the company have been solvent at the end of December 2019 but the director has to have some confidence that the company will be able to trade out of whatever current solvency difficulties it’s faced with or, in fact, during this period of six months, solvency issues that might arise. They have to have a confidence about the future likelihood of being able to trade out of that, and yet we exist, we live, in extremely uncertain times. I think we could all contend—I would certainly contend—it will be challenging for a director to gaze into that crystal ball and have any view of strong confidence of what the conditions might look like in the next six weeks, 12 weeks, or even more months into the future, because the duration of the economic impacts resulting from this pandemic are equally uncertain.

So that leads me to being concerned that their risk-averse nature could lead to the point of not taking up the safe harbour because they can’t have sufficient confidence in being able to attest that they have the confidence that they can trade out, given those uncertainties. So we could well enact good provisions—good provisions that do provide protection, but which is a protection that won’t be taken up in all too many cases. That would absolutely meet the criteria of doing no harm, but we can’t guarantee that the measures we’re putting in place through the safe harbour will lead to a sizable, a larger scale, material difference. I’m not sure that there is anything that we could have done differently about those provisions, but it is still a worry, because, fundamentally, our objective is to promote that businesses which feasibly could trade out of the difficulties of COVID impacts do so.

So I’ll move on to the business debt hibernation. We heard a lot of concerns there about the complexity of the scheme. We also heard concerns about those general security agreements (GSAs) and how the holders of those might refuse to enter into a debt hibernation arrangement if they were unable to enforce their securities during that process. It could be likened to a case of those holders having their cake and being able to eat it too. Quite frankly, some of us feel it’s quite a difficult position to be in, and for other creditors to be in—that someone has that incentive that unless they get special treatment the business debt hibernation could never work, but in getting the special treatment they do and persist with exceptional special treatment vis-à-vis other creditors, and that leads to a concern as to those other creditors. Where are the incentives for them to actually agree to enter into debt hibernation arrangements, particularly when they know that a GSA holder is going to still maintain extra special advantage over them? So I worry too, with those provisions, that not as many companies that theoretically could take it up will be able to—and that creates a very real worry.

I just want to finish off—because it doesn’t feel like 10 minutes, Mr Speaker—with the Arms Act amendment around—

SPEAKER: It’s because the clock was late starting. I started at five—a bit of time.

BRETT HUDSON: —the ability of licences. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll just finish with this point then. It’s pleasing to see—because I got a lot of correspondence from firearms owners worried that if licences expired during the lockdown period, then they were going to be left high and dry. It is extremely pleasing to see that the Government decided to come forward with provisions that do a simple extension of validity, which means the licence is unchanged and, subject to alert levels—whatever they may be at the time—the licence holders will have every right and privilege of the use of that licence as it existed prior to the lockdown during that extended period, along with the very clear pledge that they won’t be paying more because of a late relicensing through no fault of their own. I think that is a very, very sensible way to deal with a troubling issue—we will all have received correspondence from firearms owners over the last year or so, and we know the concerns that they have held and which persist for them. So doing that was a very sensible move, and I welcome it, and I do commend this bill to the House.

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to give New Zealand First’s support to this COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill, and I do wish to start by thanking and acknowledging the work—in Mr Woodhouse’s words—of what was a herculean effort on the part of officials, who were able to so swiftly knock together a good piece of legislation, which has been improved by the parliamentary process and the contributions of all of those parties and individuals who make up the Epidemic Response Committee.

So much has been said about this bill already, and I think to rotary hoe the same paddock again would, in some ways, be pointless. But I think, from the New Zealand First perspective, I do need to note a couple of points. One is very clear: this is a very broad omnibus bill—some 45 different pieces of legislation all contained within the one. I do note with a degree of satisfaction and comfort the changes to the Local Government Act, which are very pragmatic changes and take care of the issues, although there’s no local government elections pending on the immediate horizon, so that—[Interruption] Oh, by-elections, of course. It does take care of those, should we have this—well, we have one local government election under way in Ōtorohanga, as has been said, and I am aware that there are other mayors who have stepped down. In fact, I think—

Hon Member: Two others.

Hon RON MARK: —the current president of the—yeah, that’s right. The current president of Local Government New Zealand is still the president, and there has to be a process at some stage whereby a new president is able to be elected who is, in fact, indeed a mayor, because David is not any longer.

The changes around the company law, corporate law, that are aimed at assisting businesses to survive and also deal with the issue over the lease and rent of commercial properties—it’s an interesting debate and discussion. Listening to some people as this bill was put together, and the discussion that was had prior to the bill going to committee, it’s often the way for some people to be very focused on the tenants and—forgive me—maybe not so aware of the circumstances that often landlords themselves are in. It’s probably fair to say that people look upon landlords, generally, in the same sets of eyes that they have through history, as being the one who is actually profiteering off of the person who’s renting their property.

We sometimes forget that very often landlords are just Joe Blow mum and dad investors, who look at that property—be it a commercial property or be it a residential property—as part of their superannuation plan. And they struggle—they lever in to purchase the property and accept the overheads that come with it, given the market circumstances at that time, and they lease it at what is considered to be a fair, marketable, attainable margin.

Of course, then COVID-19 comes along, and everything changes. So there had to be a way in which we could protect tenants and offer some pragmatic changes to the law that will, at the same time, give some protection to the property owners themselves who were up against the banks and the provisions in terms of their mortgages.

So it is satisfying to see cross-party unanimity and the work of the COVID response committee that has actually produced for the House, for New Zealand, a very pragmatic, workable piece of legislation. Of course, the changes that have happened here go hand in hand with the initiatives that the Minister of Finance and Cabinet have already announced, aimed at alleviating circumstances of people who own properties, who have large debts, and who are struggling to pay staff during this crisis.

I’ve got to say, obviously, as a firearms owner—I acknowledge Brett Hudson’s comments—very satisfying to see a very pragmatic solution. A lot of people, to be fair, are feeling under the pump at the moment—those people who are licensed firearms owners, due fit and proper people, and by a quirk they would have been found to have been in breach of the law and unable to continue to own firearms, simply because their applications for renewal could not be processed.

I just want to congratulate all involved. A great piece of work; good to see it was turned around so swiftly, so accurately, and I commend the bill to the House.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very happy to rise to make a contribution in the second reading of this—I suppose I better get the name right of it—COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill. In the passage of the committee, members have been referring to it as the “further management measures bill”, so it was nice to say the name correctly in the House.

I want, as other members who have sat on the committee have, to acknowledge the work of the officials in drafting this bill—Parliamentary Counsel Office for their work on the way through, but the officials for the way they presented to the committee. Clearly, they have done nothing else but work on this piece of legislation and its many and varied clauses. The chair, Mike Woodhouse, on Friday afternoon wished them a relaxing weekend, knowing full well that that was not going to be the case—and so it proved to be on Monday at 9.30 when we recommenced our consideration of this bill. The praise that is being heaped on those officials is well deserved and, I have no doubt, will continue throughout the further readings and the eventual passage of this bill, because it is a bill that we can all agree to and agree on.

Another couple of reflections, if I may, about process matters. The Zoom meeting scenario for select committees took maybe one meeting to adjust to the new way of doing parliamentary business, but, in this instance, it certainly worked. It worked well, perhaps because it was intensive work. It was, essentially, day in, day out; day in, day out; weekend off for members; and then a couple of days and then on into the House. So under these circumstances, it has been a way for members to absolutely focus, almost in an unbroken chain, through the Zoom ability. If that is to be part of our suite of measures for parliamentary consideration, then, from my point of view, it certainly does have a place. I want to acknowledge, Mr Speaker, that that is an innovation that yourself has brought in that, I think, in this instance, has been very useful.

In the consideration of the number of clauses throughout this bill, it fell to me to take particular notice of several areas. I’ll start perhaps with the shorter area, and that was around—if I can find it in my many pieces of paper—changes to notices from bodies corporate. I can’t find it, so I’m going to have to talk to the House from my memory. There were a couple of changes in clauses in the bill which relate to meetings of bodies corporate so that those meetings could, in fact, happen by video conferencing or telephoning, and another clause relating to bodies corporate which brought the terminology in line with the Unit Titles Act. They may sound small and not particularly exciting amendments, but they certainly, if members are a body of a corporate—a number of us are because a number of us have apartments and flats—body corporate membership, and particularly meetings, can be over some quite substantial matters. So the ability to have those without delay and to undertake those in a timely manner are certainly very useful changes and ones which we’ve supported by ourselves.

However, my main focus has been on changes in the local government space. The Hon Ron Mark has raised one of those changes already, and that is around the ability to delay by-elections. If members think about a by-election in a local community—and particularly those of us who have stood in local council elections—local campaigning is very similar to campaigning for Parliament in that it’s very local. Under alert level 2, reaching a number of people just simply isn’t possible to happen, so it impacts on the candidate themselves and their ability to get out and about amongst their community.

The constraints of level 2 also have implications on the electoral system itself. The electoral officers themselves need to be kept safe under those conditions. Furthermore, the voters who get to vote in those elections need to feel that when they come to cast their vote—I know it’s postal voting in the main, but in some councils—for example, in Greater Auckland local authority elections, there was a polling day, as there was in Wellington, and that may be part of local authority election voting in the future. So from the simple and very easy point that democracy is so very important in New Zealand, even under COVID conditions, then amendments like these simply make sense.

There was an issue that I did take up with the officials throughout our consideration of this bill, and it relates to the ability of a chief executive to delay a by-election in the event of an extraordinary vacancy. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! It’s not a lunchroom. Jacqui Dean, I’ll add some time on.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There is a new clause in the bill which provides for the chief executive of a local authority to notify the electoral officer of delay to the commencement of a by-election due to an extraordinary vacancy. The question that raised in my mind was why is that needed, necessarily, and why do we have to legislate for such an occurrence, given that there is no legislative requirement currently for the chief executive to notify the electoral officer in the event of an extraordinary vacancy? So why suddenly do we legislate for a notification to the electoral officer now? I put that to Jonathan Salter of Simpson Grierson, and he took a moment to give me a considered reply, which was along the lines of surety, of people knowing that in the event of an extraordinary vacancy the council had plans to move on a by-election. I accepted his advice and I accepted the advice of the officials that that, in fact, was the case—in fact, people want certainty—but I still reflect, and it still grates with me a little, and I do wonder if we are legislating because we can. Is that a good way to make law in New Zealand?

If there had been a longer period of select committee consideration and members had had the chance to hear from chief executives, not just industry bodies and council and officials—had we had the ability to hear from mayors, to hear from chief executives, on their view of that particular clause, I would say that that would have enhanced my consideration and the consideration of the members just on that clause alone. So in the end, I am happy to accept—because it is a benign clause. But is it necessary? That is one of the failings of legislating in a terrific hurry: we lose the opportunity to hear considered views of the whole sector, not just a selected few.

Yes, I know the prior Government legislated for the Canterbury earthquakes and legislated for the Kaikōura earthquake, and there are always shortcomings in legislation in a hurry, but I do consider that legislating in a hurry has its shortcomings. In the case of this bill, they were benign, but I do fear that in this House we are going to be considering pieces of legislation that are not so benign. That truncated process certainly does have implications for us as parliamentarians, but, even more importantly, for the lives and the freedoms of New Zealanders.

Having said that, the changes in the local government space are worthwhile. It is around allowing—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon JACQUI DEAN: —different ways of notification—thank you, Mr Speaker. We support the bill.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to again offer our support to the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill, and had the luck of speaking to this at the first reading as well. I would like to join others in the House in acknowledging the public servants and officials who have been working so hard in all the stages to be able to get this legislation to this point, and the very, very long hours that are going on right across our Public Service at the moment, as people are really conscious of the work that’s needed to be supporting our communities and to reset even better in the future.

This piece of legislation that’s been noted by others covers 45—it’s an omnibus bill—pieces of legislation, and I think is a real testament to the connection between Government and community and business, and the range of issues that are covered in this. I would like to reflect, not having had the pleasure of being on the Epidemic Response Committee doing this work, but that the tone of the debate this afternoon, I think, reflects Parliament at its best. It has not been without concerns being raised, but they have all been raised in a very thoughtful and constructive manner. It’s very clear to me that all of the members working on this bill have been focused on ensuring that it is the best that it can be to meet the needs of our communities. That’s, I suspect, what all of us hope to be part of when we come in to this place, and may not be that common an experience for many of us.

So just to touch on some of the specifics in the legislation—as I’ve said, it’s hugely wide ranging, from points around looking at changes in relation to insolvency in corporate law changes, from the safe harbour provisions that have been mentioned for directors, and acknowledging that is about trying to provide directors with a sense of security, and being able to make decisions in very, very uncertain times. Acknowledging comments that have been made from members across the House around—legislation at this point, I suspect, is not going to be able to give magic certainty or assurance, but this is a step to give people more certainty. What the committee has done is add a purpose clause and clarify the coverage of these provisions and that they apply to entities incorporated before this announcement. They are specific changes that strengthen, hopefully, the inaction of these provisions to help good decision-making, and also around the business debt hibernation aspects of the bill, which is about providing one other tool to our businesses to help them get through what is going to be—without doubt, for many of them—incredibly challenging times.

Again, to acknowledge the committee, and that they made several changes to this section of the omnibus bill in removing the need for a statutory declaration to be able to enter the business debt hibernation scheme; clarifying the scope of protection to businesses through the moratorium, and making it clear that creditors with a charge over the whole, or substantially the whole, of the businesses are not bound by that moratorium; and clarifying some of the voting rules.

I do just, at that point—again, as we’re talking about the challenges our businesses and, obviously, everyone working for them are experiencing, and may into the future for the next period of time—want to again acknowledge that this piece of legislation and these provisions are not the extent of the Government’s support and engagement in this area. What I’ve seen has been a huge focus for this Government is looking at how we best move through this together and keep as many businesses open as possible. I sense that the public understands that. It’s great to see us all working together on those lines.

Other changes—and just to note the point that was made by the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean, about the changes in enabling delay to by-elections at a local government level. That’s, I think, covering three councils who would be in that situation at the moment, and pointing out that, actually, campaigning at a local level is often very face to face. Having run in a by-election at an electorate level that was full of getting outside the supermarkets and the train stations and going to public meetings—that was very, very face to face. That would not be appropriate or safe in the times that we’re living in at the moment.

I think, while I’m seeing some really fantastic meetings happening on Zoom, bringing more people in who wouldn’t have engaged in those traditional face-to-face fora, I think the chance for us to learn from that is what else we can do on top of the well supported existing democratic engagements that we’ve had in the past to reach new audiences, rather than jumping straight into that world and leaving behind methods of communication and connection that we’ve had in the past.

Also just to note that in this legislation there was also a change, I understand, through the select committee, around the Rating Valuations Act and recognising that it might not be possible for councils to practicably complete a credible general evaluation to statutory deadlines due to the likely impacts of COVID-19 in the second half of this year.

There was a tweaking to the paid parental leave provisions that are in here that I was very enthusiastic about at first reading, because, you know, I was part of the people who fought to get paid parental leave in this country very belatedly. It plays such an incredibly important role in terms of maintaining women’s attachment to employment, but also, most importantly, I suspect, nurturing our families and our littlest ones. This provision enables people to step back into essential work and ensures that they’re not penalised and they are not prevented from going back and finishing their entitlement to paid parental leave. I think that’s fantastic: recognising that most people actually do really care about the jobs that they do, and if they see a gap that they can fill, some of them will want to step in and do that. We don’t want them to be penalised as a result of caring and putting themselves out there for our communities.

There are many other changes in here. Some of them, it’s just about deadlines, and making sure that in this context we are recognising that business as usual hasn’t been possible, and we’re changing those deadlines to give people more time. Others are slightly more substantive. I will pick up on one last point, which the Minister of Justice acknowledged, around the amendment around the audiovisual links, and that the initial legislation included sentencing, and that that was, on reflection and consideration through submissions, pulled back on. I think this is Parliament at its best. It’s an honour to get to speak in a debate where we are all focused on the wellbeing of our communities.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill. We just heard from Jan Logie of the Green Party that politics at its best is when all the politicians agree. That may be true in North Korea, but it is not true in New Zealand, and nor should it be. The truth is that activity does not equal productivity. So while it is right and proper to give thanks to the officials who have worked so hard at all hours over the weekend, and while it’s right to give thanks to the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who was chairing the Epidemic Response Committee, for his efforts—and to all other members of the committee, actually—we can’t necessarily credit them with a good outcome.

I opposed this legislation on the first reading for a couple of reasons: (1) it’s not good process, but (2) while there are parts of it that are very good, to support it is to support other parts that are very bad. One of those parts is the so-called safe harbour provision, which removes the requirement of directors not to trade while insolvent—or, at least, that’s how it was initially sold to us.

I want to try to recollect the extraordinary conversation that was had between members of the committee and officials that Brett Hudson, in his speech, partly referred to. It went something like this. It’s a requirement that the problem we’re solving—by introducing this safe harbour provision, what we’re trying to do here is inform directors that they don’t have strict liabilities for trading while insolvent, as is the case in Australia. The simple question that we asked is “Is it the case that this committee has been asked to change the law to what the law is?” “Yes” was the answer. And then we said, “Well, if the problem is that directors don’t understand what the current law is, then isn’t the answer to tell directors what the law is, and won’t it make it more difficult if we change the law and then, presumably, these directors who don’t understand the law will have to have a new law explained to them?”

Now, if people are finding this difficult to follow, I can understand that, because I think everyone in that conversation was struggling to see what the purpose is and what is actually trying to be achieved through these changes to directors’ liabilities. Certainly, there was no reassurance from officials that they knew what problem they were trying to solve or that the solution being proffered would actually solve them. When we asked professionals who actually were directors from the field—people who did the work that we’re trying to make easier with this legislation—they said, “Well, it’s true. Through cases such as Mainzeal, there certainly are confusions around what the requirements and liabilities of directors are, but the last thing we want is change, particularly at this point in time.”

So I admire people for burning the midnight oil and working through the weekend, and the officials for what they’ve done, but the fact remains that I can’t support this bill when it’s got provisions in it that I opposed on the first reading, raised the question of what the problem was and whether or not this would have more adverse consequences than expected, went and asked the officials on the committee what they were trying to do, and then heard from the private sector that, actually, the last thing they want was this change. Now I read in the select committee’s report that, actually, they thought that on balance this was the least worst option. Well, that’s not good enough.

Then we move to the other really substantial change in this piece of legislation, which relates to the time frames or limits that are allowed for either banks cancelling mortgages on commercial landlords or commercial landlords moving on tenants. This suffers from not quite as bad a problem as what the safe harbour legislation introduces, but the problem is that, if anything, it is going to undermine the basis on which the overwhelming majority of landlords and tenants in the commercial space have come to agreements that work for them.

It’s not good enough to say, “Well, if anything, it will just give them a little bit more leeway—so no harm, no foul.” We find ourselves again, as a Parliament, being asked by the Government to pass legislation that simply does not have a clearly defined purpose and has no analysis—no regulatory impact analysis; no regulatory impact statement; no analysis of what the effects, the unintended consequences, of the legislation are likely to be. That’s a great shame, because I’d like to support this legislation for the sake of all the good things that it does do.

I’ll give you some examples of those. It’s absolutely right to extend the licence period for licensed firearm owners. There is an admittedly small minority of people whose licence, in a 120-month cycle, happens to be due now, this month. But, for those people, it’s very worrying, and I think that’s a commendable part of the bill.

It’s certainly true that there are certain charities which do really great work, and we know who they are, who are reliant on running raffles, and of course they should be able to do that online. The real question is why it’s been prohibited for so long, not why we’re legalising it now.

There are certainly requirements for local government democracy that people are able to participate in elections and do council business online rather than in person, which, in the context of COVID-19, would be a risk.

So it is certainly true that it’s with some regret that I’m opposing this bill, because there are certainly parts, including the ones that I just listed, which are noble and worthwhile. In a way, I’m pleased to know that the bill looks set to pass, for those reasons, but I cannot support the parts of it that have no clear problem definition and are more likely to do damage than they are to help anybody.

It’s worth noting how we got here, because I know people will get up—I know Kiritapu Allan is just about to get up and say, “Oh no. We heard a totally different version of events.” Well, I just put on record what I heard is true—

Kiritapu Allan: That’s correct. That’s what I’m going to say.

DAVID SEYMOUR: —and I’d love to see how she can possibly dispute it. She’s now indicating that she might actually agree with me, just to be difficult. We can look forward—Kiritapu Allan should be grateful. I’m trying to build up some suspense so people will want to listen to her speech for a change. She should be grateful.

She might also say, “Well, it was difficult because we’re under pressure and we had to act fast.” It’s worth asking the question why we have to act fast. Some people say it’s because there’s a pandemic. Well, actually, the fact is the Government has been behind the people every step of the way through this crisis.

We hear repetitively, ad nauseam, that we went hard and went early. Going hard and going early looks like Taiwan, who told the World Health Organization of their concerns about human transmission in December last year and who had their full public health response in play by 20 January.

When I said, on 26 February, that maybe this is becoming a problem and the Prime Minister shouldn’t be in Fiji for three days—she should be here working on the problem—people in the media said, “Oh, David Seymour is scaremongering.” Well, I look forward to hearing an apology from those editorial writers in the media, because the reason we’re here today, legislating at the speed of light, and, in my view, making mistakes, is because the Government’s response has been so slow that Parliament is having to play catch-up. The people who ultimately suffer from that are not us in Parliament but those people who end up with poorly considered and inferior laws to follow.

With that, I cannot support this bill. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Kiritapu Allan.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): That was a rather extraordinary contribution from my friend the member for Epsom, who stands in this House and condemns this piece of legislation on the basis that the safeguards that have been introduced to ensure that those directors making extraordinary decisions in such uncertain times—I would have thought that he would have been rather receptive to hearing from within the business community, who are seeking those safeguards. He gets up in this House and says, “Actually, I’m not going to vote in favour for this bill, on the basis that the officials didn’t give me a good enough answer. But”—he says in the same breath—“I am actually happy that this bill is going to pass, because there are a whole range of matters within this piece of legislation that are exceptionally and extraordinarily positive.”

Now, I’m one of the members on the Epidemic Response Committee, that did contemplate this piece of legislation, and I will say that those officials that contributed—who did, as Mr Seymour says, burn the midnight oil, and we do hold them in high regard, and every single public servant that has spent the last six, seven weeks working extraordinary hours to ensure that we do the best we can in these circumstances, to ensure that (a) we can respond as is required through a public health lens, and (2) that we can do what is required right now to kick-start the economy.

Now, this is an omnibus bill which amends 45 pieces of primary legislation. That shows the extraordinary reach of the impacts of COVID-19. That shows how the entire operation of Government, whether it be in companies law, whether it be in the Resource Management Act, whether it be within the courts—this is an incredibly comprehensive piece of legislation. But what my friend can rest assured of is that there are particular safeguards, including a time limit that means that this bill expires in September. So I’m disappointed with his contribution this afternoon.

I do want to thank the members of the committee, and in particular the Hon Ruth Dyson, who turned to those officials and commended them for their work. This has been an extraordinary effort by many, and I commend this piece of legislation to the House.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak to the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill, a bill that I was able to offer some contribution to in the first reading.

I do want to acknowledge the Epidemic Response Committee. This has been a really good body of work. They’ve worked hard. I’ve been fortunate to be able to somewhat job-share this, and I’d like to acknowledge Chris Penk, who I think was maybe my substitute in the times I was travelling at the period when the committee was actually on. So I’d like to certainly thank those who were part of the committee, and the chairperson, the Hon Michael Woodhouse. A number of submitters appeared in front of the committee by Zoom and submitted in writing, and I think the departmental report—which was compiled very quickly—is a good summary of what we saw and heard. I want to speak to several parts of that.

First of all, the part of the bill that speaks to corrections and courts. This was very much around audio and audiovisual, and it is a component of: can we create legislation or enable legislation that allows audio to be a part of the courts and corrections? And then it expanded to, well, if there’s audio, there’s actually more likely to be audiovisual, and that’s a more fair representation of what we’re trying to achieve. So it then jumped to “and audiovisual”. Then the New Zealand Bar Association and others also commented that there must be the right, on behalf of those who are in front of the process, to decline either of those. I think we only learnt or got to that sort of material from some of the legal submitters, who really did improve and fine-tune the bill.

I think we’ve already heard some commentary around debt hibernation and safe harbour, and a number of submissions where they gave real examples of what that would look like. I want to read just a couple of sentences from one that caught my imagination that I thought summarised the debt hibernation and the safe harbour—I thought it encapsulated it quite well. The submitter said, once they gave their example of suffering under coronavirus, “This is where the hibernation scheme and the safe harbour provisions intersect. The safe harbour provisions provide confidence to directors that they can continue in an attempt to salvage their business without the potential for personal loss if they were to fail in their endeavours. That confidence means they can proceed to put together an arrangement that … be considered by creditors in an endeavour to find a way of restructuring debt.” I think this is exactly the purpose of the debt hibernation and safe harbour.

There was a lot of discussion—again, some of my colleagues have raised—around not wanting to provide a mechanism for those who were maybe struggling significantly and proceeding towards insolvency prior to coronavirus, and to try and nuance the legislation so it mostly solely applied to those who are suffering as a consequence of coronavirus, and that’s quite difficult to specifically focus on, just that reason.

There were health components in the departmental report as well, and I am pleased that the Government took on board a small suggestion I made at the first reading that they take some care with mental health examinations over audiovisual links and how challenging this can be. I see one of the suggestions here is that an examination under Schedule 11 cannot be carried out by audio-only link. I’m pleased that was taken on board.

There are items here for police, very much administrative, around licensing and licensing extensions, workplace relations, and some more administrative areas.

I think, at this point, I want to just also thank the officials for doing a wonderful job with the departmental report. I think that did summarise the submissions, the submitters, who really added value to this process. We listened and changed. If we look at those changes across one, two, three, four, about eight portfolios, that’s quite a few changes. But so there should be, because this bill amends 42 to 45 pieces of legislation, as I recall, so I’m not surprised that that was the fine-tuning that needed to be done. Again, I’d like to thank the committee for getting it to this place in the House, and I commend this bill to the House.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be able to talk to this bill—my first speech since being back in the House post the COVID lockdown. I want to take a turn where I acknowledge all of those who have been working on it. One of the things that most impressed me was the ability for a whole-of-Government approach to pulling together the 45 pieces of legislation and bringing together those practical pieces of work to enable Kiwis to get on with it, and I think that’s one of the great things about this Government: when issues arise, when Kiwis need to go about their daily work and they need to do that more easily, then we have a responsive ear to them, and this, I believe, helps in every way possible.

I also believe that Kiwis expect that in times like this we do come together, and we’ve heard an opposing view where that may not have been the case on some of the legislation brought forward for amendment, but, all in all, in times like this, Kiwis demand that, actually, we put the politics to one side and get on with changing the things that need to be changed to enable us to live our lives more easily. And that’s what this bill really demonstrates by taking all of those pieces of work, having a look at simple things to make things better, and there are numerous examples of that.

There’s been a lot of conversation around the changes for local government, a passion area of mine but also something that’s really practical. I was unaware of a by-election going on in Ōtorohanga, but no doubt that is hotly contested. Be it in a large metro or a small province, none the less, they are important. They are even probably more important for a smaller town where the local representative can be seen as the go-to for everything, particularly on a small council. So I’m really happy that some of these things have made it into this omnibus bill and those changes have been accommodated.

I am also going to agree with my Green colleague Jan Logie, who talked about the changes to parental leave, and those who are returning to work to assist to respond to COVID-19 won’t be disadvantaged by losing their entitlements to certain leave and payments. That’s been expressed to me by several who have been nervous. One of several hundred constituency queries that come in daily—this has been a feature. And I am proud that I will be able to advise them that this is going through the House now, and with some positive news, because, again, these are the small things. People become nervous about what the impacts are. They are desperate to contribute to the situation. They know they can do it but they just want to make sure that any entitlement or any employment matters that pertain to their roles are going to be kept intact.

The other issue that’s been raised, certainly, is around those changes to the Gambling Act, and the three organisations mentioned in there are the Heart Foundation, the Coastguard, and the Countdown Kids Charitable Trust. I know two of those entities really well. I’ve worked with them. The call’s been made as to why some of these changes were not made previously, and let’s look on the positive side and say, “Look, these will be made now.”, and I’m sure that this will be a springboard for those entities to be able to campaign for further change to legislation post the September deadline expiry date—I think it’s September—and that will enable them to do that. But, more importantly, and I know by dealing with other big charities in the electorate right now, they are nervous about donations. I’ve talked to the Wellington City Mission, who in one case have had a recent surge in one aspect of their business, their operation, but in other aspects it’s not been positive, and that also extends into entities like the Crimson Trust—and if you look at the great work they do with the Trees That Count programme, for example, there are nervous sponsors in there. And they are vehicle sponsors, they are sponsors who are used to providing in kind, and without some sense of certainty for their businesses, and some changing, transitioning, arrangements, it means those charities won’t benefit. So anything that we can do to enable them to continue to receive donations from Kiwis is really important.

I see there that others have discussed a range of deferments to regulatory requirements for Government agencies, the Public Service, who had difficulty implementing new legislation or the requirements. That’s fair enough, and those are practical things. I said at the start that one of the things I like about this bill is that it is practical, and people expect that. So it’s good that I see that those things have been included. It was good to hear from the previous speaker, too, just getting the clarity—he’s left now—around that audiovisual link. I wasn’t too sure what that meant in terms of how that applied to some of the health sector work. But it’s good that we are able to pull that together, and the Epidemic Response Committee was able to play its part and recommend that. And thank you to all of those who participated on that. I hear it’s winding up soon and we can resume normal business, so that will be a bonus as we get into the swing of things in the new normal phase.

Others have mentioned some of the changes to other provisions in the bill. I go back to what I said right at the start and say this is a good, practical omnibus bill, and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll just remind the member that you cannot mention the attendance or not of another member in the House.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, my colleague Michael Woodhouse mentioned the process that the committee had gone through to deal with this bill. I think everybody has paid their respects and expressed their gratitude to the officials that worked on the bill, and I, too, would like to do that. I think they did go above and beyond the call of duty to deal with this in a timely manner. I do agree also with my colleague David Seymour in some respects; it’s not ideal. I totally get that. We’re not in ideal times, unfortunately, and there are some things that I would be more comfortable with if we’d had more time to go over them, but we didn’t, unfortunately.

This bill deals with meetings by audiovisual means and other things in the bill, and I’d just like to relay how difficult it was at some point yesterday in the committee meeting. Just before 4 o’clock, our digital connections started to waver, and several of us restarted our computers in the hope that that would actually help, but that wasn’t the problem. For some unknown reason, there was an issue with the network here in Wellington around 4 o’clock, and the most disappointing aspect of that was that I gave what I thought was one of my best contributions in a select committee, which was lost to the digital ether. And when I had the opportunity to have another go, I just didn’t really feel the moment was there, so you’ll have to take my word for it. But it was a wonderful contribution to the bill, and it would have made the bill so much better, but, however, the moment is gone.

But it does highlight, actually, how difficult it is. We think we have got pretty good digital connectivity in New Zealand, and we do, but at times it lets us down. I think the bill’s covered this pretty well, but it’s not going to be a world where we do everything by Zoom. It just simply doesn’t work that well. And I, for one, am looking forward to when select committees can meet in person, because eyeballing the other people in the room and getting their body language actually is a far richer experience and we get a better understanding of what people are thinking and saying.

But as has been said, this bill amends 45 Acts. It’s a significant piece of legislation, and to get it through in the time that we did is quite a mammoth task. It deals a lot with companies, and several people today have alluded to, certainly during question time, about the Christchurch and the Kaikōura earthquakes and getting legislation through quickly to deal with situations of natural disasters and so on—and those disasters still go on for some people. But I know from my own experience of dealing with businesses trying to recover or making the decisions, particularly around these insolvency and company law provisions in this bill, how difficult this is for people. It is a significant issue for a company director or a company owner who’s sitting in their business overwhelmed by the situation that’s around them, trying to assess the economic situation for their business. And then you add into it at this time that we’re in such uncharted territory. Who knows—who knows what’s going to happen in six months? Who knows what’s going to happen in two years? And for a company director who has to make a decision on their company’s viability and whether they can meet their creditors and meet their banking covenants, it’s very difficult.

And we see now Air New Zealand is assessing their company will be back to 70 percent of its prior service, but in two years’ time, yet international aviation pundits are all saying it will be five years. Now, I don’t know what the right answer is, and I would suspect none of those people do either, because we simply don’t know. So when you get into a company sitting around a kitchen table or a boardroom, considering whether they are going to go into insolvency or not, it’s very difficult. These provisions, particularly the business debt hibernation provisions and the safe harbour provisions, do give them more leeway to make those decisions. But it is a human decision in the end, and they’re making a decision on something that—I don’t think anyone knows what’s going to happen in two months’ time, let alone six months, and some of those decisions have to be made on those sorts of time horizons. So these provisions are much needed, and I was pleased to support them.

I do have some concerns about the safe harbour provisions, and I know my colleague Alastair Scott had a very good member’s bill in the ballot, which covered this very provision and, I thought, was an excellent bill. It’s a shame it wasn’t pulled out of the ballot, actually, but, however, we’ve got the one we’ve got. It does have its shortcomings—I agree with that—and that discussion we had, in the end I was confused at the end, but, David, I do have to admit—oh, Mr Seymour.

David Seymour: It wasn’t just you, mate.

STUART SMITH: Yeah—ha, ha! So, at the end of it, we did what we could and we’ve got the bill in the shape that we have today. As I said, I do have some misgivings on it, but in the end I think we have to do what we think is the right thing and that is to pass this legislation through.

I think the uncertainty, you know, as the point was made in the select committee, might encourage risk-averse behaviour. We can’t really say with any certainty that the bill will do that. I think it is something that will have to be watched for, but, hopefully, that won’t be the case. But people are people and they do funny things, and particularly when they’re under pressure, as I’ve seen through my experience, anyway, dealing with the earthquake.

Company directors and their duties—it is a difficult one, and I think the Institute of Directors covered that pretty well. But, you know, in the end, we got to where we did. It is the least worst option in the circumstances, perhaps, but that’s the way it is.

Property law and commercial landlords—I think the issue we’re seeing at the moment, certainly when I talk to businesses in my electorate, is you have businesses who are getting into significant issues. They’re either trying to come to an arrangement not to pay their rent or to lower their rent; the landlord on the other side of the transaction has significant debts often, and they’re also struggling. So what we’re often having now is just the problem being passed along the line to the next person in the line, and, unfortunately, it is going to be a pretty difficult time in the near future for people in those situations. I’m sure other members who’ve taken the pulse of their business community will be well aware of what lies ahead. It is going to be pretty tough out there.

The paid parental leave provisions—well, yes, it was absolutely essential that it was dealt with. The Gambling Act changes, I do agree also—I’m going to have to stop doing this—with Mr Seymour. But why didn’t we do this years ago? Why do we have to do this—why weren’t they allowed to carry out their fund-raising activities online? It makes perfect sense. I don’t know why we didn’t allow that, but that’s none the less where we got to. But it’s here now, so that’s going to be great.

It was raised earlier that companies are often the owners’ or the principals’ superannuation. Michael Woodhouse made a very good point about keeping a business in operation, because often the greatest intellectual property in the company, particularly for a small and medium sized enterprise (SME), is actually the principal—the people that own and run the company, particularly for smaller companies. So it’s not like handing the keys over for a repossessed car to someone else to take over, where you just jump in and drive it away. Businesses are all about people and they’re all about the processes that go with it—and big corporates, they have all of that documented. But often in SMEs they do not, and then to simply have the keys handed over, you end up with a business not only failing for the principals but going out of existence, and that’s not a good result for anyone. So if we can keep those businesses going as long as possible, then that is the most desirable outcome that we could hope for.

So it was with that reluctance which I’ve outlined that I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m very pleased to be able to stand here on behalf of the Labour Party and lend my support to this bill which we wrote. So the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill is quite amazing, really, when you think about it—that something like this can come up so quickly and deal with issues that only eight weeks ago this Parliament, I’m sure, would not have anticipated that we needed to do. But that is the nature of the crisis that this country and many other countries face, is that is evolving, it is unprecedented, and there is no template—there’s no blueprint as to how to go about this.

There have been many examples of issues that have come from various sectors that this Parliament is being asked to deal with through this process—45 pieces of legislation are being amended in this bill, and I think that’s marvellous. I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the officials for the work that they have done, because they’re often overlooked. To go away and work over the weekend to be able to present the report to the Epidemic Response Committee was, I’m sure, something that no one wishes to do, but they had no choice. They had to do it and they did it because it needed to be done, and good on them for doing that.

I also want to acknowledge—credit where it’s due—the Hon Michael Woodhouse did a very good job of chairing the submission process for this bill, so well done. I think that’s something that this House doesn’t do enough, is acknowledge when there is collaboration across the House. I’m one of the first to point out the foibles of the other side, so I also wish to take the opportunity to congratulate when there has been collaboration. I know that that is a part of the political process, the parliamentary process, that the public don’t see very much—collaboration does not sell newspapers—so it’s great to be able to acknowledge that.

There are various examples in this bill of things that—like I mentioned earlier—I don’t think we would have anticipated would have needed changing, such as, as referenced by the previous speaker, Stuart Smith, the necessary changes to the Gambling Act. Now, organisations like the Heart Foundation and Coastguard and Countdown Kids Charitable Trust needed a law change to be able to take payments for their lotteries online or by phone, and it is astonishing that that is required, but it was. And so it’s great that that has been identified and included in this bill.

There are a number of changes that are significant, such as, for example, allowing the by-election in Ōtorohanga to be postponed. Now, otherwise that wouldn’t have been able to happen, but, obviously, with the conditions that are currently in place as a result of the necessary lockdown that we are undergoing at the moment, that would have impeded democracy. So it’s a good opportunity and a great example of those sorts of issues coming through the hard work of Government departments, the Ministers identifying that including that in this response, and the other side of the House taking it into consideration, hearing submissions on the Epidemic Response Committee, and lending their support to this.

It’s been an extraordinary experience being part of that committee, I have to say, and I want to acknowledge the submitters, because they had to come at short notice. And the submissions that they provided in this allowed the committee to make a number of recommendations for changes in this bill, and that’s been addressed by the Supplementary Order Paper that’s been presented to this House. It just goes to show that even in a short process, the select committee process does contribute greatly to this.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Ah, not for the next bill!

KIERAN McANULTY: There are, of course, times where urgency is required, as the previous Government knew very well—many, many, many examples of urgency; far more than this Government, I might point out. There are many examples where some bills need to go in through urgency. And the next bill that this House is going to consider is one of those, because—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Give us three reasons.

KIERAN McANULTY: —of course, the COVID-19 response requires such an approach.

Now, I understand that the member on the other side of the House that wants to take the opportunity to interject is under a lot of pressure at the moment because the response has been so strong and it has been received so well that the other side of the House is running out of platforms from which to try and get attention. So if this is the platform which that member chooses to try and grasp attention, then good on him—good on him. It’s not the approach that we would take, of course, because we are a party of principle.

So—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the bill?

KIERAN McANULTY: Back to the bill—back to this marvellous bill. I will not concentrate on the interjections from the other side any more. I will come back to this bill. I don’t actually think that there’s much need to go on too much longer to be honest, because—

Hon Simon Bridges: No, no, give us more!

KIERAN McANULTY: I don’t know if I will give them more. They plead for more—they plead for more, but I will not give it to them. I don’t know why, but it seems to me that they want this to continue—they don’t want to get to the next bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m happy for it to continue if it’s about the bill.

KIERAN McANULTY: I don’t really want to continue, Madam Speaker, because the point is that this bill has been covered—it’s been well covered. It’s so broad and so varied. But, in such a short period of time, it has addressed the things that needed to be addressed. I commend all those that have been part of it and I’m looking forward to seeing it progress through the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 119

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.

Noes 1

ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a second time.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the passing through all stages of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill and the passing through the remaining stages of the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill, and any bills into which it may be divided.

I will deal with the easy one first, which is the latter of those two bills, in terms of explaining the need for urgency. Members have—just in this debate that we have just concluded, on the second reading of that bill—outlined the reasons for it, outlined the urgency behind it, which is that many of those measures are needed to be put in place in order to ease the burden of COVID-19, in order to particularly ensure that our businesses can get back up on their feet and that the impacts of COVID-19 are, as far as possible, mitigated. So we’ve passed the second reading today—normally, Parliament will only do one stage of a bill at a time—and urgency is required in order to ensure that Parliament can complete the passage of that particular piece of legislation.

On to the more substantive issue though, which is the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. At the end of tomorrow, New Zealand moves into the next phase of the fight against COVID-19, when we move to alert level 2. We will move out of the cycle of the renewal of a national state of emergency. This bill, the public health response bill, establishes a fit-for-purpose legal framework for managing the unprecedented circumstances of the COVID-19 epidemic in a coordinated and orderly way where a national state of emergency may not exist. To this end, the bill establishes stand-alone legislation that provides a legal framework for responding to COVID-19 over the next two years, or until COVID-19 is brought under control, if that is sooner.

The need to pass that legislation is self-evident. The legal framework needs to be in place as we move to level 2 from 11.59 p.m. tomorrow night, Wednesday night, so that the powers and the protections that it creates will be available from the outset of level 2, and so that there will be no opportunity for the virus to regain a foothold in New Zealand because of a legislative hiatus.

New Zealand and New Zealanders have gained international respect for our response to and our resistance to COVID-19. This bill offers some assurance that the effort and sacrifice that the country has made will not be wasted, and the Attorney-General will talk specifically about the provisions of the bill in the first reading.

A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill

First Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I move, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill be now read a first time.

This bill creates a bespoke legal framework to support the Government’s future efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19 in New Zealand. This is designed to last for a maximum of two years although can be brought to an end earlier if the threat passes.

New Zealanders have been on a precarious journey combatting this virus. We’re not at our final destination yet, but together we’ve made extraordinary progress through the largely voluntary efforts of our people, who accepted the need for unprecedented actions to isolate ourselves in bubbles to cut off the chains of infection. We went hard and we went early to fight a virus for which there is currently no vaccine and no cure. We know it can hide and spread through those with no symptoms, and around the world we’ve seen the devastation and loss of life it can cause, especially in aged care and in dementia units. We’ve negotiated difficult terrain and have broken the chain of community transmission. In the meantime, we’ve improved our stocks and supply lines for polymerase chain reaction test kits and reagents as well as personal protective equipment supplies and distribution. We’ve ramped up testing and the quality and capacity of track and tracing. We’ve minimised the damage the virus would have otherwise done to our people and to our economy.

We cannot afford to be complacent but we can take a moment, as a nation, to pat ourselves on the back. New Zealand is now able to restore civil and economic freedoms at a far faster rate, and to a wider extent, than many other countries. The move to level 2 is welcome. We can reconnect with friends and family we haven’t seen for a couple of months, catch up—with appropriate social distancing—for coffee and, dare I say it, get a haircut. But level 2 does not mark the end of our precarious journey. It does not remove the need for vigilance, nor for the measures we need as we do our best to ensure the virus does not get a second chance. Level 2 does allow us to live our lives with greater flexibility, but still with great care and some restrictions, and that is what this bill addresses. Some critics, including this House, have said we went into lockdown too late, then argued we should leave it sooner, and now argue that we should take another week to consider this legislation, which would extend the social and economic impacts.

Managing the epidemic has required the fast escalation of measures to stop the spread of the virus, for primarily health reasons. The step down has to be prompt for different reasons. Each additional day has significant economic costs for New Zealanders. Delays which can be avoided also risk undermining the social consensus we need to maintain. We considered whether to allow this bill a select committee process; this would have either delayed level 2 or risked a level 2 without the more nuanced enforcement powers that we believe are warranted for an interregnum. We concluded that passing it under urgency is necessary for New Zealand to move to alert level 2 at 11.59 p.m. on Wednesday.

We provided an exposure draft to other political parties and to legal academics overnight. We recognise this is a short period—we have received feedback, and we thank you. The bill doesn’t change the alert level framework, or any of the measures or restrictions that have been required at former levels; it does modernise the legal framework that sits behind and supports these measures. As New Zealand moves out of lockdown, and looks ahead to level 2 and beyond, it’s necessary to create a bespoke legal regime. I must emphasise now, as I have before, that there is already a solid legal basis for all the legal restrictions that have been placed on New Zealand’s freedoms and liberties at this extraordinary time. However, the current legal framework is not fit for purpose for enforcing certain measures at level 2, where there is increased freedom of movement and more nuanced restrictions. New legislation is necessary, as we don’t want to rely on a national state of emergency and the Health Act alone to enforce measures at these lower levels.

To date, restrictions at alert levels 3 and 4 were given legal effect by notices under section 70 of the Health Act, in conjunction with the state of emergency under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act and the Epidemic Preparedness Act. To support alert levels 3 and 4, the director-general has issued notices to close premises except those providing essential services, prohibit congregation in outdoor places, and require people to remain at home in their bubble except to access essentials and to exercise. These orders are lawful under the Health Act, and the restrictions proportionate to the scale of the COVID-19 threat.

That said, some aspects of the Health Act do need to be modernised and adapted, and this is particularly true for the detailed level 2 measures, which are not well suited to the existing Health Act and Civil Defence Emergency Management regime. This bill provides new enforceable measures that don’t depend on a state of emergency being in force. The bill allows the Minister of Health to issue orders to give effect to these measures, either for all of New Zealand, at a regional level, or for a particular class of people, businesses, or other activities. For example, it includes powers to require people to maintain social distancing measures, to require people to refrain from travel to or from any area, to require people to be isolated or quarantined, to prohibit gatherings of any specified kind, to report for testing, and requiring premises to be closed or allowed to open only if specific measures are complied with.

The measures in the bill take into account the particular characteristics of COVID-19 and give us the best chance to keep it under control. Due to its asymptomatic and contagious nature, measures may need to be imposed at a nationwide, regional, or group level, where necessary, to reduce the risk of transmission. The Government recognises the restrictions and measures to combat COVID-19 have had an enormous impact on our lives and livelihoods, and so the social and economic impacts will be important factors in decision making under this bill. The bill moves decision making from medical officers of health to the Minister of Health, who needs to be satisfied the measures are appropriate, and they must take into account any decision by the Government on how to respond to those risks and avoid, mitigate, or remedy the effects of COVID-19 which may have taken into account any social, economic, or other factors, and must take into account advice from the director-general about the risks of the outbreak or spread of COVID-19, and the extent and nature of measures appropriate to address those risks. The Minister of Health must consult the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and any other Minister the Minister of Health thinks fit.

The bill will give police and other authorised enforcement officers clearer powers to enforce the orders, consistent with the graduated approach police have taken to enforcement to date. Those powers sit aside along voluntary measures, public health, and other guidance. This bill creates a power to enter premises, a power to direct people, to stop activities that are in breach of the order, a power to close roads and public places, and a power to close businesses operating in breach of the rules for 24 hours. Clause 23 allows a constable to enter a private dwelling house without a warrant only if they have reasonable grounds to believe that people have gathered there in contravention of an order and entry is necessary to give a direction to cease the activity. We acknowledge that it is unusual—though not unprecedented—for a constable to have warrantless power of entry into a private dwelling house. This is due—the fact that it is unusual—to the high expectation of privacy that citizens have in these places.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: What’s the precedent, Minister?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The extraordinary risk posed by COVID-19—I will cover instances in later speeches; I haven’t got time to detail that now—and the fact that it can be spread readily in large social gatherings, whether in public or in private, justifies the power in these circumstances and the limits it places on rights. There are safeguards in the bill so that a constable must report every time a warrantless entry power is exercised, summarising the circumstances and the reason why the power needed to be exercised.

This bill will create a new infringement offence regime. Some breaches will be dealt with as an infringement offence, and an intentional breach will be a criminal offence which may result in a fine or imprisonment on conviction. An infringement offence regime gives police another graduated step in their enforcement options where the breach is not serious enough to warrant criminal prosecution. The bill also amends the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 to ensure a nationally consistent approach to the response and to management of risks arising from COVID-19, and to better deal with concurrent emergencies that are not COVID-19 but which might arise during the period of the COVID-19 response. We believe this legislation is needed to appropriately continue our response to the unique and unprecedented challenges of COVID-19. Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Madam Speaker. National called for level 2 safely and sooner than later. We wanted lockdown, it was justified; the lockdown extension wasn’t. We’ve been pleased to see New Zealand open up more, and I know how pleased New Zealanders are to see that and to see that that is going to happen.

Having seen a low number of COVID-19 cases with a lot of people out of work isn’t success; it’s a thousand people going on the dole each and every day who are suffering in our country. The focus of our country has to be on turning to save jobs and getting people back to work. Having flattened the curve, let’s not flatten our economy; let’s combat the deepest recession in a generation. We need a strong plan to get out of the economic hole that we are in. Indeed, we believe that the Government and its really single-minded focus needs to be on saving those jobs. A big part of that is trusting New Zealanders—as we open up, trusting New Zealanders in their businesses and their workplaces all over New Zealand, but, I would also add, and critically when it comes to this bill before Parliament, trusting New Zealanders in their sports clubs, their shops and cafes, their churches, and their places of worship; open them up.

So for all those reasons—that sense of getting back to work, of creating jobs, of saving jobs, of trusting New Zealanders in their workplaces but, more widely, in our society—we fully support opening up to level 2. Indeed, we believe that every day it is for our Government—the Government of New Zealand—to strongly justify the restrictions that they have in place over New Zealanders and, where there isn’t good rationale, to reduce them. Our Government—this Parliament—should trust New Zealanders, unlock our country, get us going, and get us working again.

That said, it’s with regret that I say we have, on this side of the House, in the National Party, real concerns with this bill. You’ll hear from other members of National about, I am sure, civil liberty concerns—concerns with our freedoms as a people that have been long fought for—in the speeches and contributions. I want to simply place on record my concerns in two areas, really, but four for completeness: funerals, tangi; churches or places of worship; enforcement; and the length of time that this bill—or law, as it will, I think, become—applies for.

Before I get to those, could I just say this: this bill, in coming here, has had very limited scrutiny. There will be, as it becomes law, no select committee. It’s a case of, on this side of the House—I don’t know about the support parties in Government—us having it for less than 24 hours. I think it was Geoffrey Palmer who lamented this Parliament being the fastest lawmaker in the West. Dare I say it, to the members opposite, in recent times we have got it wrong; passing things that we didn’t even know we were passing. So the room for error in this bill, I suggest, is incredibly high, given the legal complexities.

Funerals: I have had many messages—I would say in the dozens—from New Zealanders nationwide on the issue of funerals and tangi; from the Deputy Mayor of Invercargill to a family in the North, and many a funeral director. Simply put: it’s not right that people at level 2 will be able to come together in restaurants, at shows, at movies, on the sports field, watching sports, in malls in more than 10, but they will not be able to do that in a controlled environment of a funeral home or church for a funeral. This outcome is not kind, and, in fact, it’s inhumane. I could read New Zealand some of the emails that I’ve received that I think would take a brave person not to be upset by. But let me personalise it in my situation, where I have an elderly father who is 86, and I know that in our family there are six siblings, there are six partners, there are 20 grandchildren—including three of my own children—who would want to be at the funeral of someone who shaped our lives in such a profound way. Yet, under this law and the powers being given to the Minister of Health—in fact, really, the Prime Minister—that would not be so.

On churches and places of worship, whether it’s pressie, whether it’s New Life, whether it’s a mosque, or whether it’s a Sikh temple, really it’s the same simple point. David Parker has crafted a law and the Cabinet has crafted polices that mean that we allow dozens on a sports field or to watch a movie, and yet we don’t allow them to come together with appropriate rules to worship their god. I say that’s not kind, it lacks humanity, and, even given the gravity of this situation, it’s just not right.

Whether it’s Marie from Whanganui, who said to me, “When rugby has been deemed an acceptable activity—30 people up close and personal—why should I be banned from attending a mass in my church where social distancing and contact tracing would be very simple for about 50 people at a time?”, or Natalie, who said, “For many people, our faith and practise of it is the most important thing in our lives. To brazenly disregard the importance of churches and put their necessity to function beneath the opening of other far less important things is unbelievable. In her comments yesterday the Prime Minister stated that religious institutions are places where people come for fellowship, for community, and to socialise.”—Natalie says—“I never attend my church for fellowship, community, or to socialise; I only go to adorn and offer sacrifice to God, which is not only a fundamental right but an obligation.”—she goes on—“I would still go even if I was the only one left in the pews.”

I acknowledge that, in fact, the words of these things that I talk about are not in the bill, but they are the policies of Cabinet and they’re the polices that, through this bill, the Minister of Health will implement. I say one final time: they are not kind; they are inhumane, and they should not pass this Parliament, even given the seriousness of the situations and the need and the desire to loosen up at level 2.

We’ve seen some changes to this bill coming in Supplementary Order Papers, in amendments that we’ve seen from Mr Parker—and we appreciate that—on the issues of enforcement, although, I dare say, my colleagues will nevertheless raise some of those issues. Length of time—I, again, acknowledge that whilst the bill says two years, the Minister is changing that, and we appreciate that, but, again, I think you’ll hear some views from my colleagues on that and on the wider civil liberties issues. That’s because the powers in this bill given to the Minister and the police are in a way that we’ve never seen in a non-wartime situation, I dare say, in this country, with very few checks and balances, if any.

I’m pleased to see New Zealand open up more. I want to see us save jobs. But I say trust New Zealanders—Prime Minister and David Parker, you’re not doing that with this bill.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I rise to speak to this legislation as the Minister of Health who will have the responsibility and the privilege of eventually acting within it, and—as one who has had many conversations with the Hon David Parker, who has carefully drafted this legislation—to really take into account what we now know about this virus and the situation we find ourselves in as a country, in a situation where we have gone hard and we have gone early, where the risks have been diminished, but the risk has not passed.

The existing legislation that we have acted under as we have combated this disease is based on an emerging situation, on an emergency situation, and on a crisis, and it is fit for purpose in that new and emerging structure. It has put us on a very stable footing for our response. Now, as we have succeeded as a country in really combating this virus through the efforts of all New Zealanders, who have come together to unite to fight COVID-19, we have the benefit of some time to consider how, when we’re operating under a lower-level framework with a diminished but not destroyed risk, we can have bespoke legislation that ensures we have the powers necessary and desirable to ensure the best possible response to this virus for the health and wellbeing of all New Zealanders.

We have taken a very precautionary approach. It has served us well as a country. I want to thank Minister Parker for his leadership in this area, for his taking on the responsibility of making sure that we, as a country, have legislation that is up to the minute and that actually is based upon a good, firm understanding, in so far as the scientific community has it, of the risks that present to us. Let’s not forget that six months ago, we did not know of this virus. Only in late January was human to human transmission confirmed, and since that time, in New Zealand, we have put up a remarkable response. We have set up a contact tracing system that has national direction and that is consistent across the country. It has resources at the centre that simply did not exist before. We’ve put $70 million into public health. We’ve set up a national distribution system for personal protective equipment (PPE), because previously it was the responsibility of NGOs and private providers to source their own PPE in accordance with their own health and safety plans. But we determined that it would be important to have a national distribution centre to keep our essential service workers safe, and we’ve set up a testing regime which compares incredibly well to other testing regimes around the world and sees us with the lowest positivity rate of any using the polymerase chain reaction with reliable data, next only to Taiwan.

Now, as that situation emerged, as the evidence changed, and as we came to better understand the virus, we have had to respond quickly, and under the existing legislation that has been possible. And it’s true that our understanding of the virus continues to emerge. So I would push back on some statements made by the Leader of the Opposition that minimise the risk. We do better understand this disease, but we don’t completely understand this disease, and it is important that we continue to take a risk-based approach, underpinned by the legislation that we have.

He raised the issue of mosques, temples, and churches, and raised a concern that people would not be able to assemble in numbers greater than 10. I have to say that taking the decision to limit those gatherings to 10 people at this stage was one of the most difficult decisions that I have faced as a Minister during this time. I know that the Prime Minister has expressed a similar view, and I have had that feedback from Cabinet colleagues. It was not easy, because we know of the human tragedy that surrounds many of these situations, where families have not been able to grieve in the way that they traditionally would.

It’s difficult at any time to face grief and loss, and as myself, a funeral celebrant, I know that people choose in those situations, and expect, to physically comfort each other. What we have seen overseas, sadly, is that in those situations, people have come together, and transmission of the virus has occurred and there has been further tragedy. In New Zealand, our transmission has, in different public situations, been a challenge through this period. We did not want to see people grieving face the double jeopardy of potential further grief because in these situations, where people physically comfort each other, there was risk of any transmission.

We hope this situation will not continue for too long, because we do seem to see fewer and fewer cases. But as we begin to open up, as we open up our economy again, we want to be sure that we are putting the safety of New Zealanders first in these situations and ensuring that we continue to keep moving forward so that we can continue to open up and have a more normal, safe engagement with one another in a controlled way that respects what we now know about this virus.

In this legislation, as the Minister of Health, I will be required to have regard to the advice of the Director-General of Health about the risks of the outbreak or spread of the virus, of the nature and extent of measures and whether they are voluntary or enforceable, and how we can best address those risks. I will have consulted with the Prime Minister, with the Minister of Justice, and with other Ministers, as appropriate, before making any orders under this legislation.

It is appropriate to the different footing that we find ourselves on in level 2 to have legislation that is looking forward to a situation where it may not be that burning emergency that it was in the first place but where those risks are still present, where we have legislation that is designed and debated in this House, in this Parliament, across the House—the chance for a robust debate about the legislation that will underpin our response as a country. It is appropriate to have the Opposition have their view in this debate about the legislation that will shape our response going forward. [Interruption] The Opposition respond with perhaps sarcastic comments. The alternative is not to have this legislation and not to have this debate, and I don’t think anybody would think that was appropriate when we had the opportunity to have a wider debate, to consult with legal experts, and make sure that we had the best legislation in place going forward.

We are very, very fortunate in New Zealand to be in the position we’re in, and I do want to take this opportunity to thank, on the international day of the nurse, all of our nursing staff, in particular, but also all of our professionals across the health system, who have responded so well. It is a privilege to lead the health sector response and to have had such success. I think the results speak for themselves as to where we find ourselves now, and that is due in no small part to the response of the general public and their willingness to make sacrifices to make sure that we’re in the position we’re in now, and it’s also due to the fine work of our medical professionals.

Now, it is important, though, for all of us that we step forward and not back, and so that is why in these situations we continue to take a cautious approach. We do not want people gathering in numbers of greater than 10, and even when in a premise that may hold up to 100, they will be separated. So, for example, in a restaurant, a booking will not be for more than 10 people. These are to preserve the gains that we’ve made and to lock them in, to make sure that we can keep moving forward and keep opening up our economy.

We only have to look to Europe to see the situation they are in, where they are in lockdown in many countries and continue to be in very restricted environments. That is very damaging to their economy, but not only are they facing economic damage; they are also facing decimation in their populations, where this disease continues to have tragic consequences.

In New Zealand, thanks to the efforts of New Zealanders and thanks to the public health response and quick action—going hard and going early—we are in a privileged position to now consider legislation that will take us forward and underpin our continuing fight against this virus. I commend this legislation to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): In my previous intervention in this House, I gave the Government a commendation, and in doing so we were reflecting on a process of a very speedy but thorough select committee process for two important pieces of legislation that are now back before this House just on seven days from its first reading and will be passed into law this week. I talked about the World Bank parliamentary forum that I attended, where there was growing concern around the world about what were described as weak democracies—so-called democracies that pushed through State intervention in people’s lives without the appropriate scrutiny of Parliament. I find myself in the situation of going, within an hour and a half, from commendation to condemnation for this piece of legislation—both in its process and in its executive overreach. I would go so far as to compare the Prime Minister to Rob Muldoon. She is Rob Muldoon with slogans and kindness. I’m old enough to remember carless days, wage and price freezes, reducing the road speed limit from 100 kilometres to 80 kilometres per hour—

Hon Member: Supplementary minimum prices.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —that’s right, SMPs—by an executive that rode roughshod over this parliamentary process. Even they pale into comparison with the influence and executive fiat that is being exerted on this country by this bill. I am, frankly, astounded that a Government that purports to be open and transparent, to be kind, and to give the country, the public, the credit for the amazing work that they have done still increases further and further into their freedoms and their lives.

Let’s be very clear: if there was a question about whether the level 4 and level 3 lockdown was legally allowed under section 70 of the Health Act—and that is a question yet to be answered—then there’s no doubt that the sort of influence that the Government wants to have in level 2 is not. So if the Government wants to act in this way, it does need to pass legislation, but, as I said in my previous intervention, that is the very time when this place matters most, when the rule of law matters most, and where changes to that law need to be carefully thought through, well considered, consulted on, robustly debated, and definitely not rushed through.

Now, the Minister of Health, very clearly, says there is haste—understandable, but this Government has had three months. I think this Government did get legal advice that said that there was a question mark over their ability to act at level 3 and 4, and, clearly, they wanted to continue to impose themselves on New Zealanders’ lives under level 2 in a way that was entirely inconsistent given what we heard about what level 2 would look like, and so they’re going to pass that bill. But not even the Minister of Health knows his own legislation, because he said in his speech that he will have to consult with the Director-General of Health. Actually, the bill doesn’t say that; it says quite the opposite. At subclause (2) of clause 9, on page 5, when making a section 11 order, “Nothing in this section requires the Minister to receive specific advice from the Director-General about the content of a proposed order or proposal to amend, extend, or revoke an order.” So he doesn’t need to consult the director-general, and not even Dr Clark knew that.

Hon Dr David Clark: Have regard to any advice.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: So now we have—well, he says he doesn’t have to have regard to it, which means he can ignore advice. Well, that’s actually pretty consistent with the pattern that we’ve seen over the last few weeks.

Hon Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member is mischaracterising my response, and I’m not sure what remedy I have for that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Well, that’s a debatable point; so members can debate those points.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: So they don’t have to take the advice of the director-general, they don’t have to have an epidemic notice, and they don’t have to have a state of emergency. If Dr Clark and the Prime Minister believe that the freedoms of New Zealanders should be curtailed, they issue a notice. That is the classic case of executive overreach.

The Attorney-General talks about how we are now legislating for social distance. We have got to the point where we are going to make a law about how close I can get to members of this House. Why didn’t they go further? Why didn’t they make a law about sneezing into your sleeve or washing one’s hands for 20 seconds? You think I’m being flippant? That’s where we’ve got to, and what that says to me is the Government doesn’t trust Kiwis.

Kiwis have done this. New Zealanders have done this. We have knocked COVID down—and it’s true it’s not out, but there is an expectation that we get back to something of normal, because the health risk pales now in comparison to the economic asteroid that’s about to hit this planet, and it’s going to land directly on top of New Zealand. It’s going to be ugly, and it’s happening already. The Minister shakes his head. Well, good luck selling that to the country when there are hundreds of thousands of jobs lost.

It wouldn’t be so bad if anybody could understand what their intentions were, as the Leader of the Opposition said. We can have a rugby game—and it won’t be just 30 players; it’ll be 60 to 70 players, coaches, referees, and medics. They can play, they can run around, and they can bang into each other, but they can’t go to the bar and have a beer afterwards, because we couldn’t trust them to do that. My daughter will be mixing next week with her schoolmates at school. She can’t wait. But the 14th birthday party that she was arranging for this weekend is going to be unlawful under this legislation when it’s passed. We can go to the shopping mall—with hundreds of people, potentially, if there’s three malls connected together as it is in George Street in Dunedin—to buy the engagement present or the wedding present for the loved one, but we can’t go to the function wherein we’d be giving them that present. As Simon Bridges said, the ability, the freedom, the fundamental constitutional right of freedom of worship is now less important than the right to go to a cafe or a shopping mall. That is an affront to New Zealanders.

Not only are we considering these aspects of intrusion into our lives; we are not giving the New Zealand public an opportunity to have their say—even in a short period of time. Frankly, that’s an insult to their intelligence, it’s an insult to this House, and it makes New Zealand one of those weak democracies that I heard described at the World Bank parliamentary forum.

None of that—none of that—is intended to dismiss the risk the Minister of Health articulates, but I ask this: when? When does this end? We’re going to be like this until a vaccine is found. The “weeds on the lawn” metaphor that the director-general used is going to be with us probably for another 18 months. Are we really saying that this is going to be New Zealanders’ lives for the next 18 months, and, if so, why not give them a say on that? Why not give them the opportunity to say, “We can be trusted. We know what social distancing is. We know what close contact is. We know what good hygiene measures are, whereas we didn’t pay as much attention as we could’ve before it became apparent that this was a serious virus.”?

I finish with these points about the Attorney-General’s comments about the Opposition’s inconsistency in its positioning. I don’t believe there’s any inconsistency. We were too slow to shut our borders, we were too long before coming out of an extreme lockdown, and we are too distrustful of the public in legislating for level 2. I’m sad about that. I’m sad that at this stage in the process the National Party cannot support this bill, because we want this to be a team of 5 million but it’s the Government that is racing off in a direction that we cannot support, curtailing the freedom of New Zealanders without their right to have their say. Unless there are material changes to it, which will be signalled, it will be difficult to support this subsequently.

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, what can I say? I’m quite astonished and gobsmacked. I listened to that member’s earlier speech and it was characterised by reason, gratitude, even lauded and applauded officials and the Government for the act that it had taken in supporting that legislation. Now we have this bill before the House, which is the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill—a bill which I and my party, New Zealand First, believe is absolutely essential if we’re to get through stage 2 and back to normality as quickly as we possibly can whilst minimising a spike in infections and a re-emergence of COVID-19.

If one is truly as concerned as that member is about the state of the economy, jobs, people who stand to lose their jobs or who already have lost their jobs, businesses—and I noticed a lot of rhetoric of late; people talking up their great concern for small business. I didn’t actually see it in their time in Government. I saw a greater devotion and interest to large corporate businesses like Skycity with all of their pokie machines, like Chinese donors of large amounts of money. I saw a lot of focus on big corporates, but I never once heard the type of rhetoric that I’m now hearing emanating from the Leader of the Opposition about what I would cynically even characterise as belated concern for small business—nine years belated.

I have to say also—and I do need to address these points because they were made in that member’s comments—he’s moved in his own words from commendation to condemnation. I get that; that’s the job of the Opposition to call it as they see it. But then he went on to exemplify his criticism of the Prime Minister and this Government with some rather caustic comments about a former Prime Minister of the National Party. In fact, the Prime Minister who’s most revered as being a patriot, a nationalist, a strong-minded firm leader who knew what he stood for—

Brett Hudson: Here we go. New Zealand First is defending the memory of Rob Muldoon.

Hon RON MARK: —knew what his party stood for, was brave, no wilting flower, no lily. A man—and Brett Hudson, I’m just astonished. I have no doubt that Mr Hudson will later on take Mr Woodhouse aside and give him a bit of country language, actually, about Robbie Muldoon and what a hero he was to many, many National Party people. In fact, I voted for Rob Muldoon. As a soldier, I admired his leadership, I admired his strength and courage, and I admired the fact that he could make hard calls, regardless as to whether or not everybody agreed with them, he made—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Yeah, but he didn’t ride roughshod over the parliamentary process.

Hon RON MARK: He didn’t ride roughshod? Well, Mr Woodhouse, that’s completely contrary to what your Hansard records you as saying. So what we are seeing right now played out in the House is the confusion that the Opposition’s been displaying for the last eight weeks—absolute, total confusion. The question really is where can they make traction in the hearts, in the minds of the public on a 21-26 percent poll? That’s the real challenge that’s facing them. Unfortunately, it’s manifesting itself in this ridiculous debate that we’re all being subjected to right now and are no doubt going to be subjected to for a number of hours until this very worthwhile, very necessary piece of legislation is passed, which I have to remind people has a sunset clause in it.

Now, extraordinary times—I used to say it to young men that I was mentoring, young women, both when I was in the military and when I was operational, when I was running a small business, employing staff. Sometimes life has a habit of smacking you in the face with something totally unexpected that one is not prepared for. One might have—in the late hours of the night when philosophising and debating and discussing—talked about a pandemic and what the effect might be on a country, on a region of the globe, maybe even on the planet itself, but no one takes these conversations seriously at the time, and then it arrives. I can simply say this: extraordinary times require extraordinary measures to counter them. I don’t think there’s any disagreement in the House on that.

The question is how far does one go, and to keep oneself aware and alert to the fact that these measures have a finite period of time, and then we must get back to normality. But if we are to do the things that Mr Woodhouse wants: go to the pub—he wants to go to the pub. He wants to have a bit of a knees-up at home and have his mates around—that came out; it’s in the Hansard. Blame it on the daughter, blame it on the rest of the whānau, but Mr Woodhouse wants to go to the pub—he’s made that very clear. We all probably want to get back to, sort of, normality and socialising with our friends and our mates and our communities. We most definitely want to be back in our rugby clubs, back with the kids at Saturday morning footy and netball—we want to be doing those things—but the surest way of ensuring that we can’t or that we end up going back into lockdown at stage 3 or stage 4 is to be rash and to not factor in those things that we need to do to ensure that the gains we have made this far are cemented down and not lost. And then people can go to the pub until whenever.

I’m one of those people who worries about the next thing to hit us, and, I guess, with a security head on, and I’m pretty sure Gerry Brownlee—given he’s probably the most effective Minister of Defence that that party’s had over its nine years in tender—thinks about these things as well: the “What are you going to do next time?” But right now we’re faced with the situation we face. Police do not have the powers, and we’ve deduced that we need to strengthen those powers—the enforcement powers—so that they can do the sorts of things that they need to do: so that they can enter premises to direct people to stop activities.

I get a little confused when I hear people complaining that the Government’s not done enough to stop an upsurge in parties over the last weekend. Well, this bill, when we get down to level 2, will ensure that the police can do something about that, because no one wants those breaches to go unchallenged, not dealt with—that is very clear. And yes, there are some extraordinary powers in there: that they can enter a private dwelling house without a warrant, but that’s only if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the people have gathered there in contravention of the order and entry is necessary to give a direction to cease that activity. I would like to think that a party that’s setting itself up to run a very strong law and order campaign in September would agree with that; would back the police as they’ve said they would; would agree that the police, in these circumstances, need the power to act and bring to an end illegal gatherings or gatherings that are likely to jeopardise the health, the safety, the wellbeing of their own whānau, of their own community, of their own neighbourhood, and there, from that, the nation’s as a whole.

I think that, addressing the questions from Mr Woodhouse about the Government doesn’t trust the people—holy heck. I have sat in Cabinet, I have spent Sundays reading masses of Cabinet papers where provisions have been put in place to assist small businesses and the commercial sector in a way that is historic—we’ve never seen anything like this. I mean, if I think about Rob Muldoon as being a leader that Mr Woodhouse doesn’t like from the National Party, I do wonder about Ruth Richardson, because Ruth Richardson’s approach to harsh times was completely the opposite: slash and burn and bury the economy.

This Government’s chosen not to follow that pathway, and it’s been a high-trust model that’s been leaned on at every turn, with money being made available for employers that they could draw down on immediately to pay wages of their staff. We actually hear that some of them have simply used that money to pay redundancies. Well, we’ve always known—and I know that our Government and the Cabinet and Prime Minister have always said—this is a high-trust model. We’re facing extraordinary times. We needed to act with speed. We needed to get money into the hands of private business owners, employers, to help address what was coming, and we’re doing that again with even more assistance to small business. We are where we are right now, looking to go to level 2, because the public of New Zealand, in the main—in the overwhelming majority—have responded well.

Of course, like every family, we have our one or two, don’t we, and we’ve got to deal with that. We have to live with it; we’ve got to deal with it. This piece of legislation will help us deal with those miscreants. But, in the main, we are in the position now because we have trusted the people and they have done what we always knew they would do: they’ve responded magnificently. But do we want to burn up the gains? Do we want to find ourselves going back into level 3? Well, that’s an Opposition call. Fortunately, they’re not on the Government benches so they don’t get to make that final decision. Kia ora.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): That was an interesting contribution from the Hon Ron Mark—some of it I agreed with, the vast majority I didn’t, because when a Government chooses to put a piece of legislation into place that proposes an exception to civil liberties, then there has to be a clear definition about why that exception is being put in place. This bill doesn’t do it. Everyone knows that we have had a lockdown and that it has prevented some of the extraordinary numbers that were in various models from ever coming anywhere near being correct. That’s because people, by and large, voluntarily complied. It’s because people who own businesses—and let’s be clear, when you talk about businesses, you’re talking about jobs, and people who own those businesses decided that they would comply. Then what we saw, effectively, was a voluntary commitment to try to beat this COVID-19 virus.

There have been questions in recent days about, well, what was the legality of what happened? Was it right for the Government to do this? Did they have a legal right to do that? Well, that’s going to be played out over a little more time to come, but it’s interesting to note that this bill starts on page 1 with “The bill establishes [a] standalone legislation that provides a different legal framework for responding to COVID-19 over the next two years,” and it then goes on to say that it will apply at whatever level we might be at over those two years. That, I think, really answers the question about the legality so far, and that, in turn, highlights the trust that New Zealanders have exhibited, the willingness that New Zealanders have exhibited, to get on top of this thing. So going to level 2, I would have expected that we would see a far more liberal arrangement than we’re seeing here—far more liberal. These people aren’t silly. They know that social distancing is a good idea in the current circumstances. They know that sharing hard surfaces with one another does mean that you’ve got to clean between them at various times. They know all that, they don’t need to be told the housekeeping of how to behave appropriately at a time when these threats exist.

So we have several concerns about this bill. One is the sunset is far too far out. Two years—two years we could be at level 2 all the way through. Now, I don’t think public tolerance would actually take any Government that far. That’s up for the Government to determine. We will be putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that we hope will make a difference to that that means it can be reviewed at a much more frequent opportunity. We hope the Government is considering what has been discussed in briefings today.

We’re also very concerned about the issuing of section 11 notices. So the bill doesn’t prescribe anything particularly, beyond enforcement, but it does make it possible for the Minister of Health—who has to go through a consultation process that means, in actual fact, the Prime Minister determines what is in a section 11 notice. A section 11 notice will have the prohibitions in it: no more than 10 people at a funeral, no more than 10 people at a wedding, no more than 10 people at any other public gathering, only a few people in cafes unless seated and single-table service, same in restaurants, and, eventually, in bars. Everyone might wonder why, when it’s so easy to determine that actually you are a tavern and therefore you can open this Thursday as opposed to a bar and have to open next Thursday, Thursday week—what’s the reason for that? Well, I think it’s found in the schedules, because they have to take a week to print the enforcement notices that are going to be served on all these places at various times for these minor breaches.

While Mr Mark says, “Well, you know, we have trusted New Zealanders, and we’ve got to back the police, we’ve got to make sure that we support them in their work.”—don’t put them in the invidious position of having to deal with New Zealanders in the sort of petty ways that occasionally we’ve seen over the last four weeks. I think what I saw at Sumner beach in Christchurch two weekends ago was appalling—absolutely appalling—and I think if anyone expects that to be a shining example of how the police are going to deal with these powers when it comes to New Zealanders, then they’re deluded. I worry about that. I feel for the policemen on the beat, feel for the guys in the cars, and all the policewomen as well, who have to do all that difficult work. But they’re being put in an odd position, and I think it’s a bit unreasonable for that to happen. So I don’t like the infringement regime. It’s too tough. It should be that there is some kind of an expectation that there’ll be a lead-up process before the so-called enforcement officer gets out the book and writes the ticket.

So then we come to enforcement and who can enforce it. As the bill is written at the moment, then we should take Police Commissioner Coster at his word and expect that various gangs around the country could be presaged into becoming enforcement officers because apparently it was OK what they were doing: blocking roads, stopping New Zealanders going about their rightful business. So we don’t want to see any of that sort of thing coming into the enforcement regime. We do want to see that the people who have that enforcement responsibility are responsible, that they are in some way linked to the Crown and, therefore, have a chain of responsibility that can be looked at.

I worry, too—particularly when it comes to the hospitality industry—that what we’re seeing here is the construction of an effective local alcohol plan applied to the entire nation. I think that’s quite a potential danger. Let’s be very clear: while the Prime Minister has said that there was a great deal of work done with the Hospitality Association, the reality is that there was one of those consultations where they were told what’s happening and expected to agree. A Minister who I won’t name actually told them, “Don’t worry, so long as there’s a bowl of chips on the table, you’ll be able to open.” That’s totally in contravention of the current alcohol laws. So it just shows the degree of understanding that’s gone into this thing from those who have been party to putting the bill together.

So on those three points, the sunset clause will have an SOP; on the section 11 notices, we’ll have an SOP; and on enforcement, we’ll have an SOP. I only hope that maybe they’re trumped by the Government being smart enough to know that they haven’t got everything right in this particular bill.

Now I want to come to the whole issue of what it’s doing to the psyche of the nation. I do worry about that. I think the symbolism of not being able to attend friends’, relatives’, and very, very close loved ones’ funerals is a big problem. I think it’s heartless, it’s cold, and it is nowhere near kind. I think, similarly, for many people at a time like this, where there is uncertainty—no one knows what the next year or so is going to bring for this country. We’re a trading nation. Mr Mark, let me tell you, sir, when it comes to looking after the big export businesses, the people who hang off those big export businesses are the small businesses that are the majority employers in this country. So don’t kick us for having an interest in our export markets. And by the way, have a talk to your leader, because I don’t think he’s doing us many favours with our biggest export market just at the moment.

Let me just say this: when people start to get so particularly and individually hurt by the circumstances that they see around them, then I think we’ve got a problem. So I would urge the Government to make some kind of a statement beyond just that it may be changed in two weeks’ time, to actually come out and say what the intentions would be. The big thing that’s missing all the way through this is the lack of information for anybody to plan. Now, the Government might say, “Well, because we didn’t really know what’s happening.” Well, the Government has a duty to be at least slightly optimistic about the future and to put out a plan that people might be able to hang off and rely on, and we haven’t seen it. I know that there will be redundancies in the next week because some of the people who are trying to plan the future for their business cannot see that future, have not heard a lay out in front of them that they can rely on. This is not a good bill.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I rise in support of this bill. I want to start just by providing some perspective. I’m sure that many New Zealanders have watched what’s happened around the world. For many of them, they will have friends and whānau who live in other countries. I have a number of friends and family who live in the United States and in other countries, but particularly in the United States, where I have friends who work in hospitals as health professionals. I just have to express my intense gratitude for everything everyone in New Zealand has done to get us to this point, because it seems, frankly, like a miracle to my friends and family in the United States who are looking at thousands of deaths every day, and in some cases now, front-line health workers who are otherwise young and healthy people have contracted COVID-19, been extremely, seriously ill, and even died from it.

The economic impacts of the pandemic in the United States are no doubt going to be far greater because the virus took hold, because they are going to spend months, if not years, in a situation of responding to that. Of course, an intolerable loss of life on top of it, on top of those job losses. So when I look at our situation here in Aotearoa New Zealand, I’m incredibly grateful that our Government acted early, went hard. We no doubt got a little bit lucky that we could see what was happening in other parts of the world before it took hold here. A huge thankyou to the team of 5 million who’ve gotten us to the point that we’re at today.

But of course, this isn’t over, and I would express some caution to everyone who is really looking forward to getting out and about. We don’t want to have to go back to level 4. We don’t want to see an outbreak happen. You know, in other countries like South Korea, in the Victorian state of Australia, and now in Germany, of course, we have seen a slight rebound in cases following a loosening of restrictions. So that’s why it is so very important that the Government follows the very best health advice when determining what the rules for level 2 are and how coming out of level 3 into level 2 has to happen in a different way than the way we went into it.

This bill, I think, is absolutely necessary to ensure that all New Zealanders will benefit from the period of lockdown that we’ve already been in, and will benefit from being assured that the rules will be able to be enforced. Even if the vast majority of New Zealanders embrace these rules and want to stop the spread of COVID-19, it would only take a small number who ignore the rules to cause an outbreak that could quite quickly become very serious and cause us to have to move back to a stricter level. So, of course, the vast majority of New Zealanders support the actions that have been taken thus far. I think they will absolutely respect the rules in level 2, which are not at all arbitrary but absolutely informed by what is going to prevent the spread of the illness.

I have heard some concerns expressed about the limitations on certain types of gatherings like funerals or in bars, but, of course, there are very, very good reasons for why there are the limits on numbers in those types of gatherings as compared to, say, sitting in a cinema. It has to do with the way in which people engage with each other. I heard this from Dr Siouxsie Wiles last night. I was on a panel for the Aotearoa Town Hall online and this very question was raised, and particularly about the importance of tangi—the cultural importance of it—and was that taken into account. I thought the explanation given made a lot of sense, from a scientific perspective, which is that, you know, when you’re sitting quietly in a cinema, people aren’t talking to each other, and that it’s that talking and being in close proximity that allows the droplets to spread the illness. So that’s why certain types of—you know, if you’re gathering at a bar and there’s a lot of noise and you’re trying to speak at a high volume, it’s much more likely you’re going to spread droplets to other people. That’s why so many of our clusters were related to a bar and to weddings. Those types of events have been responsible for the spread of the illness, here in New Zealand as well as overseas. So there is a logic to it.

I’m very confident in our Director-General of Health, and I’m very confident that the Government is listening to the very best advice to ensure that New Zealanders are safe from the spread of COVID-19. Of course, that is the best way to protect jobs and the security of incomes into the future, to limit the spread of the illness, because those countries that have not had strict lockdowns, who have had bigger outbreaks, are feeling the exact same economic impacts that we are feeling here in New Zealand. Over time, it will be worse because they won’t be able to get back to life as normal as soon. So that’s where we have a huge advantage here, on our island nation, of potentially being able to eradicate the illness or significantly prevent the spread to the point where we can return to life as normal sooner. I certainly hope for that.

In order to do that, we need the confidence of all New Zealanders, and New Zealanders need to know that other people in their communities are respecting the rules, and that the Government can take action if need be—without being in a state of national emergency—to ensure that those rules are being enforced. I think there is a real logic to having infringement regimes so that we’re not simply limited to criminal penalties and a criminal prosecution, which would be very much over the top. But we need some way of enforcing and ensuring that small minority of people who might disregard the rules, that we have some way of ensuring that they play by the same rules as everyone else, so that we can have the maximum benefit as a country in terms of limiting the spread of the illness, protecting the health of our loved ones, and, of course, being able to return to work and have some certainty around jobs and incomes as soon as possible.

Of course, the Green Party would always prefer that there would be a select committee, even a very short one, and we would’ve liked to have seen that. But we also understand the need for urgency right now, given the move to level 2 at—was it at midnight on Thursday morning or 11.59 Wednesday? So recognising that this is a very, very short period of time and that there was a desire to move back to level 2 sooner rather than later, then we can understand this. But one thing that gave us a lot of confidence is that the exposure draft was provided to legal academics and actually quite a wide variety of people and perspectives to ensure that that feedback could be incorporated into the bill before it’s passed. We take great assurance from that.

Another issue that was raised by Gerry Brownlee just a moment ago was the two-year sunset clause. Of course, that would’ve been something that would have concerned us greatly as well, but my understanding is at the committee stage we’ll be moving to a reconfirmation every three months, as long as it’s needed. Of course, the specific rules around the level will change based on the very best evidence.

I completely understand that many New Zealanders and, indeed, members of this House have expressed concern that we don’t know what is going to happen and that the Government can’t tell people with perfect certainty what will happen. But I think that most people would agree that the Government has been very, very clear in communications, has given people the confidence to move into level 4 and then into level 3, and that as soon as we have the best information we are communicating that in a way. Of course, in a pandemic situation with a previously unknown disease, it would be impossible for us to provide absolute certainty to everyone about how it’s going to play out. We have to make decisions based on the very best evidence of how many cases there are, our ability to contact trace, our ability to contain things.

I have to say that speaking to my friends and family around the world, everybody has been incredibly impressed and envious of the situation we have here in New Zealand, because, certainly, we are in a much better position than the vast majority of people in the developed world. I just feel incredibly grateful that we had the time and the ability. It’s really a bit of a shame to hear the attitude from members on the other side of the House who now seem very intent on picking a fight and demonstrating their strength. But I think that, ultimately, New Zealanders can see that compared to pretty much anywhere else in the world, New Zealand is in a really good position. If we continue to work together—if we continue to work together—we will have the very best outcome for our country. Tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, sir. I thought the Hon Julie Anne Genter was about to enjoy 12 of her allocated 10 minutes. Let me pick up on the comment that she’s just made, suggesting that the Opposition is spoiling for a fight—or words to that effect. We are fighting for trustworthy, law-abiding, hard-working New Zealanders who need to get back to work. That isn’t putting up petty opposition; that is making a statement on behalf of New Zealanders who are suffering in a whole range of different ways. When he spoke at the start of this debate, the Attorney-General, the Hon David Parker, was quite right to highlight the economic cost of delaying a move from level 3 to level 2. I don’t think anybody wants to do that. Businesses and employers throughout New Zealand have been telling us that for weeks. We have all heard stories of how much hardship many are suffering. You only need to talk to our neighbours as they go past us in the parks, or on walks down the street, or as we contact businesses in our own electorates to know how difficult it has been for them. Livelihoods are at risk—we need to get back to work.

But the crucial point is that a move to level 2 is not dependent on the passage of this bill. The Minister of Finance has spoken before of New Zealand’s high-trust model, and I heard the Hon Ron Mark, when he spoke a moment ago, also use that term. Well, this bill undermines that approach and sends a message to church worshippers—and when I say that, I’m talking not just about those in Christian churches but those who worship in synagogues, in mosques, in Sikh temples, Buddhist temples, Hindu temples, all sorts of places of worship in our multicultural country—that they can’t be trusted. That’s the message that’s being sent to them. In particular, that message is being sent to funeral attendees, to families who are eager for long-overdue reunions, particularly with elderly relatives who have been missing their grandchildren, missing their children so desperately, and we all know people like that. I send my love through this message to my own mother, who’s in a retirement village, because, like thousands of New Zealanders, I haven’t been able to see her for a long time either, and I hope she may be watching now.

But it sends a message to all of us that we can’t be trusted, and that, of course, is utter nonsense. It’s not founded in any evidence. It’s insulting, and, in the case of funerals or those who wish to be with the dying within their families and extended whānau, it is utterly heartless and cruel. I’ve been inundated by messages on this particular topic today, and I want to acknowledge to those who may be watching just how many emails, how many phone calls, there have been to my electorate office, messages on social media, and so forth I have received from worshippers who are absolutely distraught at being told that even under level 2, they will not be able to resume worship in their chosen church or place of worship. I have 100 percent sympathy with them. I am utterly supportive of their aspiration to be able to go back to worshipping responsibly, as I know they all would do. So let me put on record this party’s absolute commitment to advocating for them. They should be trusted to do that responsibly. That failing, at least, in this bill must be rectified, and I hope that the Government is listening. I hope that we will see a change to that effect later on this evening.

I was particularly moved by a constituent who rang me last night to tell me about the death of his elderly father and the fact that they had planned on the assumption that when moving to level 2 this Thursday they would be able to have a funeral bordering on normality—obviously, no hugging, still having to observe physical distancing, but at least with members of the family and close friends of the deceased able to gather together, because mourning is such an important part of the grieving process and of the healing process. It was only a fortnight ago that the Prime Minister spoke about what level 2 would look like, and she said at that point—and this is what so many churches and others have been relying upon, including those who have been thinking about funerals in recent days—that level 2 would include gatherings of up to 100 people. So they planned accordingly. Many have made arrangements to travel accordingly, only to be told now that can’t happen. Well, that is heartless, and more, it’s inexplicable. They do not understand what changed over the last fortnight—why, when it was going to be OK a fortnight ago to have a gathering of that nature, did we suddenly find just yesterday that it would be down to gatherings of no more than 10?

Then, when the Leader of the Opposition spoke this afternoon, he put it into sharp perspective, because he pointed out the absurdity of allowing 30 rugby players, plus a referee, to be on the field, in very close physical contact. I defy you to find a way of playing even touch rugby without physical contact, or, say, 50 or 60 cinema patrons, all appropriately spaced in a cinema—that they can do that but 11 people cannot attend a funeral, even spaced out, as the Prime Minister repeated several times in her address yesterday. That’s not just illogical, it’s insulting, and, as I say, it’s utterly heartless.

No one disputes that the risk hasn’t passed. We all know that we must continue to do our bit. But New Zealanders have shown that they have been doing their bit, they can be trusted to do their bit, and as long as the guidelines are fair and well-articulated, they will do their bit, because they’ve shown us that they are doing their bit. That does not justify the passage of a Draconian measure. In fact, what it does is engender disrespect and contempt for the law, which is more likely to lead to problems than it would if they were trusted more. This bill jeopardises that particular public support and understanding, and I think we should all be concerned that that public support is being put at risk by this particular measure. We cannot afford to allow contempt, complacency, arrogance to creep in when we’ve done so much hard work, and now, as we hear in that well-worn cliché, we must lock in the gains. This bill, as it is currently drafted, does not get the balance right, and we need it to be right. As an Opposition, we want it to be right. We would have worked with the Government if only they had reached out to us to get it right.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but it’s come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and for the benefit of those who may not have heard the debate before the adjournment, the National Party is unable to support this bill. We do so largely because we are concerned that the Government hasn’t got the balance right on the issue, and they certainly haven’t got the process right.

But I do want to make the point that, sometimes, reaching a position on a bill is very challenging. It’s not as if you just think, “OK, well, the Government is going to put this up, so we’ll say the opposite,” Life is seldom that simple, and it’s particularly challenging sometimes when the options on both sides of the argument contain many unappealing features. I’d like to think that all members of this House would have grave concerns about any measure that, effectively—and very significantly—curtails the civil liberties of New Zealanders, and that, of course, is a key feature of this.

So we in the National Party didn’t reach our position lightly. We gave it as much consideration as we could in the very short time we were given in order to consider the measure. I was making the point just before the adjournment that we would have been willing to work with the Government to get this right, because, as a country, we need to get this right. But, unfortunately, the Government hasn’t reached out to anyone. Not only have they not reached out to us in the Opposition; they have decreed that there will be no select committee process. So, whereas they could have been hearing from legal academics, from those with expertise in these areas of public law, from the police and others, and from all the commentators who usually have much to say on this topic, they have not heard from them, and they have not instigated a select committee process—even if it had only been for half a day. I submit to you that we could have produced a better bill, but instead, unfortunately, we’ve been shut out of the process, ignored by what looks to be an increasingly arrogant Government. Some will have seen the report over the last few days that this is a first-term Government showing arrogant third-term-itis—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to make some brief remarks on this bill this evening. I want to acknowledge some of the remarks that have come through, both from this side of the House and from the Opposition. This bill is being passed under urgency. We are foregoing the typical process by which we all agree good law should be made by, and we are doing so because of the particular circumstances we find ourselves in both nationally and globally.

There are three particular grounds of irony I think I want to speak to briefly, in the contributions that I’ve heard from friends across the House. My good friend the member for Ilam, he addressed this House about the legal grounds for which this bill is (a) being passed now, and he addressed the grounds by which the lockdown has been in place over the last six or seven weeks. He says that we shouldn’t be passing this bill because New Zealanders should be trusted yet at the same time decries this Government’s position because there was absolutely no legal authority on any standing grounds by which we’ve been under the lockdown for the past six weeks. It’s an absolutely ironic position to put to this House.

What the Opposition—and, indeed, what this side of the House—have sought is absolute certainty and clarity at all stages. Now, as we transition from level 4 through to level 3, by which we’ve had very clear grounds—well, we say we’ve had very clear grounds, the Solicitor-General say’s that we’ve had very clear grounds, and, indeed, many academics have said we’ve had very clear grounds by which this lockdown has operated. When we turn to level 2, we accept that there is going to be a much more liberal environment by which we will be operating in. For the certainty of all of us, it is important that we’re all very clear of what those rules will be during this very odd time.

Now we come to the issues around transparency. We hear the Opposition decry time and time and time again throughout this afternoon: there’s been a lack of transparency. Indeed, my good friend Mr Macindoe just said right then in this House, “We have not been reached out too. We have been locked out.” Well, he will know, and we will know, that they indeed were provided in good faith, in order to ensure that this House could hopefully come to a consensus position on this bill—they received a draft. They have been provided the opportunity to feed back that information. That same draft has also been provided to many legal academics, of which we’re very grateful that they have fed back into this piece of legislation. We can expect that there will be Supplementary Order Papers tabled this afternoon to help ensure that this very bespoke, fit for purpose legal framework is right.

I now want to come to the use of urgency, which the Opposition again have decried and decried in this House this afternoon. Isn’t that again an irony? In 2011, it was the Rt Hon David Carter, I think, who made the observation that that Government had spent a quarter of that year sitting under urgency—that side of the House. They passed bills like the national standards—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, in the minutes left, come to the bill.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: It’s very important, Madam Speaker. This sets the context by which the Opposition—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Come to the bill.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: —have made significant contributions about our use of urgency.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Come to the bill.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: That side of the House used urgency to introduce 90-day trials—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Come to the bill.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: —Auckland super-city, increasing tobacco tax, and the “Hobbit” legislation. This side of the House is using urgency for a very significant bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry, but I have said to the member: come to the bill. You don’t ignore the Speaker. You have half a minute left. You come to the bill.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: This side of the House is using urgency in this House in an absolutely unprecedented time—in a time when those forebears of the Westminster system envisaged that we would indeed use such a use of power, in a time when urgent legislation is needed to be introduced because we are living through a global pandemic that nobody could have anticipated. So I commend this bill and the Attorney-General for his work and his team’s work on this incredible piece of legislation done in such a short period of time.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. My goodness, that was an eye-opener, wasn’t it? Look, I’m very concerned about this bill—I’m very concerned about it. We’ve had a situation where we have been in this country in a state of lockdown for around four weeks—sorry, two months. Sorry, what am I talking about?—seven to eight weeks is what I should have said, sorry. In that time, we’ve had people die. We’ve had people who have got terrible diagnoses of illness, who have not been able to undertake their treatment. I have, in fact, a brother-in-law who has an awful diagnosis and I have not been able to visit him—he’s been part of my life since I was seven—because he lives in Hamilton and I live in Auckland.

I think it is an awful state where New Zealanders have been asked—not just asked but had demanded of them—that we do all the things that we’re told to do and then we do those things, we do exactly what we’re asked to do, and then it turns out that this level 2 COVID response that we’re now being told we’re moving to suddenly needs legislation when, strangely, levels 3 and 4 seem to not need this sort of legislation.

Hon Chris Hipkins: There was a state of emergency.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That’s, of course, as Mr Hipkins wants to say—the other levels needed it because there was an emergency. Well, I guess that that is an acknowledgment that we are currently not in a state of emergency. Nobody extra was diagnosed or announced today to have COVID-19.

Last year, I’m assured, around 850 people died of the winter influenza; no doubt there’ll be other people this year with the same. COVID-19 is clearly not winter influenza; it’s obviously a very prolific disease once it takes hold, and we are fortunate to live in a country with borders that happen to be oceans, and that means that people can’t just come into the country with the disease unless the Government or the border control lets that happen, and that’s exactly what has happened. When I heard the Minister of Health—the poor, poor man—David Clark, lowest ranked member of Cabinet and supposedly with the top job, having to tell us today that the Government had gone hard and early in its response, it is simply PR spin spun by a master communicator, who is his boss. This country did not go hard and early. It went actually pretty weak and slowly, and that’s what happened. There was no need whatsoever, no need at all, for this country to allow COVID-19 to come in here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the member to come to the bill.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: And then we are coming to the point of enforcement. Who is going to enforce these new rules that we’re being asked to rubber-stamp in the dead of night, going rushing through Parliament after—what?—seven weeks or eight weeks of lockdown, and suddenly it has to come through in one day? Well, there are going to be people called enforcement officers. Now, who are these enforcement officers? Who are they?

Well, apparently, according to the bill that I have read and made notes on myself, they are people that the Government’s decided should be enforcement officers. I understand that the Government has a Supplementary Order Paper, which is, in other words, yet another amendment to the bill that’s rushing through now, which will mean that they will generally be people who currently work for Government agencies. They will be able to go into every business, every premises, everywhere except a dwelling house, and they’re not allowed on the marae without warrants. The police, however, will be able to go on to marae and into my dwelling house and your dwelling house and everyone else’s dwelling house, if they suspect you’re having more than 10 people over for tea. Now, this is ridiculous.

We are getting into a situation of a police State, and what is the point of this? This is to stop COVID-19, except actually I think we’ve pretty much worked out that COVID-19 came into the country. Other people are not being allowed into the country with it, without quarantine, as we’re now told is happening. So where is it all coming from? We have a few clusters left and New Zealanders are being told, “You’ve all done very well, you good little boys and girls, you children.” that we’re going to speak to like that, as the Prime Minister is wont to do. “You’ve all been very good, but we don’t trust you.” That’s what this bill is about. The Government is taking the powers of the director-general and giving them to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health. That is a disgrace. They’re politicising COVID-19 and using it to tell everyone what to do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a split call?

David Seymour: It doesn’t have to be.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is Labour putting up a speaker?

Hon Members: No.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of this bill to its first reading. The reason ACT supports the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill is very simple. It’s about the rule of law, and the rule of law matters because if it means anything to be a New Zealander, it is to live freely under democracy and the rule of law: to be able to send representatives to this House to make laws that are clear, that we can read for ourselves and understand what the law is. Having the rule of law protects the weakest people in our society because they can see it written down and it applies equally to every person. It’s especially pertinent at the moment because we have had a terrible taste of what it is like to live in New Zealand for those few weeks without it. We descended into the most horrific hysteria where people threw apart and threw away the most basic regard for the rights and dignity of individuals.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. Let’s just call them Vivian. They wouldn’t want to be named. They’re an older couple who were walking out in the eastern beaches of Auckland. Why? Because the hills of Remuera are hard on their knees. They were resting on their own chairs that they had taken, and they were not only harassed by members of the public but also by the police, and they were in tears. They got in touch with me to ask, “How is this possible? Have we not any rights?”

Then there’s the story of Jack Lum, the guy who runs the greengrocer that has been in place in Remuera for over 70 years, told by some officials that he could open and then told by a policeman in plain clothes that he must shut down with no notice and he couldn’t even trade out the day. Well, Jack tells me it takes 500 man-hours to get the store going again, and at his age, he’s not sure if he’ll get it going again. The crazy thing is that just across the road, Fruit World Greenlane continued to operate. Jack was told that he couldn’t operate because he’s near a supermarket, Remuera New World. Well, so is Fruit World Greenlane next to the Countdown of the same name.

Then there’s the story of Bjorn and Lucy Reymer, who bravely came and told their story of having a miscarriage: Lucy sobbing alone, left with a box of tissues in an empty room in the hospital; Bjorn left out in the car park with no rights to be supporting his wife at the most tragic of times. I could speak all night about the horrific—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’d like it on the bill.

DAVID SEYMOUR: —events that have occurred in a time when we did not have the rule of law, when people could not go and read on a piece of paper what their rights are. That’s why this bill, debated by this Parliament, no matter how improperly, is a massive improvement on what we have seen in the weeks gone by. We cannot afford to revisit a kind of kind police State where New Zealanders were more eager to dob each other in to the Government than support them in questioning their Government.

But, unfortunately, I can only support this bill to the first reading, through this urgent process, because it has some real problems. I can understand the Government going through urgency. I won’t relitigate the issues that got us here, except to say that it has been four months—actually, nearly four and a half months—since it became clear to countries such as Taiwan that there might be an issue. The idea that this has all suddenly happened and the Government has to rush Parliament through urgency now is a poor reflection on the preparedness of the Government. But, no matter, we’re here, and we have to rush this through urgency so we can get to level 2 lawfully and quickly—understood. But what is an issue is that this bill lasts for two years. The objective, if we want the bill to be done democratically, should be to get it passed now and have Parliament review it as soon as possible. I have an amendment on the Table on Supplementary Order Paper 494 that says it should only last one year. That is enough time for this Parliament to come back and make this law properly.

Brett Hudson: More than enough time.

DAVID SEYMOUR: “More than enough time.”, I hear from Brett Hudson.

The second issue with this bill might be that the powers issued under section 11, I think it is, are so wide ranging, but I think it’s worth pointing out that those powers are clearly judicially reviewable and the Minister has gone to some effort to make that pretty clear in the way the bill is written. So, yes, there is almost no constraint, according to this bill, on what an order could mean. It could mean you’d have to close down, stay home, don’t meet someone, don’t do this, don’t do that, or don’t bring a thing in or out of the country or in and out of an area. All of that is true, but it is very clear that this is judicially reviewable, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act states that such an order can be made only in a way that is proportional to the objective and does not unduly override the rights of New Zealanders according to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So we’ll give that part a pass.

But then we come to this issue of the Director-General of Health versus the Minister of Health. Quite rightly, the bill seeks to transfer powers that really have been exercised by the Director-General of Health, an unelected civil servant, to the Minister of Health, somebody that the voters, the people of New Zealand, have the opportunity to vote out. Who knows—in that particular instance, they just might. But the problem is that the bill is not clear on the division of powers between the Director-General of Health and the Minister of Health. It says that if the Minister makes a public health directive, then that Minister has to consult with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice. They’ve got to be sure that they’re doing the right thing. They have to give 48 hours’ notice. That’s all proper.

The director-general can issue one, albeit for a region. They can issue it for a month and they can keep renewing it indefinitely. So there is a way of exercising the same power that completely circumvents the Minister of Health and the Minister’s accountability. I have Supplementary Order Paper 495 that sets out amendments that would change that, and say, “Yes, if something is particularly urgent, the director-general can issue a 48-hour notice.” That is the notice period that the Minister of Health has to give. Within that period, if the Minister agrees, that Minister can go through the proper accountability procedure and issue a more permanent notice. That would be the right way to maintain democratic accountability and nimbleness of response: one job for the director-general, one job for the Minister of Health, and no overlap. I urge members to support my amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 495.

Finally, as the Hon Judith Collins mentioned, we have these enforcement officers, and I’d love to know who the Minister has in mind, because to me it sounds like it could be WorkSafe employees coming into your business, but it could also be that the director-general could decide that one of these community groups running a road block could be enforcement officers with all the powers of the State. That is terrifying. So, I have an amendment—or, ideally, we’d amend it to get rid of that and the police could enforce the law, because that’s their job and they have proper safeguards, such as the Independent Police Complaints Authority—that would say that at the very least, a person acting as an enforcement officer, first of all, has to give the person their rights: “This is how you complain about me, and these are your rights under the law.”, because, remember, this is all about the rule of law. The director-general has to consider those complaints, because otherwise we’ve set up a whole new class of people who can go around, tell you what to do, shut down your business, fine you, and there’s no complaint or accountability mechanism whatsoever. I can’t think of any other agent of the State that doesn’t have an accountability mechanism.

So, it’s critical for the rule of law that this legislation is in place. It should have been introduced to this House weeks ago, if the Government was on the ball, but here we are. Let’s have a debate and let’s make it better so that people can maintain their rights and freedoms under this law. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on this, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. I just want to set on record, just for background: National called for border controls ahead of action from the Government, it called for quarantining ahead of action from the Government, it called for us to go into lockdown, to flatten the curve, ahead of the Government’s actions. Likewise, it’s also called to exit that harsh lockdown sooner, both because of our understanding of the severe curtailment of civil liberties but also the impact on lives and livelihoods, with thousands of people losing their jobs and businesses going out of business. But we understood the need, and we supported the Government when they came to make that move. Along the way, we have questioned some of the lawfulness of some of the actions under that lockdown. Partly, that is our job, but, more importantly, if a cornerstone of a democracy is the freedom of speech, similarly, an equal cornerstone is the Government not only upholds but follows the laws that every other citizen of the nation is expected to follow. In fact, in situations like this, it is even of more importance that every action of the Government is lawful, as the laws stand.

Quite frankly, not only the provisions in this bill but some comments we’ve heard tonight, including the contribution from Kiritapu Allan, suggest very strongly, just as the public suspect with the withheld Crown Law advice, that actually the Government also believe that there was at very least a grey area, if not, in fact, an absolute unlawfulness. Nowhere is that more evident than in the lockdown threat of compliance prior to 3 April, when a subsequent health notice was issued. This is all relevant because it gets to why are these enforcement powers in this bill required—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Then relate it.

BRETT HUDSON: —which I’m going to do right now. What became clear from the Hon Chris Hipkins’ comments—which was there’s no state of emergency, but there is today, but it’s going to run out shortly—is a very clear signal that the risk profile heading into alert level 2 does not support the continuation of a state of emergency or maybe even an epidemic notice. What they’re saying is they’re unable to continue what they’ve claimed is lawful, but that the powers under section 70 of the Health Act, the enforcement powers under section 71, and the powers under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act—they’re saying they’ll no longer be able to rely on those because they can’t claim an ongoing emergency or epidemic.

If that were the case and they had the need to apply constraints to civil liberties across the entire nation, the answer is not to create a completely new framework and set of rules; it’s to address the provisions of the epidemic notice of the Epidemic Preparedness Act and the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act to ensure that the conditions, the risk profile presented under what they have arbitrarily called level 1 and 2, is accommodated for under the existing legislation. It is not an excuse to create a whole new set of powers which enable them to completely ignore the law as it stands and the powers and limits on the powers that are unlocked under an epidemic notice or, indeed, under a state of emergency—because that’s precisely what they’re doing with this bill. The giveaway, too, for the public to get concerned about—and they do have a reason to be very concerned about—is that what they’ve put on the tin is saying this bill is necessary to enforce provisions under level 2, except that the provisions apply under any level.

Now, I’m sure some legal expert will be able to say there are some provisions under section 70 of the Health Act or under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act which aren’t mirrored in this bill. But for New Zealanders who faced lockdown every day for what amounted to six weeks, the rules that required them to principally stay at home, that limited what they could do for exercise and where they could do it; the rules that limited what businesses could open and how they could open, those rules all exist in the new bill and they can all be applied at any alert level that New Zealand happens to be at. This is not about powers for level 1 and 2. This is powers for levels 1, 2, 3, and 4, which do not have any necessary regard to the existing legislative frameworks, principally the Epidemic Preparedness Act, or, indeed, the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. They’ve created completely new law to give themselves the same sort of powers they wanted, because they don’t believe they had the lawful authority they needed, either prior and certainly now.

They’ve made it worse, because one of the safeguards—because unquestionably, to the extent that the authority was lawful under the epidemic notice in the state of emergency, there were enormous powers to curtail civil liberties, and powers of enforcement. But the balance on those was that they were not directed by politicians, by Government. They were directed by apolitical heads of departments. The Director-General of Health issued health notices; the Director of Civil Defence Emergency Management made directions under that Act—not politicians with political agendas. Well, they’re flipping that completely on its head in this bill. They turn it round. The director-general’s powers are shrunk, but the Minister of Health, who has to consult with the Prime Minister, effectively, has all those enormous powers for all levels of COVID alert level. They have completely turned around and politicised this pandemic. They have made the administration of it and the enforcement of it a political exercise that is wholly wrong.

On the matter of urgency, too, just before I move on to the enforcement officers, I would contend that when a Government is seeking such wide-ranging curtailment of civil liberties, that is exactly the wrong time to push that through: under urgency. It is the wrong time. That is the wrong time to push this through: under urgency. But here we go, steamrolling through, in a few hours.

The third area I’d comment on is this idea of enforcement officers. Now, we saw in the public domain, over the course of the lockdown, a number of community groups around the country stopping citizens in their vehicles and demanding personal information. These public citizens had no warrant. They had no legal authority. We believe that, unquestionably, those checkpoints were unlawful. The Government told us the roads weren’t closed, so the powers of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act weren’t brought to bear, the Health Act wasn’t brought to bear, but the Land Transport Act certainly was, and that requires an enforcement officer with a warrant to legally stop or direct traffic on an open road or, indeed, to demand personal information.

Well, under this bill, the Government—because it is, effectively, the Government running the show under this bill—will be able to authorise anyone they like to undertake those sorts of activities: to walk around, checking up on businesses and closing them, to be demanding private and personal information from people who might have been stopped by a constable but are then handed over to the citizen with a special power to be an enforcement officer, to demand that information, and with the threat of issuing an infringement notice with a penalty of $300 if that person, that otherwise member of the public, decides themselves that that person that they are addressing has contravened a rule in their mind. That is a travesty. The police are the principal enforcement agency of the Government for domestic compliance. It is them and them alone that should be authorised, particularly in situations where civil liberties have been curtailed, where people’s freedoms have been abridged. It is the role of police to undertake the enforcement of those rules.

This bill is a complete separate right of a set of powers which can be exercised at the whim of a Prime Minister, maybe having regard to what they’re told, but not having to follow advice they’re given. The whim of a Prime Minister, the Government through the Minister of Health, can, basically, constrain any and all civil liberties of any class of New Zealanders or, indeed, the entire nation, and they can subcontract the enforcement of those conditions to anyone they like. This is not us.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I won’t take too long to speak in support of this, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. [Interruption] I thank Mr Bridges for heckling at the back—get used to it, mate. Look, the point is that we are here to pass a bill that needs to pass, and I think most people at home will recognise that. They will also recognise that the National Party haven’t had many opportunities to make a point. Those they’ve had they’ve squandered, and yet they’ve taken the wrong tack on this.

This bill will provide the law necessary for alert level 2. Instead of providing constructive ideas on what that could mean, they’ve talked about alert level 3 and alert level 4 with lots of ifs, buts, and maybes. This Government, however, is getting on with it. We’re passing laws that need to be passed so that we can stamp out COVID-19 and we can get our economy back on track. I know what’s going to work: it is a team effort. It’s not whinging, it’s not heckling from the backbenches, it’s not coming up with all sorts of conspiracy theories; it’s cracking on and doing what needs to be done.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I move, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill be now read a second time.

Given that we’ve just had a discussion at first reading, I thought my contribution this time would be best to respond to some of the issues that are raised. I’ve noted that there have been two alternative propositions put by the Opposition: one is that it’s inappropriate for the powers to be used by the Minister of Health rather than the Director-General of Health, which is the proposition that has been put by some members of the National Party. And the proposition put by David Seymour from the ACT Party has said that it’s appropriate that it move from the Director-General of Health to the Minister of Health, because that’s more aligned with democratic accountabilities and also, as David Seymour says, triggers some other judicial review rights that might not otherwise be as easy for litigants to pursue. I’m not so sure of that second point. But in respect of the first point, I actually agree with David Seymour. It’s also a point that has been made by legal academics that this framework that was put in the Health Act many, many decades ago is actually now old-fashioned, and that the better view—

Hon Andrew Little: It comes from the time of Sid Holland!

Hon DAVID PARKER: I didn’t know that, but before I was born. But in any event, I agree with David Seymour and with the legal academics that this actually is an improvement to accountabilities. The Hon Michael Woodhouse said that this meant that the Minister of Health didn’t have to have regard to what the director-general does and could just make his own mind up. That’s actually not correct. The bill requires the Minister of Health to pay particular regard to what the Director-General of Health says.

In respect of some of the issues that have been raised by both the National Party and the ACT Party as to the term of this legislation, which, in the version that has been introduced into the House, has expiry two years, hence—if not repealed earlier as a consequence of COVID-19 no longer being a problem—the Opposition says that that’s too long a period. The National Party proposed a remedy for that whereby every 90 days Parliament has to pass a motion to extend it. They can extend it for 90 days, or they could actually extend it—unusually—for longer than 90 days, which might be necessary if we were coming up to an interregnum over the elections. David Seymour suggested another remedy, which was to make it a one-year sunset clause for the bill.

On reflection, we’ve chosen the National Party remedy for those. We actually agree with both points, but only one remedy can be chosen. And so we’ve chosen to adopt the proposed National Party remedy and that will be coming forward in a Supplementary Order Paper.

A point that was made by both the National Party and the ACT Party was that the ability of powers to be delegated beyond the police to other agencies was too broadly cast. That was a fair point also, and it wasn’t the intention that this be widely cast. So the Supplementary Order Paper that we have laid on the Table adopts those recommendations as well. Again, we’ve actually chosen the National Party formulation of that, which was that we limit it to, effectively, Crown employees or people that are contractors to the Crown, rather than this idea that we were going to be delegating it more broadly. That’s clear in the Supplementary Order Paper. I also want to reflect on one of the—what I think, with respect, somewhat misses the interconnectedness of enforcement powers with the ability to get to level 2.

We’re taking our advice as to what we need in level 2 from the Director-General of Health. The Director-General of Health’s comfort with going to level 2 depends on the enforceability of measures that we have in this bill. If we didn’t have the enforceability of gathering sizes down to small sizes of 10 at the start—and we hope that that will increase over time—it may well be that the director-general would not have recommended that we move to level 2 at this stage. So the idea that these things can be completely separated is wrong. To a certain extent, if you’re going to go to level 2 as early as we’re trying to get there, the Director-General of Health requires more comfort as to our ability to limit the risk; if things do go as we hope they won’t and there are some outbreaks, we want to minimise the spread of those. That’s why he favours smaller gatherings over large for reasons that the Minister of Health described in more detail during his contribution.

In terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues and the power of entry, I do have a list of other warrantless powers of entry if I could just lay my hand on it in front of the papers that are in front of me, and if I don’t get to it within my allotted time here, I’ll come back to it in the committee stage. But warrantless powers are not unknown in New Zealand, but I’m obviously going to have to come back to that because I’ve put the page in the wrong place—

Hon Member: Search for them.

Hon DAVID PARKER: What’s that? I need a search and surveillance warrant to find them. Yeah, I’m going to have to come back to that in the next part of the debate unless I turn them up as I speak.

It is an important point so I just thought I would try and find those. The warrantless powers include pursuant to the Arms Act, the Misuse of Drugs Act from memory, people who are being—where there is an offender at large. One of my colleagues was saying that, in respect of—

Hon Tim Macindoe: They’re all offenders at large.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I beg your pardon.

Hon Tim Macindoe: They’re all offenders at large.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Ha, ha! Thank you, I’ll put that on the record. But it is true that it’s not normal to allow a constable a right of entry on to private premises and that’s why we are requiring it to be reported up the hierarchy so that there is a trail both for the police hierarchy but also for the public to see when this is occurring.

The Opposition say that this is a matter of trust. Actually, it’s also a matter of maintaining public trust in enforcement and we have a concern that the social consensus around these measures that we still need because of the risks that there will still be under level 2 will degrade if people see others flouting these rules in a private situation with impunity. And in order to maintain that voluntary compliance, both privately and in public, and the social consensus that we need to continue taking care under level 2, we believe—we accept the advice that we’ve been given, that it’s appropriate, that where a constable has reason to believe that there is a large gathering, that he can go into the house for that express purpose of seeing whether there is and if there is one asking it to disband. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d just like to start by saying that I was honoured to have been voted in as the chairman of a COVID-19 task force that was sponsored and put together by the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mohammed. It involves 70 countries and it has 12 representatives on the committee that I’m chairing. What’s been very good is it’s been a way of exchanging information, seeing what has worked and what hasn’t in different countries around the world.

The big advantage that we had as a nation is our geographic location, we’re isolated, we have a relatively small population that is spread out, we have a healthy population, and we have a very good health system. So we had lots of things going in our favour.

The problem that we had—and although the Government continually gets up and tells us that they went hard and fast—is that we were too slow at the border; we didn’t close our border quickly enough and we allowed the virus to continue to walk into the country. We were too slow to go to lockdown. Again, I go back to my colleague Brett Hudson that highlighted these things. These are on the record. We went into lockdown too slowly. Unfortunately, because we did delay on the border—

Hon Chris Hipkins: We were one of the fastest in the world.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —because you did delay on the border, it put us in a position where, actually, the Government—we supported you going into lockdown, but you were put in a position that, really, your options were narrowed because we were too late at the border.

So you really had no choice but to go into level 4, and we were very clear that we would support you in that. We suspended the Parliament and we’ve got behind you and we supported you as much as we can—including, by the way, offering to come back into the House to pass legislation to make sure that our enforcement agencies were actually acting legally. Right now in this Parliament, no one can get up and actually say clearly whether or not they were acting legally under level 4 and level 3.

The third thing that happened way too slowly was quarantine. We wouldn’t quarantine at the border. We heard stories from all over the country, and finally the Police Commissioner himself in front of the COVID-19 committee, chaired by the Hon Simon Bridges—

SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the member. The member’s been running for over two minutes now; he’s going to now start talking about the bill before the House, not the history of the pandemic.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This does relate to the bill, because it relates to the powers contained—

SPEAKER: Well, you better get there quick.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —within the bill. One of the powers contained within the bill, which is a severe overreach by the State, is the fact that police officers are going to have a power to enter a private dwelling without warrant. I can tell you now: I’m proud to have served for 14 years in our New Zealand Police service, one of the finest police services in the world that enjoys enormous public confidence. What this Government has done is introduced a bill to the House—and, unfortunately, most of New Zealand won’t find out about this until probably weeks later—whereby they’re going to give police officers—the State—the ability to walk into your home without a warrant if some information comes to them or if there are too many cars parked out on the street. If it meets the threshold of reasonable doubt, it gives them the ability to walk into your home.

I can tell you now from my experience as a police officer that sometimes just a house burglary can be the worst type of offending against someone, do you know why? It’s because they feel like it’s a gross violation of the one place that they should feel safe—the one place that they have the right to be able to say who or who doesn’t come into their home. This is what the Minister has done: he’s put law-abiding Kiwis that are going about their everyday business in a situation now where they could have the State walk in their front door, into their house, to check on information that really can’t be measured, to see whether or not they’re being compliant.

I can tell you now, the other thing that’s been driven out of this committee is very clear: Government, if you do not retain the confidence and the trust of the people of New Zealand, it doesn’t matter how many laws you bring to this House, they will choose not to be compliant. I can tell you one thing: we’ve moved into level 2; back home in my own electorate—in fact, I did a social media post on this—on the Saturday it was very clear that most Kiwis who had been compliant, had done what they had been asked to do, had moved themselves into level 2. There were more people out on the streets. There were more people out in recreation areas. They had moved themselves into level 2. The Government, in my view, had seen that and understood that, realised that they’d waited too long, realised that they’d pushed it too far, realised that they were starting to use up that goodwill that’s been given to them throughout this lockdown.

By the way, we do have a job on this side of the House; it’s to hold the Government to account, and we do that for the rest of the country. It’s not always an easy job; it can be pretty thankless. But we’ve found ourselves in a situation right now where even our own journalists, our own press gallery, if they decide to stand up, if they want to hold this Government to account, all of a sudden there’s a massive backlash against them. Well, you know what? It’s actually time that we started to hold this Government to account a bit on these decisions and not just be told everything and taking it. Like they said, “We’ve got enormous goodwill, just ignore them, we don’t have to respond, we don’t have to put Ministers up.” It’s an arrogance that’s dripping from this Government.

Hon Member: Just dismiss.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’d be very—yeah, what was it? “Just dismiss”—just dismiss them. By the way, you’re eating into goodwill from this side of the House, because, me personally, I wanted to support the Government and I did support the Government. We wanted to do that in a good way to make sure that us as a nation emerged in the strongest possible position with the least harm done; we have not done that. The harm is coming—in fact, the harm is here right now.

So we can’t support this bill. I want to acknowledge the Attorney-General, and I want to acknowledge the fact that he has taken a call and he has addressed some of the issues that we’ve put up. I want to acknowledge and thank him for that because they’re important ones. Things like getting the rules right, because I can tell you another thing that went wrong in the first two weeks: we had four pieces of official information that were being put out to the public, and all they wanted to do was comply—they wanted to make sure that they were sticking to the rules—but there was deep confusion created because they were getting three or four different messages coming from different parts of the Government. We want to have clarity around what the rules are. We don’t think that it is humane. We think that people are suffering enough. We think that if someone’s lost a loved one, that grieving is important for everyone, regardless of what culture you come from—that grieving is important for everyone; people coming together.

Trust the public. The good thing about level 4 and level 3, I think, is that it’s at least allowed us to learn those basic concepts around hygiene and social distancing and being more aware as a nation. That’s a very good thing. I acknowledge the Government. We’ve flattened the curve—that is a great result. Moving forward, to bring legislation into the House like this that basically tramples over the rights of law-abiding Kiwis in terms of that they will now have the State walking straight in through their front door—and the irony of this situation is quite simply this: when we were in level 3 and level 4, although we questioned the powers because we felt that was important, and it is important in a First World country and democracy where civil liberties are held and protected. It’s important that the Government is always acting within the law, it’s important the agencies are.

I had many serving police officers come to me, saying that they were very concerned and very uncomfortable with what they’re doing because they didn’t join the police to not have the powers to actually know what they were doing. They felt deep discomfort with it. Then we had the Police Commissioner come in front of the committee, and he said, “Oh, well, we’ll let those checkpoints run because we want to avoid a protest.” Every rule in the book was being broken. If you want to undermine public confidence in a world-class police service, that’s the quickest way to do it. Now you’re going to tell them to go out there and start policing the community that you’re relying on for their goodwill. If New Zealanders decide that they’re not going to maintain level 2 restrictions because you’ve run out of goodwill, it doesn’t matter how much legislation you pass, it doesn’t matter how many police you recruit, it doesn’t matter if you put the defence forces out on the street—it is not going to make one iota of difference. You have to maintain public confidence.

Anyway, thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for your forbearance and for allowing me to take the call. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Mr Speaker, the fundamental question, listening to the debate across the House, that is before us now is whether we need a COVID-19 alert level 2. Because, listening to the members opposite, we should simply declare victory now and say that it’s all over and that everything should go back to the way that it was before. I remind members opposite that we had fewer cases than we do now when they started to call for New Zealand to go into lockdown. And, at the time, Simon Bridges stood in this House and said better to be cautious; better to be criticised afterwards for being too cautious and moving too quickly than have a massive outbreak in New Zealand and then regret not having taken further action. And yet, that is where we’re at now. So we’ve got more cases now than we did when they were calling for us to go into lockdown.

And so, if we don’t have a COVID alert level 2, which is what this bill enables, then, effectively, what we will be doing is we will be saying that we’re willing to tolerate the risk of another big spike in cases and then all of the sacrifice that New Zealanders have made—

SPEAKER: Order! I regret having to interrupt the member, but I just want to remind Messrs Penk and Mitchell that people are not meant to be sitting in adjoining seats at the moment. I know that someone’s moved some of the name tags around. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —and all of the sacrifices, socially, personally, and economically that New Zealanders have made would have been in vain, because we would find ourselves back in the position that we would have been in if we hadn’t gone into lockdown in the first place. We need only look around the rest of the world to see what the consequences of that are: thousands of people dying, lockdowns where there is seemingly no end in sight, which is what other countries around the world are facing. New Zealanders can all be incredibly proud of what we have achieved as a country over the last seven weeks. Dare I say it, seven weeks ago, when we stood in this House and we debated whether or not to have the lockdown, Simon Bridges was right. He was right when he said better to be cautious than have regrets later on if we don’t go hard enough early on. We are in the same position now. Level 2 is about making sure that all of the gains that we have made don’t disappear with a spike in cases.

If you listen to what the members opposite are arguing, they are saying that there should be no further curtailing of liberties—that people should be able to do whatever they want to, that life should get back to normal. Well, actually, that puts the country right back at square one again. COVID-19 is still with us. We are still having positive cases coming through the testing. So we still need to have very good public health measures in place if we are going to avoid going the way of those other countries.

We reset the clock with our lockdown, but COVID-19 has not gone away; it is still there. Therefore, the level 2 measures that this bill enables will help us to lock in the gains. It will help us to make sure that we don’t go backwards. It will help us to give New Zealanders confidence that they can re-engage in their lives, consistent with good public health provisions, and that our country—ahead of the Australians, ahead of so many other countries that are looking at lockdowns that will last much, much longer and be much, much harsher than ours—New Zealand is in a very good position. We shouldn’t squander it; therefore, we should pass this bill, we should move to level 2, and we should lock in the gains that we’ve made.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House has just fundamentally misrepresented the National Party’s position on this bill.

SPEAKER: Oh, careful.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: The National Party has not suggested for a moment that all of the risks have gone, that there is no need whatsoever to have any restraints. And then the Leader of the House went on to suggest that this bill is necessary to enable New Zealand to move into level 2. Well, that is absolute nonsense. This is not the first time that we will have been in level 2, for a start. And the most important thing to note is the fact that despite what he was trying to suggest then, we are now on a sharply downwards trajectory, having made significant changes, to our considerable cost as a nation, but for the gains that we are now so proud of. So this is about ensuring that we move into a level 2 where the nation can get back to work, resurrect as many livelihoods as possible in a safe and appropriate way, and that’s what we are supporting. We’re not suggesting for a moment to forget about the last few weeks and just go back to life as normal. We can’t do that. No one has been arguing that; certainly not on this side.

Now, ordinarily, as those who are watching or listening at the moment will know—and there are a number of people who do follow Parliament regularly—we would, in a second reading debate, be focusing on the work of the select committee. We would, as members of the select committee, be traversing the opinions that we heard both in written and oral submissions from those who chose to have their voices heard on this particular bill, and we’d talk about the questions that we ask. We’d talk about the advice that we received from officials. And we’re very well served in our select committees by our officials.

We have a very fine Public Service, and I wonder if I could just take this opportunity very quickly to thank the public servants throughout the country who have served us so well during the lockdown. I think in particular of Sam and Alma, the electorate officials who have been wonderful in the way they’ve responded to the many emails and calls that they’ve received from electorate MPs and other MPs and our office staff, and I want to thank them; those who have worked in the different Government departments who have responded to the many concerns—in many cases, very distressing concerns—we have brought to their attention. I think of Michael Appleton in the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and what a fine public servant he is. I shouldn’t probably name them—there are too many to name—but I want to say thank you to all those public servants. I know they’ve worked so hard. We heard the huge pressure that the Ministry of Social Development was under as they were working on the wage subsidy applications and all sorts of other things. So I did want to make that point.

As I say, in a second reading we would normally have had the opportunity to reflect on what happened in the select committee and how that process would enable us to improve the bill. Well, here we’re having a second reading where there hasn’t been any select committee process. Apparently, the Attorney-General did advocate for one, so I hope that we’re going to hear why it didn’t happen. Was he overruled? Did he change his mind? But whatever the reason was, we haven’t had the opportunity.

Now, we recognise the fact that when you’re dealing with a bill under urgency, you don’t have a lot of time. But even if half a day had been set aside for that purpose, we would then have had the opportunity to hear not just from submitters but also from legal academics, from people with expertise in public law, from commentators in the media and elsewhere—all of whom, along with the officials, would have increased our understanding of the issues, sharpened our ability to hone in on what needed to be done to recommend to the House and to the Government how this bill could be changed. But, of course, we have been denied all of that opportunity. So in the absence of a select committee process to report and consider, the second reading debate, I assume, will have to just try to ascertain what the Government’s thinking was, what processes they’ve been through. And it is fair, I think, therefore, to look back on their management of the issue to date in order to ascertain what it is that they think they now need to do.

Well, the Hon Michael Woodhouse said earlier, and he was quite right, that the National Party had called on the Government to take all sorts of action well before they did. And the Leader of the House was talking a moment ago about the things that the National Party had urged seven weeks ago, and we don’t resile from any of that. I’m proud of the fact that we called on the Government to shut down our borders well before the Government did, that we called on them to effect appropriate checks of those who were coming across the border. We called on them to instigate an appropriate testing regime, to provide more personal protective equipment across the country wherever it was needed. So those are the sorts of issues that a level 2 period still needs to be aware of. We don’t want to throw any of that away. All responsible New Zealanders wish to continue to lock in the gains. It’s a phrase we’ve heard a lot recently, and I don’t know of a single New Zealander who doesn’t want us to build on where we’ve got to, where we’re at, to continue to ensure that New Zealand has a proud record in dealing with COVID.

We know that the threat will be there for some time to come. So this bill is the Government’s attempt to suggest, presumably, the only way that the issue can be dealt with, but it leads to dreadful anomalies. It leads to some appalling constraints on civil liberties which cannot be justified. And others have mentioned, including myself in particular, our deep distress at the impact on tangihanga, on funerals, on worship in all religious traditions, not just Christianity, but Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, you name it. We’re a very multi-cultural country and all those places of worship are now being told that only 10 people will be able to gather for worship under this particular bill, despite the ridiculous anomaly that contact sports with much greater numbers of people will be possible, that much larger numbers of people will be able to go to the cinema, that they will be able to gather in restaurants, and if they are large restaurants—which will have much larger numbers of people. So if nothing else changes in the remaining stages of this particular bill’s passage through the House, could I urge the Government to think very carefully about that unfair constraint that is being put on our places of worship and, in particular, the devastating, cruel impact it’s having on those who are preparing for the funerals of those whom they love.

I mentioned a constituent earlier who’s in this position. He had expected that with his father’s funeral on Thursday, many members of the extended family and friends would be able to gather together—obviously observing safe physical distancing, which they would have done, but in a way that would have helped with the healing process that comes through mourning together. And now they’re in this awful position, as are so many other New Zealand families, of being told they’re not going to be able to do that under level 2.

There is no good reason for that. I’m going to continue to hammer it because nobody has yet justified why that should be so. Of course it’s natural to want to hug somebody at a time of distress, but people should be trusted to understand that that wouldn’t be possible at a funeral under level 2. But to suggest that they can’t be trusted and therefore they can’t even get together is outrageous, and we continue to object to that very, very strongly.

I may have been distracted earlier when the Attorney-General was speaking in his second reading speech. I hope that he will make clear whether—and it’s ironic because he is the Attorney-General—there will be a section 7 vetting of this particular bill under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Hon David Parker: There has been.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: There has been?

Hon David Parker: Yep.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: And has the Minister been the judge and jury in his own particular issue?

Hon David Parker: No, no.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Right. OK. Well, I’m pleased to hear that assurance, because New Zealanders do respect the rule of law, as David Seymour was suggesting earlier, and they are concerned when some people take the law into their own hands. And one of the things that is a concern arising under this bill is the possibility that vigilantism and undesirable intimidatory tactics by, say, gangs, as we have seen in some pockets of New Zealand in recent weeks, will effectively be condoned because of the wording of this legislation. Now, for an elderly couple who are legitimately going about their business—say, going to the shops or off for a short trip to the beach or whatever—to be stopped by pretty intimidating young, strong people who are, effectively, telling them to go back is a very frightening experience, and that must not be allowed to happen.

We are therefore seeking a very clear assurance from the Government in the remaining stages of this particular bill that only Crown agencies such as the Police and Customs will be permitted to carry out—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I am now going to issue a general warning to the House that the bill being debated is the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. It is a bill I have read, and members have to attach their comments to what is in the bill, or matters very closely related to it. I want to say that I’ve shown more tolerance than I felt like, but won’t from now on.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Seniors): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to address the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. There are certain powers inside this piece of legislation that are required for the country to keep moving forward down the alert levels. The majority of New Zealanders understand the need for those powers. The majority of New Zealanders over alert level 4 and alert level 3 have followed the instructions for the betterment of the nation, and—as the Minister for Seniors—they’ve done so to protect those who they love who are over the age of 70. They have seen some New Zealanders flout those requirements and put the “law abiding”—was the phrase that was used by Mr Mitchell—at risk.

There will always be among us some of those who wish to push the boundaries. These boundaries and the powers that have been placed inside of this bill were placed there under the direction and advice of the medical profession, of the Director-General of Health. They are to keep us moving back to what is a post-COVID environment where we look out for each other. But I don’t know a single member in this House that would stand and say that there has ever been a time where every single citizen has obeyed the law. Therefore, the very reason why we have police or people who enforce the law is because we know that that will be so.

The Government is shifting this legislation now, and they’re doing it under urgency—and the Opposition knows this. The Opposition has placed many pieces of legislation, when they were in Government, under urgency—one, for example, to actually sell off trees that had fallen in a storm, I remember very clearly, to foreigners at the time. But the purpose of this legislation is that we are going to alert level 2 on Thursday. We don’t want to go back up to alert level 3. For the majority of New Zealanders, they must have the confidence that this House has provided the appropriate legislation and powers to ensure that those who will put their communities at risk by not following the simple requirements that are outlined in the legislation can and will be dealt with.

So there’s no point to going on much more. New Zealand First will support the bill because it’s a practical, reasonable, and responsible outcome to the circumstances we are in, and the time frame is the time frame created by COVID, and the advice around health, and the calls from businesses in New Zealand, calls from the Opposition to get us to alert level 2 as quickly as possible, and the calls—

Chris Penk: You don’t need this bill at level 2.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: No, Mr Penk, but we need the legislation to ensure that all of us are protected under an alert level 2 situation. That is the purpose of the legislation. We could move to alert level 2 on Thursday and then we could have parties, as we had seen under alert level 3, that put people at risk. I cannot believe that that is what Mr Penk and the Opposition are asking us to do. I cannot believe that the Opposition is advocating for a free-for-all at alert level 2. I cannot—I cannot believe that that is what Mr Penk is advocating for.

Chris Penk: Don’t be ridiculous.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: But Mr Penk apparently is shouting out across the House to say that we do not need this legislation, so I’m not quite sure how he juxtaposes those two statements. New Zealand First will support the legislation.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand and rise to speak on this COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. There’s no argument from this side about the “what”—the what we need to do to get the country back into a place of normality, where people have normal lives, kids go to school, people go to work, but what we are arguing on this side in regards to this bill before the House, as you so rightly said we should focus on, is the “how”. It’s how we do that. And that’s the reason why we’re having a debate. That’s the reason why we are called Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition: it’s because we speak on behalf of a nation to question and query—there’s no question about our role and responsibility.

So for the other side to turn around and say they should have a free pass, we know that that’s not the case. We just heard from the Hon Tracey Martin where she said, “This bill is fair, it’s reasonable, it’s considerate, it’s responsible.” I would say it is all of the opposite. In my speech I want to outline, in particular, the reasons why it’s not the “what” that this bill should do, which is that we should go into level 2; it’s the “how” that this Government intends to take us which I believe will be a real concern to the people of this nation, to the citizens.

When we are voted into Parliament, it is because of two simple words: trust and confidence. The people of New Zealand will give the governing body of the day their trust and their confidence. We’ve seen trust and confidence, and this bill addresses the issue of us moving to level 2—they have trust and confidence and we’ve seen that. Yes, the nation has rallied behind to get us out of a pandemic situation of great concern. But the concern that we are in now is that when we head into level 2 that trust and confidence, I believe, is now getting to the point where it’s now starting to wear thin. When New Zealanders begin to hear and see the “how” that this Government is declaring how they will do that, there are some real concerns for us.

Inside this bill, one of the areas in the explanatory note talks about “The measures in the bill take account of the particular characteristics of COVID-19”, but the concern that we have here is that it says: “such as its contagious nature and potential for asymptomatic transmission,”. In other words, it’s the possibility of, not the evidence of, that I believe is what this is saying in this bill. I know, you may be a little bit surprised about that, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: I certainly am.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: —but that’s how I interpret that part of it. So to me there is some ambiguity here already factored in this bill that I believe needs clarity. But when we talk about this ambiguity, I want to go over to page 2 of the bill in the explanatory note. There’s been a lot of conversation about the aspects of the imposition that this places. I know in the House many people have talked about probably some of the most critical times in people’s lives, and, in particular, around tangihanga, around death, and around funerals. My point in this conversation, this debate, is that I want to talk about trust and confidence.

Now, I have before me a document in which there was an engagement into the community—a document that was engaging with the funeral directors, that was engaging with different iwi, different groups that were there, those of the clergy, those who partake as those in taking these funerals and so forth. There’s plenty of documentation, there’s plenty of evidence to show that there has been a working out. It clearly states here in this document—at level 2, for instance, it talked about the issues around marae, it talked about tangihanga, and inside of that there was an indication that there would be no more than 100 people present. In particular here, I want to read from this, “already iwi and hapū have been adapting tikanga and kawa to keep our people safe. This has also extended to tangihanga.” So I want to say this: why is it that when it came to the trust and confidence of the people of our communities in Aotearoa New Zealand, and, in particular in this case, to our Māori community, who were saying that they been consulted, they have contributed, they have put plans in place; they could not be trusted—they could not be trusted. We’ve got teachers that, come next week on Monday, there will be 30 children in a class. They have been trusted to handle their affairs and to accommodate for the changes of safety inside that classroom. Schools will have from 350 to up to 1,700 children. Principals and management staff have been trusted that they will ensure the safety and the health and the wellbeing of those children. We’ve got supermarkets that now have aisle etiquette, waiting lines of 2-metre distances. We’ve got sanitisers. We’ve got restaurants that will go back eventually next week, with waiters and waitresses, with 100 people that could gather in a facility. We have trusted them to have a plan to ensure the health and safety of all those that enter, yet we cannot trust those who have been consulted, those at the heartbeat of the situation in the most difficult time of mourning and grieving, where people have lost a loved one; we cannot trust them. We cannot trust those to be able to accommodate for that.

That is one of the issues that we take offence to which is in the bill. It talks about that on page 2, it talks about that at the bottom of the explanatory notes where it clearly states this: these powers “can be expressly exercised in respect of classes of people, businesses … other activities … weddings [and] funerals”, and that’s what I’m speaking to in this regard.

I want to appeal to the Māori caucus of Labour and those that are across there. This has come not just from those who are consultants and academics; this has come from iwi leaders. This has come from other people who’ve clearly stated: “Trust us. Trust us.” They’ve accommodated. They’ve changed in tikanga and kawa. Why is it they have not been trusted to accommodate for one of the most difficult times in their situation and their lives of their community? I think that’s a grievous issue too.

I want to go to, again in the bill, and I want to point to and highlight this issue here on page 3 under “Enforcement”, and, in particular, what it highlights in the second paragraph: “To enable enforcement of the measures in orders, the Police are given a power to enter premises, including private dwelling[s] and marae, without a warrant”—without a warrant. I want to ask the question to the Attorney-General: why were marae highlighted here? And if it was highlighted, then what evidence did he use? What basis did he do? I know, because I’ve spoken to some of those Māori leaders—by the way they were consulted—and here’s what they did say but was not listened to by this Government: “There is neither a general Treaty clause nor any obligation to have regard to the Treaty or its principles at any point of decision making or performance of functions under this Act.”

So I say to the Māori caucus that are over there, are you rolling over on your bellies to get tickled and say this should just go ahead? This is not correct. This is not right. They’ve been consulted, they gave their views, and, you know what, they haven’t been listened to. They haven’t been trusted. Nowhere here in this bill—and I look forward to the Attorney-General answering this, but in the first reading, why was it not included? This advice was given prior to this bill being presented. Yep, that’s right; it’s come as a Supplementary Order Paper. In other words, it was an afterthought. You had to correct it because if you’d done it at the start, when the information and consultation was given to you right at the beginning, then you would have put it straight in. I would say this—

Hon David Parker: The member misunderstood; that’s what’s happening.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Well, the Minister may be saying there’s misunderstanding, but I’m reading right from the people who were consulted, the iwi leaders that were consulted. It clearly states here in clause 4 that “the purpose of the Bill is to support a public health response”. That’s in the bill where it’s recording that. However, again, it clearly states here that Māori are affected by this because they haven’t been consulted directly with this bill. So to the Māori caucus on the other side: where are you? Where is your voice? Why are you not listening to your community? And again, the word marae was put in there. Here’s what the Māori leaders are saying: “It’s like a stigma that has been created, and a level of untrust to the Māori community.”, because, if it was—again, here’s the evidence. Here’s the information that was supported prior to an SOP—prior to a Supplementary Order Paper. What’s the SOP for? To correct what hadn’t been put there in the first place. That’s what an SOP is there for.

There is a real concern. To the members of the public that are listening here, it’s not the “what” that we should do, which is to have a piece of legislation taking us into level 2, but it’s the “how” this Government is going about it. There is no trust and confidence. When they’ve gone out to engage and to consult, the community have given them advice. Funeral directors have talked about this. Those that are part of the clergy have talked about this. They’ve shared their advice, their thoughts with them, and, again, they have not been trusted. You can trust the teachers, you can trust the supermarkets, you can even trust the restaurateurs, the cafes, and the pubs, but you can’t trust a funeral director whose role of responsibility is to be there at the grieving and the most difficult time in people’s lives.

I’ve heard it said by an epidemiologist: “Fear is a very powerful stimulant. In the right way it will guard and protect, but with the wrong means it is all about power and control.” This bill here is simply about one thing: using the stimulant of fear for power and control of this nation and of its people.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. I just want to take it up a level and acknowledge the really huge sacrifice that the country has been through over the last few weeks and the profound impact that is going to have on us as a country for a very long time to come. I want to reflect back that a sense of anxiety has lessened on the whole, and we’re seeing this in terms of some of the feedback from surveys. People were really, really anxious as we were going into level 4 and deeply worried about their own safety. We were hearing that on a regular basis, and how that has reduced over time as we’ve seen the numbers shift from going up so dramatically to coming down to the point where we are now. That’s been because we’ve all worked together to be able to achieve this, and it is a significant achievement for us as a country, and I really want to acknowledge everyone’s efforts to get to this point.

Over this period of time, we’ve been supported by the Health Act and the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act to enable our police system as well as our ministries to be able to act to ensure that the guidelines were kept to, to be able to keep all of us safe. But the advice that we’ve had is that, actually, that is less certain going into level 2—that the legal framework does not support the enforcement that we may need. Let’s hope we don’t need it, but, actually, I’ve seen parties happening not that far from me, and the need for intervention from the police, and that’s been in a situation where there are really high levels of anxiety. As we hope that that anxiety continues to decline, there is an increased chance that people will relax to a point that they act inconsistently with our collective interests. We need to have the tools to be able to intervene to ensure that our sacrifice wasn’t for nothing and to ensure our safety into the future, and that is what this piece of legislation is about.

Of course it’s not ideal that this is not going to a select committee. Of course all of us would want that to happen, in the ideal circumstances. I suspect there is still an understanding that this has been a rapidly evolving situation and that we are moving into level 2 on Thursday and we need to get that legal certainty before we do. That’s why the Green Party accepted the proposal of having an exposure draft go to the Opposition and to key experts: to be able to get that feedback to ensure that we were having those broader sets of eyes and perspectives to make amendments which will be debated in the committee stage. We’ve seen some really good feedback come through that process, and changes, I understand, will be happening, and that gives us a level of confidence with this.

I also do want to recognise, on a principle level, those concerns about the powers that are in this legislation. People are right to be very conscious of that. This is not something any Government or Parliament should consider lightly. Warrantless entry into dwellings is a significant power, and it needs proper scrutiny. This is the reason it’s in here: because we are in exceptional circumstances, and this is what we’ve been told in terms of—

Nicola Willis: What’s wrong with a warrant?

JAN LOGIE: Because the warrant may just take too long to be able to ensure.

I will just say that what’s happened with this is that they’ve been confined to situations where police have reasonable grounds that a gathering is occurring that breaches the rules—so it’s not limitless—that has been brought in, and that they may only enter the premises if it is necessary to direct people to disperse. It is not a broad power for warrantless entry.

I think that’s really important to note, because, if you think about that—they’ve got reasonable grounds in terms of people not abiding by the conditions of level 4 and they believe they need to disperse people—that’s a safety issue. In the context we’re in at the moment and what we’ve been through and what we’re heading into, we need to be putting safety first. It’s a simple principle.

I’d also point that the bill is structured to support a graduated approach to different breaches of rules that we are supportive of, and that the purpose includes a subsection that states that the enforceable measures in the bill are there to support voluntary measures. It includes an infringement regime which allows a non-criminal pathway for offending. We hope that that will be supported by warnings, which is what we’ve been seeing in the practice up to this point, but it gives the police and enforcement agencies further options in terms of intervening so that things don’t escalate unnecessarily.

There are significant democratic checks on the orders made, including being referred to the Regulations Review Committee and a necessary confirmation vote by Parliament if they are to last more than a month or two, and the bill also has a sunset clause of two years. This is not a piece of legislation that has been drafted lightly without consideration of the seriousness of this issue. If we are considering the safety of our country, though, what we’ve been told is that we need those powers to be able to intervene and to have this legal certainty to be able to support that action.

I just can’t understand—with some of the Opposition views coming through that I’ve heard, saying that this just isn’t necessary to move to level 2 and we don’t need this legislation—how anybody could consider that that is responsible or reflective of the huge sacrifice that’s been made and the efforts that are going to be required to protect the gains from that sacrifice. The Greens are supporting this legislation.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): This is a COVID cluster in the other meaning of that phrase. Not many of us are very familiar with emergency powers legislation. By its very nature it’s not something with which we are usually familiar—that’s the whole point.

The basis, uncertain as it is, of what we have had so far is challenged by the very notion—as we keep hearing from the Government benches—that we need this to go into level 2. As Mr Macindoe has already said, we have already been in level 2 before. If this is a tacit admission from the Government that there was no legal basis from that then I’d rather that we had that conversation openly and honestly, and on a basis on which we can understand whether, in fact, such a piece of legislation as this is indeed required. And I note that legal academics have raised the question—I don’t want to mischaracterise their position by stating it as anything other than a question—about the legal basis for what we have endured so far, but it’s a fair question.

It’s a question too that, implicitly, the Epidemic Response Committee has asked. The request for the advice that had been provided—I think I’m safe to say that I don’t anticipate that that is going to be forthcoming; and, of course, we could spend a lot of time talking about the spurious use of legal privilege, but I won’t do so, I’ve got to maintain tightly on the bill. But it’s really important to understand, by way of context, for all those who are following this debate at home—perhaps struggling to understand why a piece of legislation should be needed to authorise level 2 that was not needed for level 4 or level 3, or, before that, level 2—and I can only say that I share their bemusement, because the Government’s position on this is entirely illogical.

If the Government believes that the current arrangements are not legitimate then it should say so and we can get on with making a set of arrangements in this bill. But if it is already legitimate for level 4, before that level 3, level 2, then, of course, this is not needed at all.

So why the rush? Well, I think the explanation is surely that the Government genuinely believes that if it doesn’t pass this piece of legislation in the next 48 hours, we won’t be able to go to level 2 at one minute to midnight this Thursday, which as I say is an extraordinary notion and I cannot believe—I genuinely can’t believe—that they would stand up in this House and maintain that. And to mischaracterise the National Party in Opposition as saying that we are somehow arguing for the need for level 2 to be implemented as a matter of reality on the ground is fatuous in the extreme.

A New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vetting of this bill is sorely needed. I think I understand from an exchange that took place earlier that has been produced. I haven’t seen that. It may or may not be available, I don’t know. The bill I’ve seen now for less than 24 hours, so I’m trying to get my head round it as best I can in this, the second reading speech. Ordinarily, of course, a second reading speech focuses on what happened at select committee. Well, we all know there’s not going to be that opportunity, because the Government knows better than to bother to listen to those except the select few to whom it has already released the exposure draft.

Well, I don’t think we should have much confidence that the rules that are going to be proclaimed by fiat are going to be particularly easy to understand or follow. We’ve got such absurdities as funerals and weddings having a more restrictive basis, not less. Just to clarify if you’re listening at home and you’re tuning in trying to make head and tail of this, it will be more restrictive to be at a funeral or a tangi or a wedding than it is to go to the restaurant on a Saturday night with your friends—provided that your friends are suitably grouped into 10 people or more—because, of course, a virus knows the difference between a group booking of 10 and a group booking of 11 within a mass of 100 warm bodies.

The rights and freedoms touched upon by this bill are absolutely considerable. And this is the point, of course, about the need for a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act discussion even; if not a formal document showing that the Attorney-General and others have turned their mind to whether the rights and freedoms are constrained in a manner that is justified in a free and democratic society, then at least for some justifications more meaningful than those we’ve heard tonight would be really, really helpful indeed.

So just to be clear, then, two wrongs don’t make a right. If the current regime does not have a sound legal basis—and I leave that question open, genuinely, I would like to know the answer—then surely it doesn’t make sense or remedy the situation to have a different regime that’s also lacking in its lawfulness or democratic basis. And so on that note I want to touch on a few of the specifics within the bill to the extent that I think New Zealanders are being sold very badly short in terms of what the Government is proposing for itself.

First, in the general policy statement of the bill itself it states that restrictions will be able to be applied that and I quote, “do not rely on powers provided by a state of national emergency”. Well, it’s one or the other, surely. If the Government wants emergency powers, then there should be a state of national emergency. And if there isn’t a state of national emergency declared by the Government, then it shouldn’t be seeking and applying emergency powers. This is an extraordinary disconnect, and, as I say, I genuinely can’t understand how they can be so brazen as to set out in the explanatory note to such a reach for power as that.

Again, you know, we read about a modern and consistent set of rules being the recommended practice by legal academics and others. Well, if we could see the legal advice on which they’re relying, that would be a really good start to understanding whether that statement is to be relied upon.

The bill, again by its own account, gives power to set enforceable measures. Authorisations by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Health are two ways by which that can happen. I don’t want to unduly personalise the matter, but the Minister of Health himself has had—let’s just say—“confusion” in relation to rules that have been set at the previous alert levels. And the point is not whether the rules were or were not followed by a particular person; the point is that there was considerable debate for at least two or three days about whether the rules had been followed or not. And this is the person—and again, I don’t mean this in a way to target Dr Clark, but any person whose judgment is to be relied upon to this fundamental extent is being given more power than he or she should be given in any democracy worth the name.

In my remaining time, I want to talk about, again, the sophistry associated with statements such as the bill, again, by its own account, being consistent with existing legislative conventions. Well, what’s consistent with existing legislative conventions is legislation. And if this Government were to come to this House more frequently than it’s currently proposing at two-year intervals or perhaps as little as three months, which, of course, is an improvement, then that would be helpful, indeed. But legislative conventions also include such safeguards as a select committee process, not passing everything in urgency within 24 hours or so, being subject to a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet, and so on. And of course, the fundamental nature of this bill, it’s not legislation that we are agreeing on as a House of Parliament about what the rules should be; we’re agreeing a set of rules that say that the Government can agree the rules—or actually not even the Government; specific Ministers within the Government. So even Cabinet, for all its imperfections, isn’t all going to get to have a say, and I wonder if New Zealand First have worked that out yet.

The power to make orders under the bill—again, I think we should all be worried that they’re talking about exercising expressly certain orders in respect of classes of people; certain businesses; other activities such as sporting events, weddings, funerals, etc. And of course, it’s this kind of anomaly that we’re having to deal with at the moment. A word of advice to any temples, churches, synagogues, mosques, and so on: I recommend that you serve some food at your gathering—perhaps, you know, bread and wafer as communion. Call yourselves a restaurant and you can have 100 people.

Finally, on the subject of enforcement, others have touched on the power to enter premises being afforded to police without a warrant. This is a very dangerous situation, and I say that not with any disrespect to our police force, but rather precisely because I have huge respect for our boys and girls in blue. I don’t think they should be put in the invidious position that this legislation is, effectively, asking them to be placed in by the Minister of Health or the Prime Minister, and so on.

And my final question—and I very much look forward to having a conversation with the Minister in the chair at the committee stage of the House—is whether this legislation that’s before us now is intended to displace the equivalent existing powers that have been exercised, for example, under level 3 and level 4 under the Health Act and the civil defence legislation. So many questions and we’ve got very little opportunity even to ask them, let alone have them answered. It’s deeply disappointing and, as I say, a COVID cluster in at least one sense of that phrase.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak in the second reading of this bill. I will address some of the questions raised by the previous member, Chris Penk. He raised at one point the question about whether there had been a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. I can let him know that there has, so that piece of process has been done. It is accessible, so I encourage the member to look at that. He also questions whether the existing legal framework was adequate or whether, in fact, the current regime has a sound legal basis. It does. And he questions whether the purpose of this bill is to design one. Because it doesn’t. It explicitly says—and I do encourage him to read the bill—in the explanatory note, paragraph 1, “That single broad policy is to establish a fit-for-purpose legal framework for managing the unprecedented circumstances of the COVID-19 epidemic in a co-ordinated and orderly way, even if there is no longer a national state of emergency. To this end, this Bill establishes standalone legislation that provides a different legal framework for corresponding to COVID-19 over the next 2 years or until COVID-19 is sooner brought under control.”

To put that another way: essentially, it’s saying that we have the powers we need for responding to an emergency in the area of health, to respond in a situation where a crisis emerges. Those powers exist—an undescribed crisis—and so those responses have happened. Now that we have the opportunity, over time, to have a more specific piece of legislation for this particular disease and for our response to it, it seems fitting and appropriate, firstly, that the whole Parliament can debate it, so that we can have the Parliament’s agreement to the framework that underpins the decision making around our country’s response to this virus. And it also makes sense to have legislation that was not designed for the immediate crisis but that is designed for an ongoing management situation, and therefore can be more fit-for-purpose. That, indeed, is explained in the explanatory note, in paragraph 1, of the bill.

But for those who have just tuned in to the debate, as well, it’s also true that there has been much said about funerals that I have heard in the context of this debate. And I have to say, as a Cabinet, certainly, my experience—and I’ve heard the Prime Minister also talk about this, and other Cabinet Ministers—limiting the number of people attending a tangi or a funeral is one of the most difficult decisions we’ve had to make in the context of COVID-19. Grieving for the loss of a loved one is an incredibly intense and difficult human experience, and people in those situations do tend to want to physically comfort one another. That is the reality of the grieving process. As a funeral celebrant myself, I’ve been involved in many funerals and, of course, have observed the way in which we do comfort each other in these situations. Overseas, sadly, we have seen situations where people who’ve come together for the purpose of grieving—in funerals where they have gathered there has been spread of COVID-19 and then there has been further, subsequent, tragic loss. And so that is not something we ever want to see in this country.

We have made an in-principle decision that we should not have gatherings of more than 10 people unless, of course, there is more than 10 people in an existing bubble—but that restaurants won’t take bookings of more than 10 people, for example; that funerals and tangihanga will be restricted in physical presence to 10 people. Of course, there are other practices in place which are more common these days, where also these services can be broadcast via social media and other means, video-recorded and watched as well. That will be some comfort to people, though, it has to be said, it will still be incredibly difficult for those people in that situation. That is why we do want to examine that and lift those restrictions as soon as we have confidence. In another cycle of the virus we will re-examine it. We do want to loosen those restrictions as soon as we safely can.

I think the important thing here is that as a country, many people have made sacrifices through the existing time of level 4, and we want to lock those gains in. We do not want to see people go through unnecessary suffering. We want to lock in the gains and move forward together.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): Mr Speaker? Oh, sorry.

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. No, it is a National call, so I call Nicola Willis. Thank you. I’d be a bit impolite, really.

NICOLA WILLIS: National welcomes alert level 2. We accept the need for a legal framework for enforcement of the requirements under level 2, and we share New Zealanders’ sense of the collective achievement that together, our compliance with restrictions under level 4 and level 3 has allowed to occur: our low transmission rate. And we share the relief that we have been spared some of the worst that we have seen occur overseas.

But we in National are also very alive to the growing sense of concern and, frankly, despair, by too many who have been unevenly impacted by these restrictions and who fear they will go on for some time to come: businesses, but not just businesses, families with relatives who may die soon, families unable to visit their loved ones to spend time with each other at times of grief. And we on this side of the House feel a sincere and solemn duty to scrutinise the bill before us today with that in mind, but also in mind of the social contract that New Zealand has had over these past seven weeks that we will accept restrictions on our freedom where they are proportionate to the risk that we face.

With this bill, there are questions that we have of principle, of process, and of how it will be applied in practice. We do not think that the broad-ranging powers granted to the Government in this bill are proportionate or justified under level 2. I accept that New Zealanders may listen to me tonight and say, “Well, that’s what you say about the bill, but I think I’ll just believe the people on the other side.” So I want to quote for you what the Ministry of Justice said in their report, which they provided to Andrew Little, assessing the consistency of this bill with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: “The Ministry of Justice acknowledged that this bill places unprecedented limits on rights and freedoms of association and movement.” The ministry went further; at paragraph 38, they say, “Together, the potential requirements that can be imposed by orders under clause 10 of the bill could, if applied to their fullest extent, impose arguably the most extreme and significant limitation on New Zealanders’ ability to go freely about our daily lives as has occurred in modern New Zealand history.” So we must not underestimate the significance of this bill and its reach, and, therefore, the role we as an Opposition must play in our parliamentary duty in scrutinising it.

So what are the issues of principle at stake? Well, first of all, this is a stand-alone legal framework that grants extensive powers to the Government to issue orders broadly as it sees fit. There has been argument on the other side that there are sufficient safeguards here. Well, the safeguards imposed simply require that the Minister think there is something to prevent and that the Minister of Health agrees that that is the case.

The powers have been created in a process of extraordinary haste. We saw this bill at 5 p.m. last night—all three readings today; no select committee process, despite a recommendation that there should be one; no prior engagement, despite National’s gesture of goodwill that we agree that a legally enforceable framework is needed and are prepared to work with the Government on it. The signs of haste are all there. Today, the Minister introduces a 23-page Supplementary Order Paper amending problems in this bill, and the Minister argues, “Oh, we didn’t have time for a select committee process.” Minister Parker, we have been in lockdown for seven weeks, and you should have envisaged that level 2 would come one day and be prepared with the legislation needed to enforce it. I do not accept that a select committee process is not needed.

The context here is that we did know that level 2 would come one day, and the Government did not prepare. In practice, we already have reason to be concerned about the arbitrary and contradictory way that orders may be imposed under this bill. We have spoken in this House of funerals and the grief that can’t be shared by friends and family. The report by the Ministry of Justice doesn’t even acknowledge the freedom to worship as a potential issue of right. The issues of enforcement of warrantless entry—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to continue supporting this bill through the second reading in the hope that we’ll see some useful amendments at the committee stage to come.

I couldn’t help but notice, as I was waiting to speak, the Minister of Health moving about the Chamber and speaking to the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Attorney-General, coming within half a metre of their faces as he spoke. The most interesting thing was I watched you watch them, and I thought I must say to the Speaker that I hope he’ll reflect on that experience when deciding whether every member can sit in the House and be here for the Budget on Thursday, because there would appear to be an inconsistency. But I’m sure you will think about it carefully.

When it comes to this bill, there are a couple of issues that need to be considered and further examined. Normally, of course—and other members have said this—we would have had the first reading six months ago and a select committee would have consulted the public and issued a report, and we would have got all sorts of feedback. In this truncated, urgent reading we’ve gone straight from the first reading to the second. I have had some feedback from a former member, Marama Fox, who just texted me, “Bro, this is outrageous.” I certainly think that there would be people within Māoridom, as she has said, who would have wanted to have that kind of feedback.

One area where I think it would be important to examine the bill is where it says that there are classes of people. I read clause 12. It says that these measures can be put in place in relation to generally all people in New Zealand or to any specified class of people. That’s incredibly unusual because we’re so wedded to this idea that the law applies to people equally in New Zealand. So the idea that the Government can single out classes of people—and I can only imagine in the context of COVID-19, they had in mind, perhaps, older New Zealanders. I don’t know what the Minister for Seniors thinks—

Hon Tracey Martin: It’s in reference to enforcement officers.

DAVID SEYMOUR: —but I have to say that the idea that a class of people can be singled out to have measures imposed on them is something that’s quite worrying. I think we need more explanation from the Attorney-General, from the Government side, why it’s possible to single out, you know, a class of person to have a restriction put on them, because that I find quite worrying. Tracey Martin has been heckling throughout, for people who can’t hear, saying that that’s about the enforcement officers. Well, that’s certainly not my reading. It says that they can impose measures and they apply in relation to people, generally to all people or any specified class of people. So Tracey Martin is heckling away, and I think she’s read it wrong in her claim that I have.

Hon David Parker: Which clause?

DAVID SEYMOUR: The other area—clause 12(1)(b)(i) is the one I’m referring to for the benefit of the Attorney-General who’s now joined in the conversation here.

I also say that the issues raised by Mark Mitchell around the ability of constables to enter a house because people might be having a party—well, you know, warrantless searches have been very tightly circumscribed. When we redid the laws for the SIS and GCSB a few years ago—and that was a time when there was a lot of cross-party cooperation, and Chris Finlayson led that very well—what we said was that we would have a very finely graduated escalation where the judge would have to be involved, and if there was to be some sort of urgent action, it was retrospectively validated. I do wonder if this ability of the police to enter a private house to break up a party because they think there might be too many people there is really a properly proportional response to a COVID-19 party. It seems that that’s excessive.

So I leave those two thoughts as we progress through this urgent legislative process. It’s critical, if we’re going to do this fast, that we get it as right as we can. I see the Attorney-General getting some advice now, so hopefully we’ll hear a bit more about that in later stages. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. There will be fewer restrictions under level 2, and we are well aware of this, but those remaining still need to be enforceable, and that is the purpose of this piece of legislation we are now debating. We don’t want these narrower controls to be relying upon a national state of emergency. So this new law will recognise the central role of health factors and the measures that we need to take to acknowledge the fact that we have saved lives in New Zealand by taking the measures we have taken to date, and we must continue to do so in order to make sure we do not yo-yo back and forth to higher levels of warning as we have seen in other countries who have not followed through with the downgraded levels.

This new law will also provide that the Minister of Health become a decision maker in the advice taken on board by the Director-General of Health. It will also provide for economic and social factors to be taken into account in determining appropriate measures. The vast majority of New Zealanders do want to do the right thing, and they do comply because they know that it is within their best interests to do so.

During my time in lockdown, one of the things that I undertook to do was make a number of phone calls to those in the community within the Hutt Valley who may have needed extra support, particularly those in the over-65 group. And in that group—

SPEAKER: I want to thank the member—

GINNY ANDERSEN: I did call him. I did call you, Trevor.

SPEAKER: —for having concern for her local constituents.

GINNY ANDERSEN: And in that group, there were a number of concerns raised. But the point I would like to make here is the main concern was those New Zealanders that were making sacrifices, that were staying inside, that were changing their lives—the thing that worried them the most was others who were not. They felt that it was unfair that there could be a group—

SPEAKER: I’m now going to ask the member, despite her generosity, to start speaking to the bill.

GINNY ANDERSEN: Sure. So the point of this bill is—I was making my way to the point, Mr Speaker—that the regulatory backup provided by this new law allows us to address the behaviour at alert level 2 that is particularly harmful to that public health objective that we have laid out right from the start and to demonstrate to those who are complying voluntarily that non-compliance will not be tolerated. Non-compliance is a real risk to the wellbeing and the safety of New Zealanders. So it is important that this bill provides for the enforcement to enable a quick response if there are situations—whether that be a business that’s not abiding by the social distancing requirements or whether that be a congregation of people in a party setting. There are a number of different responses that police have been required to attend, and it’s important that those abilities to enforce a strong public health response are enabled by the law, and that is exactly what this bill does.

New Zealanders need to be commended, and we have been commended internationally for our amazing ability to band together and to fight back against COVID-19. And we have largely done that. But the time has now come for some of those temporary measures to be made permanent as we move through the final stages and make sure that we are safe in an ongoing way. It does concern me that members of the Opposition do not see the merit and the benefit and the public good in ensuring that we are safe and that we do not put ourselves in positions of spreading COVID-19 unnecessarily. While the vast majority of New Zealanders abide by this, we know that some are not, and we want to make sure that those instances are minimised as much as possible.

I would like to conclude by acknowledging that this legislation is designed for the ongoing management of a situation that has been unprecedented within New Zealand’s history, and that at this time we need to acknowledge that a new framework is needed that is not relying upon a national state of emergency. It provides a good framework that is able to operate to ensure New Zealanders are safe and that we can continue to live our lives at a new level of freedom without putting at risk those around us. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. No one in New Zealand wanted COVID-19, no one in New Zealand asked for it, no one in New Zealand could have predicted it, and no one in New Zealand wants to see it flare up and spread through our communities again.

Over the last eight weeks, we’ve seen New Zealanders at their best. They’ve stayed home, saved lives. New Zealanders have done the right thing fighting COVID-19. People in my electorate have done the right thing: staying home, saving lives. We’re proud of how we’ve done as a country. I’m proud of what we’ve achieved. I feel a sense of national pride, which I know is felt deeply across our country. We’re proud of what we’ve achieved. We’re proud of our front-line health workers. We’re proud of the fact that we have not seen significant numbers of fatalities from COVID-19.

However, New Zealanders are also proud of our values, we’re proud of our democracy, and we’re proud of our freedoms. We don’t give up our freedoms lightly: our freedom of movement, our freedom of association, our freedoms to gather and meet with like-minded people, our freedom to start a business and to work hard to make a living, our freedom of religion and to worship or not to worship, our freedom to mourn the loss of a loved one. This bill cuts to the heart of those freedoms. Yes, we know that we must give up our freedoms in times of a national emergency to unite to achieve a common goal against a common enemy: COVID-19. We know that this may need to be done for a temporary period of time, but we don’t give up those freedoms lightly and we don’t give up those freedoms permanently. When we do give them up, we don’t give them up without some level of proportionality. This bill, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill, is not a proportionate response to COVID-19 and the threat that it provides.

I’d like to focus on a number of areas. Firstly, in highlighting how this bill is disproportionate to New Zealanders. This bill is one of the most extreme pieces of legislation to ever come to this Parliament. Under clause 11 of this bill, the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister will have the ability to substantially affect every area of New Zealanders’ lives: the ability to refrain people from associating with specific people, to enforce physical distancing rules, to prohibit gatherings of specific kinds in specific places in specific circumstances, require isolation, prohibit things from entering or permit the entry of things into any port or place. The impact that this bill has on our society is extreme. I go back to the point I made at the start: we understand that we give up our freedoms temporarily, but we don’t give them up permanently and we don’t give them up without there being some form of proportionately.

When you have such extreme legislation in place which gives such extreme powers to the Government, there is always a risk of those powers being misused. We only need to look at what has already been announced by the Government over the last week in regards to what level 2 will mean to see that these will be misused. You can look at the examples of weddings, of funerals, of tangi, of church and religious services which last week were told could have a maximum number of a hundred and now are being told that they can only have a maximum number of 10.

I’d like to read a letter that I received today from a funeral director in my electorate who said, “We currently have in our care a well-known local gentleman whose family visit most days to sit with him. They were hoping level 2 would allow them to hold a farewell at the club in honour of him; now they’re having to rethink this due to the level 2 announcement. This is one of many families from varying cultures in our care that have been waiting for level 2 to hold a service. They feel let down and confused as to how to move forward.”

This is not only an unfair change to the rules, it’s not only a misuse of the rules; it’s an inhumane use of the rules and it is an untrusting use of the rules. New Zealanders have been told to be kind; New Zealanders have been told that the Government trusts them to make the right decisions; but now, when it comes to level 2, we’re being told: “No, we don’t trust you to hold a funeral and to physically and socially distance at that period.” We’ve heard speakers argue and say, “Well, you can go to a cafe, a restaurant, a cinema, a school, and we trust you there, but we don’t trust you at one of the most important moments in life, which is actually death, a moment of grief, a moment where people come together to remember their loved ones.”

I come also to the area of church and religious services, and these have also been limited to 10. My colleague Nicola Willis mentioned the consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Ministry of Justice advice and how this advice didn’t even touch on the freedom of worship under section 15 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I quote section 15: “Every person has the right to manifest that person’s religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either [publicly] or in private.” The advice didn’t even cover that fundamental right, and I find that abhorrent.

I’m not ashamed of the fact that I’m someone who goes to church every Sunday. We’ve done the right thing: we’ve held our church services on Zoom, as have many other churches up and down the country. They’ve had live streams on YouTube, they’ve played their part. Most churches aren’t big churches in New Zealand. Our church only has 50 people. We won’t be able to meet this Sunday under these new rules, as will many other churches across New Zealand. These rules go to the heart of what it means to be a Kiwi, and I find it abhorrent.

It comes down to, then, the enforcement of these rules—and I find these provisions extreme. The powers in this bill, under clause 20, give enforcement officers the ability to enter any premise and close it at any time. It gives powers to the police to enter any premise, anywhere, at any time, to ensure that people are following the rules. They could enter your home. They could enter your business. They could enter your most sacred place. Your home, being your castle, at any time is no longer sacred under this legislation. And then the ability to fine you and potentially imprison you. Those are all powers which this bill has.

Lastly, I come to the area of safeguards, because when Parliament puts in place legislation with such extreme provisions, the question has to be: where are the safeguards? Where are the safeguards in this piece of legislation? Well, it has a two-year time limit. Two years. This piece of legislation will be in place for two years. I understand the Government is looking at making that three months at a time; however that is still an extremely long period of time. This Parliament will have the numbers, without the Opposition having to be part of that, to extend that three-month period every single time.

This bill has a number of occasions where it says the Minister must have regard to any Government decision on the risk and consult the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and any other Minister that the Minister of Health thinks fit. “Have regard to”, “consult”—those are words which are so weak that you could drive a bus through them. The Leader of the Opposition is not required to be consulted. When we go through a time of national crisis, we should do that together and we should have both the Government and the Opposition playing an important role in that. This legislation does not provide the Opposition any single area where it can have influence over the decisions which are made by the Government, or the powers.

I heard David Seymour speak about the ability of the judicial review. Judicial review is available, but how much does it cost to take a case to court? You hear people on the Government benches constantly talking about the cost of justice in our country, and now they’re saying that if you want to stand for your freedoms, you’ve got to take a case to court under judicial review. Where are the freedoms, where are the checks, where are the balances in this piece of legislation?

So this is not a proportionate piece of legislation. I oppose it alongside my National Party colleagues. Thank you.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): This is the final speech of the second reading, and it’s incumbent, I think, to provide a couple of brief observations in respect of the debate that’s been had in this reading. We’ve just heard from our colleague from Papakura—

Simeon Brown: Pakuranga.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: —Pakuranga, my apologies—who gave an impassioned speech about the limitations on rights. I think, therefore, it is very useful to refer to the section 7 report that has been prepared by the office of legal counsel and referred to by my friend Nicola Willis across the aisle. Just prior, she made a brief reference to paragraph 38 in the section 7 report, and to that extent she talked about how the summary was that this particular bill may impose arguably the most extreme and significant limitations on New Zealanders’ ability to freely go about our daily lives as has occurred in modern New Zealand history. She concluded her remarks at that point.

Now, we know that in a debate as significant as this one, it is very important that New Zealanders who are tuning in to understand what is being debated in this House and what legislation is being introduced understand the full advice that has been provided to this House. So I will, therefore, read the next part: “Nevertheless and despite the potential degree of these restrictions, the bill may be consistent with the Bill of Rights if the limitations are necessary and can be justified in a free and democratic society.”

The office of legal counsel did an analysis on an array of the freedoms and the rights that are bestowed upon us within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. They assessed peaceful assembly, freedom of association, freedom of movement, freedom from discrimination, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, the liberty of the person, and the right to justice in civil proceedings. The key consideration that he had to turn his mind to was whether or not the limitation can be justified, and in making those very clear observations about the extent to which this bill does impose—as has been stated in this House—some of the most extreme and significant limitations, the finding was that these limitations can indeed be justified on the basis of what it is that this bill is going to address, which is the rapid spread of COVID-19.

That is the rapid spread of COVID-19, and now, in this House this afternoon, we are debating whether or not we introduce a public health response and whether we can provide the full, bespoke legal framework that is required for our country to adequately respond to a once-in-a-lifetime public pandemic, and this legislation enables us to transition to alert level 2 with that framework being in place. Whilst there have been some impassioned speeches given in this House this afternoon, I do note that it is interesting that our friend Mr Penk, who revels in his legal abilities—it was an interesting remark that he made after an impassioned speech on the rights and limits that would be placed on freedoms, which was that he hadn’t actually turned his mind to this particular piece of advice that is sitting on a website for all of us to find.

So look, from this side of the House, we understand the gravity of what is being asked of New Zealanders, and we have at every stage been aware of what is being asked of New Zealanders. But, sir, at this late stage in the night, and with that look upon your face, I can only say we commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): As I mentioned in my second reading speech, we have had some good suggestions come forward from members. I think the most important of them is to require this legislation, effectively, to be refreshed every 90 days, which was a suggestion from the National Party, similar in effect to the request by the ACT Party that the final expiration of this be one year rather than two. The position that we’ve landed in the Supplementary Order Paper is that every 90 days Parliament has to pass a motion that it be extended for another 90 days. Parliament can choose a longer period if it wants, and it might want to do that around the time of the election if there was risk that Parliament wouldn’t be resitting within that 90-day period, but we have that extra level of protection put in. That’s an amendment made by Supplementary Order Paper 497, shown in a tracked-changes form on the floor.

The other significant change which I’ll mention now is to limit the range of people to whom an enforcement power can be delegated to Crown agencies—so like Customs, for example—and Crown contractors. But ordinary people cannot be delegated too if they’re not part of the Crown. I’m sure other issues will arise during the committee stage, which I’ll respond to as they arise.

Chris Penk: Mr Chair.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I call—I was going to call Chris Penk, but he sat down.

Chris Penk: I will defer to my colleague.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I will give the call instead to the Hon Michael Woodhouse.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m not even sure which microphone I’m using—there we go. I appreciate my colleague’s deferral. We are on Part 1 of this bill, and I have two—one’s a comment and one’s a question, I guess. I haven’t been privy to the discussions between the National Party and the Attorney-General’s office in respect of an amendment to clause 3, but I would note that if the relevant period is described as the longer of the following of a period of 90 days after the commencement date or the period specified by a resolution of the House of Representatives, the likelihood is that the first review of this and resolution by the House may not take place until November, which is actually six months away. And so the Attorney-General may want to clarify what the intention is in respect of the first period of the following—the passage of this Act and a resolution—and whether the House will have an opportunity to consider that resolution before the 52nd Parliament rises for the 2020 election period.

The second question I have is in relation to clause 4—the purpose of this bill—because I think this goes to the heart of the concern that I certainly have and that members of the public have expressed to me. When we have an epidemic notice or we have a state of civil emergency, it is because there is a material risk that an event will arise or has arisen that requires the powers of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. This bill is designed to provide powers, effectively, when those conditions aren’t met. But I note that in paragraphs (a) and (b) the words “prevents” and “avoids” are being used. Now, it says “and limits the risk of, [an] outbreak” or “mitigates … the actual or potential adverse effects of the … outbreak”. But the words “prevents” and “avoids” means that we can be in lockdown from now until a vaccine is found, because it’s only when a vaccine is able to be administered to the public that we can prevent and avoid the actual or potential adverse effects of the COVID-19 outbreak. This is, essentially—the powers we are giving to the Crown, the executive, are to hold us in a state of perpetual fear and emergency and a response to that.

I’ve got to reflect, actually, on where we were—[Bell rung]

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Michael Woodhouse.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That’s all right. I think I understand what’s happening there, Mr Chair.

We have moved an awful long way from when the director-general and the Minister of Health assured us months ago that jumping up and down in a mosh pit for two hours with someone who was positive with COVID does not constitute a close contact, but, if I get in the lift in the parliamentary precinct with one of my colleagues for 10 seconds to go from the first floor to the third floor, that’s now somehow prohibited. Have we got to the point where we are in a state of perpetual existential fear?

David Seymour: Depends what the member’s doing in the lift.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yeah, well, touché, Mr Seymour. That’s now on Hansard.

The point I’m making is that if we are going to pass a piece of legislation to prevent this happening, we’re always going to be in a state of preventing it from happening and, therefore, we’re always going to be in a state of perpetual partial lockdown, and I think it’s really important that the House understands whether that’s what the country is going to be faced with for, potentially, the next 18 months, because I am as aware as anyone of the potential for the catastrophic effects of the spread, the unfettered spread, of COVID through New Zealand. But I also, actually, want to believe the Minister of Health when he says he’s on top of contact tracing, he’s on top of testing. And, remember, the case definition for testing for weeks was you’d have to be nearly on your deathbed with respiratory distress, a fever of 38 or higher, and a number of other sequelae before you’d even get a swab up your nose.

Now we are testing just about everybody with a sniffle—fair enough. If we’re doing that, do we really need to take these Draconian steps to prevent or avoid?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Dealing with the two main points that the Hon Michael Woodhouse raised. The first was: will there be a resolution before the election? In practice, yes. If Supplementary Order Paper 497 is adopted by the House, then clause 3(1) says that the “Act is repealed on the expiry of [the] relevant period if no resolution is passed”, and then the relevant period is defined in subclause (2) to be “the longer of the following: (a) …. 90 days [following] the commencement date or … (b) any other period specified by a resolution [in] the House”. Unless there is another resolution before then, there will be no other resolution. So you’re left with subclause (2)(a), which means it has to be done within 90 days, and 90 days from tomorrow is July-August—August isn’t it: June, July, August; 15 August—but it would expire during the interregnum. So we will, in effect, have to make sure that we’re covered during that period of the election, and, if we didn’t bring a resolution to the House before we lifted, the legislation, would risk expiring during that period. So that would be our intention to do that—to bring a resolution.

In respect of the member’s second point, referring to the purpose clause, the member’s correct in his description of the purpose as listed at clause 4(a) and (b). I would then note the purpose is further expanded at clause 4(c) to require that the public health response “is co-ordinated, orderly, and proportionate;”, and the words—“proportionate”—are important. And they are then, effectively, brought forward into the form of order that the Minister can make under section 11 orders by clause 9(1)(d). Clause 9(1)(d) says that the Minister, before making the order, “must be satisfied that the order is appropriate to achieve the purpose[s] of [the] Act.”, which includes proportionality. So if we had low levels of infection, as we do now in New Zealand, and low levels of cases, it would not be proportionate to take New Zealand back to level 4, for example, and that would be—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: You wouldn’t be doing that under this Act. You’d be doing it under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, in the future we would be doing it under this Act.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Really?

Hon DAVID PARKER: We would be. Officials can correct me if I’ve got that wrong. We would be doing it under this Act for the future.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Not a section 70 notice under the Health Act?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It would be done pursuant to this Act. It would still be a section 70 notice under the—sorry, section 11 notice instead of a section 70 notice, and it would be done under this Act. But, unlike the current power, it is actually explicitly exercised now by the Minister, and the Minister has to be satisfied that he’s achieving the purpose of the Act at clause 4, which includes proportionality.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Attorney-General for that explanation, and I would just make two points, if I may, before the gong. Firstly, I’m aware, actually, and I appreciate the Minister drawing out clause 4(c), because the obligation is required to be “co-ordinated, orderly, and proportionate;”. They are entirely appropriate words, except there is a very widespread view, one which I share, that the current proposed level 2 provisions are neither coordinated or proportionate—not coordinated, in the sense that we can have cafes and bars open but not churches. I’m going to instruct my friends at the St Patrick’s Church at Macandrew Road in Dunedin to call themselves the St Patrick’s Tavern from Sunday, and they might be able to get 99 people along to mass. I mean, they are serving bread and wine, so I’m sure they’ll meet their host responsibility under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

I’m already concerned that this isn’t coordinated. I’m certainly concerned that it’s not proportionate, and those are things that are left to the discretion of the Minister to exercise his or her value judgment in respect of that, and that’s very difficult to do anything about except by resolution.

I’ll have more to say—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. It has come time for me to leave the Chair.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TuESDAY, 12 MAY 2020

(continued on Wednesday, 13 May 2020)

Bills

COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Tēnā rā tātou katoa i runga i te tuku iho o rātou mā ki te wāhi ngaro.

[Greetings to all. I acknowledge those who have been sent below to the spirit realm.]

Members, when the sitting was suspended last night, the committee was debating the question that Part 1 stand part. The Hon Michael Woodhouse had the call and he has three minutes 37 seconds remaining.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Mr Chairman, thank you, and I won’t be needing all of those minutes and seconds.

I raise two points and I just wanted to touch on the second one of them and seek clarification. It’s actually a segue into the start of Part 2, which is the likelihood that this bill will be used if we need to go back into level 3 or level 4. I heard the Attorney-General say that that would be the case—turning to his officials and just seeking confirmation that that would be the case. Now, there are options for the Government to use the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act and section 70 of the Health Act, but the Attorney-General made it really clear that this is going to be the Act—once it’s passed—that we would use to strengthen lockdown.

So I think we need to be very clear. In my understanding—the Attorney-General can correct me if I’m wrong—this is now the vehicle for any form of lockdown for the next two years. Any form of constraints on freedom—this is what we’re talking about. So, in terms of its purpose, it is much broader and raises the question, once again, of whether the other statutory powers that the Government had were sufficient to take us into the place that we have been in the last seven weeks.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Yes, that’s correct. This bill, for the purposes of COVID-19 epidemics, is the governing legislation. Were there to be another epidemic that was not related to COVID, the underlying law would sit there—I think I’ve got that right. Officials are confirming that. But for COVID-19 we accept that where we need more nuanced frameworks that are potentially very intrusive, we think that should have, going forward, as we have come out of this emergency phase, a bespoke piece of legislation, and this is it. The protection that there is, that lies in that, I would suggest to the committee is greater than sits under the Health Act, for some of the reasons that have already been discussed.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: We’ll get on to that in Part 2, I think.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, in Part 2. While I’m on my feet I just want to raise an issue relating to Part 1, and that is the definition of “specified private premises”, and explain how this has arisen and why we’re proposing the solution that we have. Members will note that in the Supplementary Order Paper that we tabled last night, we inserted the words “specified private premises”, on page 5, and we said that specified private premises means a dwellinghouse or marae.

To make sense of that members have to look at clause 20 of the bill, which we’ll come to, which said at the time of introduction, “ subsection (1)”—this is the police powers of warrantless entry on any grounds to go into land, building, craft—“does not apply to a private dwellinghouse or marae.” There has been a concern, that the Hon Alfred Ngaro mentioned yesterday, amongst Māoridom that this is somehow paternalistic because it treats Māori premises differently to other premises. The difficulty arises from the likes of the Te Puea Marae, where marae are used for more than one purpose. Te Puea Marae has had people living there. It’s been very public with homeless people having been housed at Te Puea Marae. They also have education there. They also have other meetings, and they probably have counselling services and other commercial operations there, or semi-commerical operations, at different marae as well. It’s a point that Willie Jackson has made.

So the bill as introduced said, “Well, what do we do? We’ll treat them like a dwellinghouse.” So we said in section 20 that it should be dwellinghouse or marae. Now, the Māori Council and others have said that there’s no reason why “marae” should be inserted in deference to a non-Māori gathering place, such as a hotel, conference, or birthday party. It could be seen as unfairly targeting Māori and the places they gather. It might also infer that there’s a different standard being applied to Māoridom, and Māori don’t want that imputation to be made, which was the Hon Alfred Ngaro’s point.

So we tried to address that by dragging it into the definitions section. It’s actually something that doesn’t take away protections; it actually adds them. But none the less, Māoridom don’t want that; they want to be the same as non-Māoridom in respect of those premises. So what we’re going to do in a Supplementary Order Paper that we’ve tabled is actually take out that underlined word on page 5, so that we’re not creating a difference for Māoridom, and then take out the word “marae” from clause 20 of the bill. Then we’re left with, as you’ll see in the tracked changes version of clause 20, exactly the same for marae and other premises, but the obligation in terms of Māoridom, if they go into a marae exercising a warrantless power of going into the marae, they’ve got to give a notice to the committee of the marae.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you very much, Mr Chair. Debating Part 1 of this bill, I’d like to first make some comments about clause 3, “Repeal of this Act”. Originally, as introduced, the bill would’ve been carte blanche for two years, and it’s very difficult to understand what the logic behind that was. It seems to be that the COVID crisis might continue for two years, and that’s how long the Government might want to use the powers afforded it in the bill. I think that possibly reveals something about the thinking behind the bill that we should be very worried about, because it seems that rather than doing what might’ve made sense, to put in place this urgently made bill only for as long as it would take for Parliament to revisit and make a proper law, it was just a matter of seeking power for the State or the Government for the period that the Government thought it might want it. I think that is, first of all, a real mistake but, second of all, betrays that throughout this crisis we’ve had an approach by the Government that is more about having the power to fight a virus than balancing all of the rights, freedoms, and objectives of New Zealanders.

As ACT, we put up amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 494 that would at least reduce the expiry date or the period of this bill back to one year from when it’s passed. I think that would’ve been an improvement. I’m really pleased to see that there has been another amendment put up by the National Party, which I have to say is even better, which requires 90-day renewals of the bill by this House. So it could actually expire on any 90-day period until two years, when it definitely expires anyway. I see the Government’s adopted those amendments in its amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 497, and I completely support those. So it’s a good improvement, but it doesn’t take away that suspicion that we got a look into the mind of the Government through its initial drafting.

We then come to clause 4, which is the purpose, and for people who may be watching this on a Wednesday morning or may not have read the whole thing or had a chance to do that—it’s all come at us very quickly—it’s worth saying: “The purpose of this Act is to support a public health response to COVID-19 that—(a) prevents and limits the risk of the outbreak … (b) avoids, mitigates, or remedies the actual … potential adverse effects … (c) is co-ordinated, orderly, and proportionate; … (d) has enforceable measures”. What’s really interesting about that is that, once again, it appears to give some insight into the psychology of the Government as it faces this crisis. Yes, COVID-19 is something that we should want to be able to mitigate. Yes, it may be that if people overwhelmingly are being cooperative, there should be, out of fairness, enforcement powers for those one or two people at the fringe that do stupid things and risk becoming a super-spreader, for example, and letting everyone else down. That’s all understandable.

But what’s interesting is that the purpose here is entirely about COVID; it’s not about balancing the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders or securing New Zealand’s overall welfare in the face of this crisis—and that seems to reflect the approach that the Government has taken throughout. What the Government could’ve said the purpose of this bill is is to balance the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders and their overall welfare, the ability to preserve their livelihood, with the Government’s effort to fight the spread of COVID-19. The only concession we see to normal rights and freedoms in the purpose clause of this bill, that clause 4, is that it needs to be proportional. Well, I understand what that means, but it’s a very weak concession to the fact that we have other objectives, not just fighting COVID-19. That is not everything. People have other things that are important and other rights and freedoms to be preserved. I hope to be able to continue that commentary with what it should’ve said in some detail in a future speech.

What that purpose clause could’ve said is that the purpose of this Act is to ensure that the Government manages the COVID crisis in a balanced way that respects the rights, freedoms, and livelihoods of New Zealanders, as well as the necessity of fighting COVID-19. Some people might say, “Well, yes, but of course the Government has to do that, and any Government would of course balance things out.” That’s not the point. This legislation is passed by Parliament to direct and constrain the Government, and what we have is a piece of legislation that says the Government can do whatever it wants so long as it is pursuing the objective of opposing COVID-19. The only concession to any kind of fairness or justice is that word “proportional”, and I’d put it to the Minister in the chair, David Parker, and to this committee that that is simply not good enough if we want to ensure a balanced approach.

I think there’s ample evidence in the way that this crisis has played out so far that we simply have not balanced all of the other objectives that New Zealanders have with the objective of fighting COVID-19. We can look at the total reluctance of the Government in earlier lockdown phases to consider, for example, the welfare of those butchers, bakers, and fresh fruit and veggie stores. The Government was quite happy to have people driving past those stores in their communities that were going broke so that they could mingle in a supermarket with 50 other people. We’ve had, as I mentioned in the first reading speech to this bill, couples where the wife was having a miscarriage left sobbing alone for hours in an empty room at a hospital. The partner, who should’ve been there supporting her, who wanted to be there supporting her, desperately, was pacing in the car park, unable, helpless, to do anything. Why? Because in the Government’s response to this crisis, there simply has not been a commitment to balancing the other objectives that New Zealanders have with the objective of fighting COVID-19.

We need an approach that says COVID is a problem, but it’s not our only problem. We want to balance it with other problems that New Zealanders face, and the purpose clause, much as with the repeal clause of this bill, seems to give an insight into the psychology of the Government that drafted it: COVID is everything to them, control is everything to them, and that is not the way to get an optimal outcome for a better response to this crisis. So I’d put it to the Minister that when he drafted this section, he should’ve drafted it in a way that said the purpose is, yes, to establish controls over COVID-19, but also to ensure that when the Government acts under the authority of this bill and this Parliament, it has to have regard to those other needs that there are. It’s only a purpose statement. You know, it only gives the underlying psychology of the legislation. There’s no reason why it couldn’t have said that.

We then get on to the interpretation section, and in particular the most interesting part—normally, interpretation sections are not sections of great interest in legislation, I have to say, but the enforcement officer definition is very interesting, because, initially, it appeared that the Government wanted anybody to be brought up as an enforcement officer. It could’ve been a so-called community group operating a checkpoint or a roadblock—no one seems to know the difference anymore. It could’ve been just about any group of New Zealanders the director-general appointed to enforce these incredible powers against their fellow citizens. I’m pleased to see the Government has clarified, and in the Supplementary Order Paper 497 that the Government’s tabled, it now has to be somebody from a Crown entity. Well, that is something of an improvement, a small improvement, but, again, the initial drafting appears to give an insight into the psychology and motivations of this Government and their approach to New Zealanders’ basic rights and freedoms.

I can’t wait to continue this Part 1 discussion, but I’ve got to get on Newstalk and tell the people how it’s going. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 497—and, in particular, the amendment to clause 5(1), which deletes the definition of “specified private premises”, and it has an impact on clause 20.

This goes to what the member Alfred Ngaro said in terms of marae being targeted, Māori feeling that because the word “marae” is in the bill that they’re feeling targeted. Now, the intention was to give marae the greatest protection that we could. The confusion that is being caused is that people think that we are specifically targeting marae. So what we’ve done is listen to the concerns of Māoridom. We’ve heard from the Māori Council. We’ve spoken to a number of people in our Māori community. We’ve seen the reaction to marae being in here specifically, so what we’re doing is removing that.

But Māoridom has to be careful what they wish for—that’s the problem—because what this now does is it reduces the protections that were being afforded to marae. I want to be clear that our intention was to give marae the best protection that we possibly could. We have heard the concerns. We have listened to Māori who think that marae are being particularly targeted. We’ve made the changes and listened to what Māoridom are saying.

So, unfortunately, it reduces the protections that were to be afforded to marae. But that is what Māoridom has asked for and that’s what the SOP does by deleting the definition of “specified private premises”—and in clause 20, we’re removing reference to “marae” specifically. But, I think, to be honest, that it isn’t really what should have been done; we should have maintained the protections for marae. But, because of the confusion, this is what we’ve done. Thank you, Mr Chair.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. So we’re here on Part 1 to discuss around the purpose. I’ve got some questions for the Minister David Parker. When this bill was introduced into the House earlier this sitting day, the Minister claimed, and this has been the case to public media as well, that the reason for this bill was to provide powers for enforcement of compliance under COVID-19 alert levels 1 and 2—2, in particular, given that that’s where we hope to be heading in a matter of hours. And yet it has been determined in this debate, or, in this committee stage, confirmed by the Minister and officials, that the powers in this bill are not limited to levels 1 and 2 but do provide a vehicle for compliance edicts and enforcement on any return to levels 3 or 4 as well.

So my question of the Minister is: why did he try to sell this bill to the public as being for levels 2 and possibly 1? Why, if it is about that, are the provisions not limited to COVID-19 alert levels 1 and 2? In the purpose statement, could it simply insert a clause in there to make that very clear, that this bill, and the provisions in this bill, and the particular conditions, the interpretations—that this bill applies to those specific alert levels?

How does the Minister reconcile a need for this bill for levels 3 and 4—how does he reconcile that with his own public statement that there was no enforcement gap under alert levels 3 and 4 and those health notices issued? Because if there was no enforcement gap, there is no need to nuance provisions for any potential return to level 3. His statement to the public was that what exists under the existing framework, such as the Epidemic Preparedness Act, the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act, and the powers under that—that they’re enough; that there was no gap. So why does this bill need to permit the provisions of this bill to apply to levels 3 or 4 when we’ve already got law to do that?

Because on the face of it, it looks like they just find that current law a little bit annoying and instead they want to reshape some provisions so they don’t get limited by what the limitations of that law are, and we may soon find out in court just what those limitations might be. But if they have that view, and the trifling annoyances of the law as it exists today isn’t good enough for them, then they should say so. And they didn’t. So why didn’t they? What is the justification?

Because most of these provisions are, in substance if not in exact wording, uplifted from those pieces of legislation anyway; for the elements that might nuance it, such as the Minister’s reference to marae and enforcement officers, those elements could be incorporated into the current structure by way of amendment of those Acts. They don’t need, inherently, a new Act, and they could have sunset clauses in those provisions in those amendment bills. So there is no fundamental, obvious need for this bill to apply to levels 3 and 4, particularly when the Government and that Minister said that this was all about going into level 2.

That fundamentally is important. I mean, this is about constraining civil liberties. It was told to the public it’s because there were nuances required for level 2 because, as we determined yesterday, it’s difficult to perpetuate a state of emergency under the risk profile of level 2. So yep, OK, we can understand that there is some need to be able to set compliance conditions and to enforce those, but it is not at all clear that those elements need to be able to incorporate conditions for level 3 and level 4.

So I’m particularly interested for the justification—one, the justification why this has to be level 3 and 4 encompassing as well, but also why weren’t they honest with the public? Why weren’t they upfront when they introduced this bill? Why were they not upfront and saying “Actually, this isn’t about level 1 and 2; this is about our ability to control your movements, your associations, your actions for any condition under COVID. We’re not happy with the constraints that exist on us as Government, so we want the freedom to be able to do whatever we want to do, when we want to do it, over the next two years.”?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): If I could respond to Mr Hudson’s points, the powers under this COVID bill are actually narrower than the powers under the Health Act. They’re narrower, and I’ll give you an example of that—I’ll give the committee an example of that. At the moment, under the Health Act notices that have been promulgated under section 70 of the Health Act, they have triggered a warrantless power of entry for the police that they don’t even have to report on. This bill says, going forward, even if we go back to level 3 or 4 in the future, the exercise of those powers has to be reported on in a more transparent way.

In respect of the issue that the member says that I’ve misrepresented the bill about being needed in respect of level 2, it is needed in respect of level 2. The point I’ve been making in the media is to be countering what I think is quite a damaging assertion that has been made by some members of the Opposition, that we needed this bill because of a lack of powers under level 3 and level 4. We didn’t—we didn’t.

Hon Member: Release your advice. Let’s see the legal advice.

Hon DAVID PARKER: He’s saying, “Release the legal advice.” Well, we’ve actually won that particular skirmish, because it’s now agreed that a select committee can’t do what the House says it can’t do, which is override legal professional privilege. But the idea that not releasing legal advice means that the legal advice says there’s something bad in there is just wrong and unprincipled, and the member knows that, because he’s legally experienced.

In respect of the issue as to why it is that you would want to use this new regime in respect of future level 3 or level 4 events, if perchance we have to go there—and we all hope we don’t have to go back there—it actually goes to the point that Mr Seymour made. The new framework actually creates more accountability, because it’s a ministerial decision rather than the Director-General of Health.

The further point that David Seymour made in relation to the definitions was saying that the purpose should be more than public health; it should be about economic factors. Well, actually, this is, effectively, a bespoke response to a health issue and, effectively, replaces the Health Act processes for COVID-19. I would say: in the future, the House will go back to those things more widely and actually propose more widely, in respect of the Health Act, a ministerial decision-making framework rather than a Director-General of Health decision-making framework, but that’s for the future. But with respect to David Seymour, whose contributions in this debate I have thought have been very good, as have other members’—

Hon Member: Because he’s voting for the bill.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I suspect he’s not, actually. That was a very cynical interjection there from the other side. People can make valuable contributions, even if they’re voting in an opposite way, to improve the bill before it’s eventually passed. But he said that the purpose clause should include reference to economic factors. I agree that the decision that the Government takes as COVID goes forward—because it’s a very unusual and long-lasting epidemic—needs to take into account economic factors in addition to health factors, and that is achieved in this bill by clause 9(b). It is achieved as David Seymour wanted economic factors to be taken into account in the decision that the Minister makes. That isn’t achieved through the purpose clause, clause 4; it’s the interrelationship between that clause 4 and clause 9(b) of the bill which makes that express point, but we come to that in Part 2.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, in response then to the Minister’s comments—his comment first of all that this bill is a narrower set of powers—he gave the example of the requirement to report on a warrantless entry. Well, quite frankly, that’s a good safeguard; that’s actually a really good idea. But back to my earlier point: why not make that an amendment into the Health Act, or into the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act for that matter, too? And it could also be limited particularly to a health epidemic or, indeed, to COVID-19 and it could even have a sunset clause. But if it is important, and, actually, I think it is important, the Government would have been better-off making that amendment in the existing Acts; not creating an entirely new framework.

So, another set of questions for the Minister, given he claims that this is a reduced set of powers. It’s pretty simple: for New Zealanders, what lockdown meant is the Government could tell them what to do. The Government, effectively, told them to stay at home. It told them the conditions under which they could leave their homes, whether it was to access an essential service such as a supermarket, to go to the pharmacy, or to go and get some exercise—and the Government placed constraints on what that exercise could be, where it could be, how far they could travel by vehicle for the purpose of exercise. The Government determined what businesses could open, not even, actually, under a framework of principle-base but, actually, the Government decided individually which business could open and which business could not. The Government was able, effectively, to lock down the country in level 3 and 4 that we’ve experienced, and the provisions in this bill enable them to do the same things. There is the ability under this bill, if it is enacted, to place the same level of constraints on people’s freedom of movement, their freedom of association—the Government can lock them up in their homes under the provisions of this bill, should it choose to.

What is more, it’s actually worse—the powers are greater—because, while the Government may have to give regard to advice from the Director-General of Health, it does not have to follow it, whereas—and I’m going to slightly impinge into Part 2, just by reference—under the existing legislation, it is the Director-General of Health that makes those decisions, not the Government. So, actually, they’re giving themselves more power and taking the power away—or lessening the power—of the apolitical and unelected officials who New Zealanders can have the trust in to make decisions without a political tinge. Rather than, as the Minister has said, making it more accountable, this simply makes it more political.

But to that point which the Minister made about these somehow being more constrained powers, they simply are not—not to the everyday effect of New Zealanders that they have felt for the last six or seven weeks. The Government, if this bill is enacted, can do all of the things it did to New Zealanders over that period under this bill, and it allows them to do it outside of the existing legal frameworks, which do provide limitations on the power of Government and, what is more, require the decisions to be made without a political tinge. So I find it quite astounding that the Minister, who must know these things, would seek to make such a claim in this House. This is a truly serious matter. This is not about limiting Government response; this is about empowering any politically founded response that they may choose to do so.

Also, because, of course, these provisions, or these powers, can be unlocked at the whim of a Prime Minister who just decides that they will move into a state which allows these, further protections for New Zealanders from political meddling are actually removed, because she or he could choose to do so counter to advice from officials, including the Director-General of Health. This is not a bill that is securing the civil liberties of New Zealanders; it is completely undermining them in a way that lessens the safeguards and constraints that the existing framework places.

I do agree with the Minister that there are gaps in the current frameworks for what we see as level 2 and possibly even level 1, but I don’t believe he has justified why an entirely new framework and law is required.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): That’s a very good point made by my colleague, because we’re being asked to pass this legislation because there is going to be no pandemic notice, there is going to be no state of civil emergency. So that raises the question: what is the basis for the fear that the Government has to the extent that they need to pass legislation that is going to seriously continue impinging on the civil liberties of New Zealanders? I don’t want to be here saying that we shouldn’t take any precautions, or that we shouldn’t be sensible, or that we shouldn’t watch the opportunities that we have to prevent the spread of this particular disease. But it appears that there is no trust that New Zealanders in the main can be sensible, because let’s be very clear, the New Zealanders who broke the rules during 4 and 3 will continue to break the rules under 2, regardless of any law that might be there. So why do we then need to impose such incredible restrictions on New Zealanders?

My colleague made the right point. Mr Hudson made it clear that it’s the Prime Minister under this bill who calls all the shots. Why isn’t there some kind of protection for the public in there needing to be some stream of demonstrable advice about why a particular measure is being taken? I’d like the Minister to address that, particularly the issue of no pandemic notice, no state of civil emergency. But somehow something driving a degree of fear in the Government that New Zealanders would not act sensibly, having so willingly, voluntarily—because it would appear there wasn’t any legal compulsion—interrupted their lives so dramatically as they have in the last seven weeks to get on top of this thing.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I’m happy to respond to some of those matters. Can I suggest that the Opposition can’t have it both ways. Well, they shouldn’t have it both ways. They can try, but they shouldn’t. They can’t say, on the one hand, economic matters need to be taken into account going forward because this is an unusual thing and we need to open up the economy and we can’t just do this only on health grounds, which is, essentially, what the director-general’s orders do now under the Health Act. To get past that, you need this legislation, which enables the Government because it’s now the Minister that takes those decisions, and the Minister can now expressly take into account economic factors as well as having to take into account the director-general’s public health advice. That’s the effect of this new legislation, which is different from the other.

The other additional protections here are that, for the orders that are now made under this legislation, there has to be a confirmation process under this House. There’s no such confirmation process under the existing Health Act. So that’s an additional protection that is there for New Zealanders, that we bring these things back to the House for every order—an additional protection that we’ve agreed through this process. Similar ideas were brought by both ACT and the National Party, which we agreed with. We thought these were improvements to the legislation, that rather than this having a two-year sunset we should have to come back every 90 days generally for confirmation that this bill, in respect of COVID itself, is carried forward.

As to the point of Mr Brownlee’s that we should trust everyone—actually, you know, New Zealanders, the 99 percent New Zealanders who do the right thing, don’t want their efforts to be put at risk by the 1 percent who refuse to and deliberately flout rules. And we saw that on the way in at level 3 in New Zealand. We saw it in my hometown of Dunedin, where people deliberately—student parties started up on private property that were really deliberately flouting it. Now, that might have been ignorance as we went in, but we have seen that sort of irresponsible conduct on the part of a very, very small minority of New Zealanders. The law does need to be able to say that’s not right and to enforce the rules that are necessary to stop the spread of COVID.

The final point I will make is that I actually agree that this is a very unusual disease. At the moment it appears that it’s not changing and morphing so fast that it will for ever stay ahead of a vaccine, because if this virus turns into something that mutates all the time, there is a view that you will never get to a vaccine. Currently, it looks like it’s not mutating that fast. And therefore, if we manage to maintain low levels of infection in New Zealand, we should be able to do that, we hope, until a vaccine comes along. If the virus started to mutate regularly and, therefore, there was no prospect of a vaccine, eventually society has to deal with it in a different way. And perhaps at that time it would be appropriate to say, “Look, there’s no hope of keeping this out for ever. The interim powers of allowing police officers to go in without a warrant to stop a big party at a private residence should be revisited because there’s no sense in doing it, because we can’t do this for ever.” But we’re not at that point yet.

We have so successfully as a country got this under control that we have a good chance that New Zealand is not going to suffer the appalling consequences that we’ve see in Italy, in Great Britain, in the United States, where thousands of people are dying and people who have got other health problems that are serious can’t get treatment because their hospital systems are overrun by COVID. We have stopped that in New Zealand and we’ve got the chance of—now, I’m going to finally, before I take my seat, refer to the point that David Seymour raised of that terribly sad case of a woman suffering a miscarriage and her partner not being able to join her in hospital. Why did the health authorities do that? Because they wanted to halve the rate of risk that they were, through that admission, admitting COVID to their hospital. We’ve got hospitals around the world—around the world, you see it in India, you see it in Great Britain—where we have got infection rife.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): With all due respect to the very emotional—unusually emotional—speech from the Hon David Parker, it was really a bit like pointing at a tree and saying, “Look at that; there’s a squirrel running up there.” Well, over here there’s a really serious issue. That serious issue is that there is no basis under the law at the moment for the director-general to declare a pandemic. There’s no basis under law at the moment for there to be a state of civil emergency to be declared. So if, in fact, the efforts of New Zealanders—which have been pretty splendid, I’ve got to say—have got us to this point, what’s the fear factor that says that we now can’t trust New Zealanders to do the right things moving forward?

Let’s be very clear. Those people that you cite, Minister—in the flat parties in Dunedin and various other things—are going to continue doing that sort of thing anyway. They’re nutters; they don’t listen and they don’t care. So to say, “Well, we’ve got to protect the population against the worst health effects that may come from that irresponsible behaviour.” tends to deny the fact that it is irresponsible to see so many New Zealanders day after day—1,000 a day, and probably more. It won’t be long before the daily toll of people going on to the jobseeker benefit, losing their jobs, unemployed, matches the entire number of people who’ve been infected by COVID virus over the last seven weeks.

So all we’re saying is this goes too far. It puts far too much power in the hands of one person: the Prime Minister. There are no—there are no—controls in this or suggestions in this or, you would say, references in this as to what advice the Prime Minister should take. Now, everyone knows Prime Ministers take advice. Everyone knows, also, Prime Ministers can make decisions that their whole caucus will go along with. But to legislate in here for that particular power, I think, is somewhat over the top.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I take a short call in response to a couple of comments from the Attorney-General, David Parker. I apologise, I missed part of his comment, but what I got from him was that it was not necessary to set out in any explicit terms the need to balance the other concerns New Zealanders have such as their rights and freedoms—

Hon David Parker: That’s not what I said.

DAVID SEYMOUR: —and their welfare in the purpose. He’s now saying to me that’s not what he said, but he seemed to be saying that because clause 9(b)—and that’s in Part 2 and we’re not currently debating Part 2—but because clause 9(b) has a reference where it says the Minister must have regard to any decision by the Government on the level of public health measures appropriate to respond to the risks or remedy the effects and then in brackets, “(which decision may have taken into account any social, economic, or other factors)”. So I take the Minister’s point that the bill does include the concern for other factors: people’s rights and freedoms; their right to protect their livelihood, do their business, and so on. However, I just make the point that when pushed to refer to that, the Attorney-General has referred us to something in clause 9(b) that’s actually in brackets and I don’t think that is an adequate prominence for the fact that the Government needs to be balancing a range of competing objectives when it puts in place these orders. I just come back—I don’t think those are particularly helpful, but it’s worth mentioning since the Attorney-General’s picked it up.

The logic of separating couples going into hospital for childbirth is that actually they had their bubble divided. If anything, they were put at greater risk. The idea that an intimate couple who are having a baby wouldn’t have already infected each other if one or the other had it does not seem logical to me. It’s more likely that they’re going to infect each other if one of them is forced to go outside and pace around the carpark and take a different route through the hospital from the other. And, of course, that the illogic of those orders compounds when you consider that actually in most cases, such as Dr David Cumin, who happens to be a personal friend of mine and a lecturer at the University of Auckland, a fine proponent of civil liberties in this country—well, he was also separated from his partner in the course of childbirth. But the crazy thing is he went into the hospital, then he came out, so the bubble was together then divided. The hospital actually increased the chance of spreading COVID, including into the hospital. I don’t think there’s a lot of point debating this, because it’s not entirely relevant to the bill, but it does speak to the need to consider very carefully the impacts of this legislation, not only on COVID-19 but on the other rights and freedoms that people cherish in this country.

We also come on to the later sections and I don’t think there’s a huge amount that needs to be said about that, other than this question around specified private premises. Now, I can understand the obvious sensitivity of differentiating marae from the rest of the private dwellings that New Zealanders have. We don’t like the idea that there are two legal regimes—that one race are singled out—obviously, and I think it’s important that the Government is trying to address that issue. But so far as I can see, and perhaps the Attorney-General can tell us, specified private premises still names a dwelling a private dwellinghouse or marae, so I don’t know what the objective is anymore. Are we trying to say that marae and Māori are different or the same when we distinguish marae from private dwellinghouses in the interpretation?

So lots to debate—and I think it shows, having this debate, how important it is that New Zealand’s laws are actually debated in a Parliament. And for that, I really thank the Attorney-General for bringing this bill to the House and now to committee. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): The issues that come up in Part 2, I’ll leave for Part 2. The issue in respect of the definition of “a private dwelling” in this Part 1, what I said earlier, and I’m not sure whether the member had the opportunity to hear it, was that proposed addition to the definitions of “specified private premises means a private dwellinghouse or marae” is coming out. We’re reverting, then, to the original wording in the bill in clause 20, but when we get to that we are taking out the words “or marae” so that we don’t have that distinction.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): I just stand to take a call on this Part 1. We heard in this House, the Prime Minister declare the reasons for the speed of this process. It was not only because of the pandemic but that in order to mitigate that speed of the process, we had the opportunity to have an exposure draft sent out to those of concern, those who would make a contribution.

In regards to this bill, I want to ask a number of questions to the Attorney-General. In particular, he’s made comments in regards to marae being taken out. But I want to ask him the first question: when did he receive the advice that was given from the exposure draft given to Māori? I’ve got a list of a number of Māori academics and those who are quite prominent in Māoridom but also in the judicial system, both in academic and in practice, who gave some advice. I’d like to know from the Minister: when did he receive that advice? And when he did receive that advice, how did he accommodate for the advice that was given by Māoridom, in this particular instance, to the issues of concern that were raised?

The Minister has stood in the House—and I acknowledge the fact of the changes that have been made through the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I acknowledge the fact that the Hon Kelvin Davis had explained the reason for this, that there had been others. The Attorney-General talked about Willie Jackson. There were others in the Māori Council who talked about this. And then he gave a definition, an interpretation, as the reasons it was taken out. But I want to remind the Minister, because I’m sure that he has read the advice that was given to him, which was given quite early on, by the way, to those—earlier than we received it. We received it around about half past 5 on a Monday afternoon. So this consultation process I think should be challenged.

But here’s some of the advice that was given by those to the Attorney-General, I’m sure, and to the Government. Their first statement was this: “There is neither a general Treaty clause nor any obligation to have regard to the Treaty or its principles at any point of decision making or performance of functions under the Act.” That’s exactly the point. While I acknowledge the changes that have been made through the SOP, the point is that when you have a reference point, you can then determine the decisions so that you don’t make the mistakes to try and change them or to try and define whether you need further consultation with others around. Why? Because you’re guided by the determination of the principles that are here.

Can I remind us in the committee, not just the Attorney-General, that the Treaty of Waitangi is based on the principle of a word called kawenata. Not just partnership, kawenata is about a covenant, and here’s what it clearly states and here’s the reasons why I think that’s important: because a covenant, in the meaning of kawenata, is a covenant, a testament, a charter, a contract. It’s an undertaking that binds parties to a permanent moral and irrevocable relationship. That’s the reasons why we have it, and at the heart of a bill that’s coming before this House. Again, we don’t challenge the what—we know what needs to happen—we’re challenging the why. What I’m challenging here today is this: that at the heart of this relationship which is a foundation of this nation, of two peoples that are reflected in the covenant relationship, why was it not taken into account? You can change the deck chairs, you can change the SOPs to accommodate, to make it look like it appeases people, but at the heart of it you’ve forgotten the principles that are critically important.

I say this to the committee. I say this to the history and the heritage of this place, because we’re all accountable. But I’m now saying to you that is in charge, to you that is in a position where you are in charge of this bill, that if you cannot uphold a covenant relationship between Māoridom—and I say this to you and to the nation of New Zealand—then you’re not upholding a relationship of trust with the people of New Zealand, because that’s what it goes to the heart of. If you cannot understand the key principles of what that means—sorry, Mr Chair; I didn’t want to bring you into the debate, but to the Government of the day: if you cannot take into account the advice that was given in the exposure draft that the Prime Minister stood in this House and said was critically important because of the speed of the process, we wanted to acknowledge and to engage, and yet they have been forgotten like the funeral directors, like those in the churches, like those in other places around the country.

The nation is waking up to see that under this Government, it’s not the what that people are arguing; it’s the how you are going about it. You are giving extraordinary powers. You’re going to the point where the goodwill that has been given by this nation to the governance of this country to lead us to a place of safety and wellbeing is now being trashed and taken away.

I want to just finish off my comments there, but I want to say to the Minister that the question is: when did he receive those comments? How did he accommodate the views that were stated—and there were a number of them—in this report that I have before me? How did he accommodate them, or was it just a casual conversation? You mentioned about Willie Jackson—can I also say that when you use the definition and your interpretation of “marae”, that they had dual roles not only as places of cultural significance but also as social services, well, I’d like to say the same thing too. That goes the same for churches. The number of churches that are now having a dual role of not only places of worship but also places of serving their community through the outreach of social services is right up and down this country, so they are no different at the same time too. So I don’t buy the excuse or the reasons that were given that those maraes have a dual role.

I’d like the Minister to answer those questions. I’d like him to take in consideration that was given to him in the exposure draft that was submitted and, again, to answer the question: why is it that those views and those comments were not taken into consideration and all we’re doing now is just trying to tidy up? It’s just like we got the rubber; we’re going to rub it out. We’re going to change it, put it in an SOP, Part 2, make it look like it accommodates and appeases the people. This is not just for Māoridom; this is for all New Zealanders, who are starting to wake up that their civil liberties and their civil rights—the goodwill is about to run out, and when it does you’ll see a backlash of people starting to say enough is enough.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 497 in his name to clause 5 be agreed to:

delete the definition of specified private premises.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Amendment to the amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 497 be agreed to. All those in favour say Aye, to the contrary No—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know it’s unusual for me to even seek this when you have started the vote, but this is a very important bill, and I think it would be useful, rather than just hearing the numbers, if on this particular occasion we could hear what the amendments are, because some of them quite clearly will make the bill better, and regardless of our view on the bill, then we would want to support those bits of the bill that make it better. I know that’s unusual, so can I seek leave for that to happen?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Can I just take some advice on that.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yeah, yeah, most certainly, sir—sorry.

Hon David Parker: Could I speak to the point of order? This is an unusual situation. I understand what the shadow Leader of the House is seeking, and I think that the intention of the Opposition was to support the bill coming back every 90 days to Parliament, or the powers coming back every 90 days. My understanding of the vote that has just been taken is that, actually, the National Party voted the reverse on Supplementary Order Paper 497, so I would seek leave that the vote be put again.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, in any event, there is a facility available. The Clerk might want to advise you, sir, but my understanding is that a vote can be corrected, and in that case, then I would take this opportunity to ask, before you declare the final result, that our vote for that particular provision is in favour.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The vote that has taken place is on the definition of “specified private premises”. So the National Party voted No. If the member is telling—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: But that was on the premises stuff?

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. For clarity, the point that Alfred Ngaro raised, which was in respect of marae, is in the first Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), and if the National Party wanted all premises to be treated the same, including marae, they would vote in favour of that SOP.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: And that’s the correction of the vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): OK. Well, I think we’ve had the leave sought that we have that vote again, and I’m inclined to put that leave and expect that we’ll take that vote again. So leave has been sought that the vote on amending the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 497—an amendment to clause 5—be retaken. There’s no objection, so that will be the case.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 497 in his name to clause 5 be agreed to:

delete the definition of specified private premises.

Amendment to the amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 497 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): David Seymour’s amendment to clause 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 494 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. The Hon Simon Bridges’ amendments to clause 3 set out on SOP 499 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Provisions to limit the risk of outbreak or spread of COVID-19

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): This is the part that has the powers that can be specified in a clause 11 order, which is the equivalent of the old section 70 orders under the Health Act. I make the point that all of the powers that are listed there have broader equivalence under the Health Act. So why this is, we think, desirable is that this makes it clear that you can have narrower versions of those powers—for example, rather than closing premises, it’s made express that premises can be conditionally open so that rather than them being closed, they are open albeit with rules relating to maximum numbers and social distancing.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chairman. This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak in this House since the COVID-19 emergency, and it is with a great deal of unease, specifically on the provisions that are in this COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill, Part 2. My unease is that, at the time when the Government is calling for unity and for anybody that questions provisions of its programme is somehow being disloyal to the cause of this country confronting the challenges of COVID-19, we have the Government exercising extraordinary powers over people’s lives, and we have quite arbitrary decisions being made on the exercise of freedoms that I never thought would ever be questioned in this Parliament. My nervousness is this: only two weeks ago, this Parliament under urgency passed legislation very different to what the Minister told the House it was doing. We passed a massive finance bill, spending billions of dollars, that was completely different to what the Minister said. And that is why it is proper that this Parliament scrutinises this legislation.

The bit that I am at loss, and my community in Nelson is at loss, is in respect of the provisions in Part 2 of this bill as they relate to gatherings of people. Nobody in this Parliament would question the emotion of funerals and the way in which people are able to farewell loved ones. I have a letter, which I’ll table, from my local funeral association that says, “How do we explain to Nelsonians and to New Zealanders that you can have 100 people in a bar, you can have 100 people in a restaurant, but you can’t have more than 10 people under level 2 at a funeral? You can have 50 people on a school bus, but you can’t have more than 10 at a funeral.” When I hear the Prime Minister say to New Zealanders, “Oh, you’ve got to be united. It’s unfair to question these arbitrary rulings.” I say to the Minister, actually, in a democracy, it is absolutely proper that we can ask questions of regulations and proposals that lack common sense, that lack compassion, and which do not respect basic things like religious freedom. I’d love the Minister to explain this for me. In a bar—myself and others, I enjoy a good beer at my local. Actually, I see far more capacity to be able to do contact tracing and to be able to manage social distancing at a place of worship as compared with a bar. So can the members in the Government please explain for me why my churches in Nelson will not, under level 2, be able to practise worship with the proper controls, but those same groups will be able to hop down to the local bar with 100 people and have an ale? I’m sorry; it does not make common sense. It’s insulting to the intelligence of New Zealanders, and, actually, it’s insulting to one of the most basic freedoms in this dear country of ours, and that is the issue of religious freedom.

Here’s my further point for the Minister: what this bill says is the Opposition is right—that under level 1 and level 2, the Government was acting unlawfully.

Hon Andrew Little: No, it doesn’t.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We should have seen legislation of this sort four weeks ago, Mr Little. My question for Mr Little, the Minister of Justice, is this: six weeks ago, the Government announced a framework—

Hon Andrew Little: How would you believe him?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I’ve put up with continuous interjection from the Minister of Justice, Mr Andrew Little. I’d invite him to take a call on such a serious issue rather than the continuous practice of interjection when we’re talking about issues as important as the rights of New Zealanders, an issue of which he has responsibility for.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I don’t need any help, but that’s not actually a point of order, and this is a wide-ranging debate and interjection—I will decide when it’s unreasonable. The member may continue.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: So transparency and openness is absolutely critical to our country being united in dealing with the issues of COVID-19. My question for the Minister of Justice is this: the Government announced, six weeks ago, the level 1, 2, 3, 4 process for dealing with COVID-19; why is Parliament only being given 24 hours to debate the law that provides the extraordinary powers that the Government announced six weeks ago? What sort of respect does it show Parliament and New Zealand’s democracy that the Government develops a level system—1, 2, 3, 4—and turns up with the legislation one day before it comes into effect? Is that really good lawmaking, Mr Parker? Why is it that Parliament has not been able to have a look at this sort of law rather than, effectively, being given 24 hours? What is it in the culture and the arrogance of this Government that it can have six weeks with its officials around such issues of what people will be able to do and not do under level 2, but Parliament is to be given less than a day to approve such far-reaching law changes?

Now, I do challenge the Minister that if you want to keep New Zealand united, if you want to keep our response as a country to this challenge, then you also need to meet the transparency test. I say, what good reason does the Government have for not releasing the Crown Law opinion on the application of level 4 controls?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That’s a good question to ask, but it’s not actually in this part.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, it’s absolutely relevant to the issues in Part 2.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, yeah, but we are actually debating Part 2, so I’d ask you—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, it’s relevant to the issues of Part 2, because I put this to you, Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are you arguing with me?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I’m not arguing. I’m saying that the issue of the Crown Law advice on the legality of level 4 controls—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Related to which part?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —is absolutely relevant to the issues in Part 2 of this bill, because it’s attempting to codify the very things that the Government has done under levels 3 and 4. So my question for the Minister is this: why, if it was perfectly legal to exercise controls that were far more powerful, far more restrictive, under level 4, do we need to legislate in Part 2 of this bill for the controls under level 2? Because, in effect, what the Government is saying is: “Oops, we overstretched on level 4. The legislation to enforce what we did under level 4 should’ve been provided then, but now, as sort of a backfill measure, with a lower level of restrictions, we now recognise that we have to legislate.” Again, I say, if you want the sort of goodwill for New Zealanders to back a collective effort, 5 million New Zealanders, then what we ask of the Government is openness and transparency, and we have not seen that.

The last point I would want to make in respect to Part 2 of this bill is why exclude the largest party in Parliament, the party which received the most votes and has the greatest democratic mandate from the last election, from any say in the extraordinary regulations that you’re asking for in clause 11 of this Part 2? Why should the over a million New Zealanders that voted for the 55 members of the National Party not have any role or say in the regulations? We’ve moved an amendment that says that the Prime Minister should consult with the Leader of the Opposition if they are going to proceed with the powers, because what this bill does is transfer extraordinary powers from the Parliament to the executive—to the Government of the day. The Government of the day represents three parties—the Labour, the New Zealand First, and the Green Party—but excludes any involvement of the party that actually holds the majority of the constituency seats and secured the most votes at the last election.

So, again, I say to the Government that if you want unity, if you want New Zealand to hold it together and to be able to deal with the challenges of COVID-19, then the quid pro quo is that you respect democracy, respect this Parliament, and have, at the very least, a requirement for the Prime Minister to consult with the Leader of the Opposition about the sorts of regulations that would be passed to put these extraordinary limits on where people can worship, whether they can leave their home, whether they can open their business—whether they can do those such things.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Responding to some of the points that the Hon Dr Smith has made—or is it Dr the Hon Smith? According to the Lockwood Smith precedent—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It’s the “Honourable Doctor”.

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Hon Dr Smith. This legislation sets up the framework; it doesn’t make the orders. Therefore, this framework has to contemplate future orders, including, we say, in respect of what we should do in the future, should we have to go back to level 3 or 4 in a more nuanced way than we actually did as we went through those levels today. Therefore, it is not this legislation that sets what the size of a gathering should be, what the difference should be in a funeral, or a wedding, or a tangi, or a private party; that is for the orders that are made under it.

They are very proper questions for the Opposition to ask, and it is proper for the Opposition to question those, but that isn’t what this legislation is doing; this is legislation that sets up the framework that has to cover various exigencies that may arise in the future. In respect of the assertion that is made by Dr Smith that this somehow means that the powers that were exercised under the earlier orders—that’s not logically connected and that’s not correct. In respect of the issue—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well, release the opinion—release it.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, there we go again. We have the Opposition having quite improperly attacked the basis of legal professional privilege, saying the reason that we’re asserting our legal professional privilege is because we’ve got something to hide in respect of those enforcement powers. It just shows you how populist and desperate they have become that they link those two arguments, because they actually know—I would suggest to the public—that they’re wrong in principle. In respect of the issue as to whether the Leader of the Opposition should be included in these things, I would suggest to you that it is the executive that is held to account for governmental action, and that is the traditional form of accountability that we are restoring through this bill, meaning that it is the Minister that has to take into account, under Part 2, the advice from the director-general, can take into account economic factors as a consequence.

We offered the Leader of the Opposition a confidential briefing on the legal advice that they so desperately wanted to see, but he didn’t want to see it on that confidential basis. We’re quite happy with the ability of the Government to take these decisions wisely and to be held to account by the Opposition, including in respect of orders that are made under this legislation. Indeed, we think that is the appropriate way for our parliamentary democracy to operate, including the ability of the Opposition to hold us to account through discussions in this Parliament at question time, through the 90-day review of this legislation, whether it’s been appropriately dealt with by the Government. But we don’t think it’s appropriate that the Leader of the Opposition have the role that is sought by the Opposition in their Supplementary Order Paper, and so we’ll be voting against that particular Supplementary Order Paper.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Well, there we have it from the Minister. This part is totally the “Henry VIII” provision—no consultation required by the Prime Minister, just wake up in the morning, bit of a whim, and we’ll shut a few things down. Now, that might be a massive oversimplification, but it is the reality of the power that’s contained in this particular provision. If it is—well, I see one member over there laughing, but I know what that member’s electoral fortunes are going to be in a few months’ time, as a result of that sort of laughter.

Let me be very clear—let me be very clear. This bill confers an enormous amount of power on one person, effectively the Prime Minister. Everybody else is a step down from that, and everybody else loops back to the Prime Minister. Now, Prime Ministers do eventually have to make calls; no one is going to dispute that. But there is normally a process that’s much more defined than we’ve got in this case. There’s no need for the Prime Minister to consult with anybody. But what would be so hard with actually saying, “The circumstances in the country, from a health perspective, are so dire, we now need to introduce even more stringent measures.” Because that’s really what this is about.

Yes, it does make legal what this level 2 arrangement is about, but it will circle back on level 3 or level 4 if that’s required. So what is so hard in that circumstance to consult with the Leader of the Opposition? What is so hard about that? Doesn’t mean the Prime Minister has to do what the Leader of the Opposition tells her or him, whoever it might be; it simply means that the Opposition is informed.

Now, there could be some reasonable discussion about what eventually goes into the section 11 notices that are part of this part. Section 11 notices can be incredibly Draconian. We’re seeing what has happened to small businesses. You know, people driving past the butcher, the baker, and various other small businesses to go to the supermarket, apparently to stay safe, but by congregating in a place where everybody is touching everything, and, bluntly, the ability for people to maintain social distance was difficult. But that can happen again: preference, effectively, for one delivery service over another.

If there is a view—and it’s just stated here—that there could be the spread of the virus or there could be an exacerbation to the pandemic level, then in that event, why not consult with the other side of the House? No one’s going to do or recommend anything that said that’s crazy or anti or not going to be in the best interests of New Zealanders. But I do think this is far too restrictive in its conference of power, effectively, to make these decisions on one person. So I’d like to ask the Minister to just run through again what he thinks the process would be when the Prime Minister reaches a conclusion that there is a risk of an outbreak or the spread of COVID-19 and has decided to authorise the use of section 11 notices. Because it looks light—it looks light.

The interesting thing is that one of the things that can be done is that once the Prime Minister makes that decision by Gazette notice, it’s the Minister of Health who steps in to do these things, and that Minister may have regard to any decision by the Government on how to respond. In other words, it is proof positive, written in the law, it all goes back to the Prime Minister. I think that’s dangerous in a free country.

We have a Westminster democracy. It does work; it means we have to go through processes. Everyone doesn’t get what they want. But a Government that’s duly installed is able to pass laws as long as they can keep their own people onside or their coalitions onside. That’s how it works. But they do have to go through a process, except in this case. To say, “Well, look, we’ve now agreed that there’s a three-month review.” Well, that’s good; it’s great there’s a three-month review. All that will do is notify the public about why things are continuing, in a formal sense. No one should be under any illusion that there will be some kind of free vote in the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I want to respond to the question, or the assertion, of the Hon Gerry Brownlee—and I wrote it down. He said, “Nobody’s going to do what is not in the interests of New Zealand.”, as to why we should consult with the Leader of the Opposition.

I’m going to put on record what’s just been happening in the last week. The Leader of the Opposition, having been offered a confidential brief of legal—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You tried to gag him.

Hon Member: Gagging order.

Hon Member: It’s called legal privilege.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! Order! Order! All of you.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition, having been offered a confidential look at the legal advice he seemed so desperate to see, said he didn’t want to receive it because he wanted to make it public. He is a lawyer. He knows that legal professional privilege does not exist on that basis.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It can be waivered at any time.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, it can be waived, but it’s not for the Opposition to waive it; it is for the Attorney-General to waive it. It is an over 100-year-old precedent of this Parliament, entrenched in the legislation of this House, that it is not even for Parliament to waive that privilege. The Leader of the Opposition then purported to issue a summons to require that privilege to be waived, and said that he would override it.

It is for the Government to make these decisions, and we will. We will be held to account for the decisions that we will make, but they are governmental decisions. We are introducing further scrutiny through the provisions in this bill, but we are not going to devolve those decision-making responsibilities to the Opposition.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I will call the Hon Gerry Brownlee, but I just make the point that, actually, this bill in front of us here does not contain anything about releasing documents, whether they’re legally privileged—so let’s make sure that we are focused on the clauses in the bill.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Look, the clock hasn’t gone back to zero, so I’ll take a point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That’s because I haven’t done it.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: My point of order is that—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh, it’s a point of order?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh, I beg your pardon.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, no, hang on, oh, was that—oh, yeah, that’s right. My—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The Minister was on his feet, yeah.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yeah, my point is—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You’re taking a point of order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes, just to make it clear with you, so I don’t stray into the wrong sort of territory, that the issue is about the consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. The Minister has said the reason for them not wanting to put it in the bill—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I understand that.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: —relates to the release of documents. It’s impossible not to mention the release of documents in some rebuttal of his position. So, with that, can I make my start?

Hon David Parker: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, I’m not actually quite sure what the point of order is, because this is a debatable point. All I did was make sure that we were directing the conversation in this committee towards the provisions in the bill. So I don’t really think there’s a point of order, and I’m happy to continue with the discussion.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): So there the Minister goes again, pointing at another tree to show us another squirrel: “Look at that; it’s running up over there. Forget about what’s over here.” All we have said is, when these provisions are being enacted, why can’t there be a consultation with the Leader of the Opposition? It affects all New Zealanders—all New Zealanders. So it’s only reasonable that the Leader of the Opposition should be consulted when the Prime Minister makes one of these unilateral decisions.

To bring in this silly argument that because the Leader of the Opposition dared to say that the public of New Zealand should know the lawful basis on which the Government acted is somehow a complete contravention of all things democratic is totally wrong. It is the fundamental point in a democracy that a Government acts lawfully, and if they were they would release the documents, but they’re not. They know they’ve pushed it right to the edge. They know it’s been a marginal call, and they probably know that if they release those documents, anybody who’s been slung into court who should have been because they were breaching the rights of other New Zealanders will probably walk free.

The Minister sits there and laughs. Well, what’s he hiding? Because he’s hiding something. And for him to say that “Because I’ve chosen to hide something and the Leader of the Opposition has had the audacity to challenge my right to do that, we don’t want him consulted over things that would be of huge importance to all New Zealanders.” Any track back to the sort of situation we’ve had over the last seven weeks is even more disastrous than what New Zealanders are going to have to put up with for years to come as a result of that. But, apparently, no, the Government of the day knows so much that they don’t need to at least consult on such Draconian methods. That, I think, is very, very sad, and I think is a disappointment for a Government that touts itself as being so open, so transparent, and so in touch with the needs of New Zealanders. Well, I tell you what, there are all sorts of political regimes throughout the world who make the same claims with just a little bit more disastrous effect.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am picking up specifically on Part 2, clause 20, and I’ve also got Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 497 in front of me, which relates to those very clauses. I want to pick up the reasons why the definition of “marae” has been included in the original text, and I also wanted to ask the Auditor-General if that SOP that is now going to remove the words—the definition of the word “marae” is on the table. There is a longstanding legal use of having to single out marae because of the differentiation between private dwellings and the grey area where marae fit. So I understand it was included in that respect, but in Part 2, clause 20, “Powers of entry”, it singles out marae specifically originally to actually overlay an extra threshold of protection and criteria so that warrantless entry can happen, and we are seeking to remove marae—and I will come to the context of why that too has happened, but it also then removes those extra layers of protection.

So I will just pick up on the Part 2 part of the bill, and it is something that the Greens absolutely believe needs to be scrutinised—these warrantless powers—and absolutely uphold that there needs to be public conversation. Some of that we’ve heard just overnight in the community on social media. But we worked to provide an extra layer of protection around warrantless entry that included for marae needing to have extra grounds or reasonable grounds, and that they would only enter premises if it was necessary to direct people to disperse. There were a number of extra thresholds that were worked on in the current version of the bill. And the SOP—I’m wanting some clarity as to whether those extra protections remain or whether the marae now has the same status as every other venue and place.

I’m hoping that I can address the context of why, I also understand, removing the word “marae”, from our perspective, is important, because there has been public outrage as to that inclusion of the words, feeling that marae were being unduly targeted, particularly in that Part 2, clause 20, of the bill. That outrage acknowledges a longstanding historical, current, and colonial context of the justice system being unfairly applied to target Māori communities, brown communities, and low-income communities. The police themselves have acknowledged that longstanding legacy, and I do acknowledge the ongoing work that they are wanting to do to correct that and to have a different approach. But that is one of the changes that has come through in, I think, SOP 497, but it certainly addresses Part 2, clause 20. Then I simply wanted to put on record that that outrage has come from a particular context and has brought us to some changes which we are seeing today, which I am supporting for that purpose. But some misinformation has also been drummed up, including by the Opposition members around the meaning and the inclusion of the word “marae” in the very first place.

In my final time left on this particular call, I understand—again, we’re going to clause 20, “Powers of entry”—the reasons and the hardships that people have faced with the interruption to our ordinary liberties. We’ve all felt that in many different ways, and particular groups and people and sectors have felt it in big massive ways. We need this legal framework to be able to sit behind alert level 2, and so on and so forth. I do welcome the change to review—rather than have the two-year outset sunset clause, we will actually review at more regular and closer terms. I think that that’s absolutely something that we all should welcome, and I’m very pleased to see that happen also. But I think just if the Auditor-General could explain a little bit more about the inclusion of the word “marae”.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Yes, essentially, the member is correct in her description. For the reasons that she’s outlined, the combination of these two Supplementary Order Papers is that—assuming they are passed by the committee—if they were to be passed, then section 20(2) then reads: “However, subsection (1) does not apply to a private dwellinghouse” and there is no reference to marae.

There is the protection left, which has been inserted at subsection (8), that if a marae was entered as a private dwellinghouse—and that’s a question of law as to whether it is a private dwellinghouse; we’ve had that discussion previously as to there being a number of roles that maraes undertake, for want of a better word—then the power that’s exercised triggers a requirement to send a copy of the report that has to be sent to someone senior in the police and also to the committee of the relevant marae.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to acknowledge the outrage that the co-leader of the Green Party expressed a moment ago about the point that she was making, and also I acknowledge the fact that the Attorney-General has just responded to that. But I am left wondering why the co-leader of the Green Party and her colleagues are not expressing similar outrage to some of the very Draconian measures that this House, this committee at this stage, is being asked to enact in Part 2 of this bill. Because the Green Party has a very long—and they would consider proud—tradition in this country of protesting against attacks on civil liberties and constraints of our freedoms, and they have been extraordinarily silent in all of those matters on this particular bill to this point. So I just ask them to explain to their own members, who are fond of getting out to protest, participating in every demonstration that’s going around the country, why they are so silent on this particular Draconian piece of legislation.

Now, I’d just like to throw my support behind two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) relevant to Part 2 that are in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. The first is SOP 500, in which he was seeking to have the restrictions that are being placed on funerals, tangihanga, weddings, and other services—not just in Christian churches, but in places of worship right around the country, this very diverse multicultural country that we have—lifted, because I have been inundated in the last 24 hours by messages of concern by people throughout New Zealand and I’m sure members opposite must have been, as well. I feel it personally. I want to echo the very moving words of my colleague Simeon Brown, the MP for Pakuranga, when he spoke on this topic—it might have been late last night, I think.

New Zealanders value their right to worship. That is a freedom and a human right that we should never take away from them. The reason why I support this SOP so strongly is because worshippers, whether it’s in a temple or a synagogue or a mosque or a church or wherever they might worship—I don’t know where Zoroastrians worship, but wherever they worship, and I’m pleased finally that I’ll be able to tell my younger daughter I’ve worked Zoroastrians into a debate—they should be trusted to worship responsibly. I say to the funeral directors, the celebrants, the ministers—anyone who would be organising a service of that type, particularly for those who are grieving—we respect the work you do and we trust you to enforce the rules, as you always would do and as would be absolutely simple for you to do in those places of worship.

How utterly ludicrous that 50 or more people can go to the cinema and be trusted to sit with appropriate physical distancing but 100 people can’t be trusted to go to a funeral in a large church and observe the same rules. That is nonsense. We have called it out constantly. I’m asking one more time, in this committee stage, for the Government—and not just Labour members, but New Zealand First and the Greens as well—to stand up for the rights of those New Zealanders to worship responsibly and not to impose upon them this Draconian, utterly unjustifiable, ludicrous constraint, which is actually going to engender contempt for the law rather than respect for it.

The other SOP I wish to speak in favour of is SOP 501. I endorse the words of my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith, when he spoke earlier. The National Party holds the majority of electorates in this House. We are the largest party in the Parliament. We accept we’re not in the Government—there’s no argument about that—but, nevertheless, given the important role we as an Opposition have in our constitutional framework, I strongly echo the plea for the Leader of the Opposition to be included in the consultation process. I also acknowledge David Seymour as an electorate MP and his concerns about some of these matters.

There is good constitutional precedent. We’ve seen it with the Epidemic Response Committee, which the Leader of the Opposition has been presiding over very responsibly and very fairly; members of all parties have been involved. The same principle should apply in this particular important phase—if this bill is going to go through, and the Government has the numbers to do it—to at least ensure that the Leader of the Opposition can also be consulted.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I say affectionately that it takes a legal vulture to bring Zoroastrians into the religious discussion here—and the member who’s just taken his chair, Tim Macindoe, will get the amusing reference that I’m trying to make there. I do accept the point that is made about religious liberties; they’re very important. I make the point that the effect of this on religious liberties arises from orders that are made under framework legislation, and I repeat that why the Government will be voting against that Supplementary Order Paper 500 is that we have to contemplate future orders being able to take religious gatherings to limited numbers, as they have been in recent weeks, down to, essentially, zero, at which point religious gatherings have had to be online. It’s an undesirable outcome, but that’s where we have been.

The question as to what we do for funerals, whether the limit should be 10 or 20 or 100, as the member would say, is an issue for the notices that are promulgated under clause 11 notices or, previously, section 70 notices under the Health Act. This doesn’t do more than those section 70 notices can already do; it, effectively, carries that forward should we have to go up to level 3 or 4 again in the future.

In respect of the question as to what is appropriate under level 2, I, again, accept that that is an appropriate issue for the Opposition to question, and they should do that, in my opinion, through the criticisms or otherwise of the section 70—now clause 11—notices, rather than through the breadth of discretion that may be necessary in the future under the clause 11 notice, and that’s why we will be voting against that. I think I’ve made it clear the Government’s position and reasoning for it in respect of the other Supplementary Order Papers that are already on the Table.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to pick up on Part 2 of this legislation, and, in particular, clause 9. It says that the “Minister may make section 11 orders”, and I actually think that’s one of the better parts of this bill, because the principle that’s been advanced is that the person making orders that limit New Zealanders’ freedoms at least should be somebody that we have the opportunity to vote out. As Karl Popper said, the best you can say for democracy and the main purpose of it is that it allows the people to bloodlessly remove bad Governments. So that’s not a bad starting principle.

The difficulty we have is that there seems to be a lot of confusion in the bill about the comparative role of the unelected Director-General of Health and the elected Minister of Health. Now, I suspect the people of Dunedin North may actually decide to bloodlessly remove their local member, he of the lockdown bike ride, but what they will never be able to do is remove the director-general. There is no Director-General of Health on any ballot paper in any election in New Zealand. The problem is that the way the bill was introduced, it does give considerable powers to the director-general, and, worse than that, in a way, the powers of the director-general are greater than the Minister—in some ways they are; in some ways they’re not. This is something that deserves to be debated and is the purpose of a committee stage.

The Minister, according to clause 9, must, before they make any kind of order restricting New Zealand’s freedoms for the purpose of battling COVID-19, consult the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister, any other Minister that he thinks fit—that’s clause 9(1)(c). They must “have … regard to any [other] decision by the Government on the level of public health measures appropriate”, it says. So there’s actually quite a lot that the Minister has to consider, and they have to give a 48-hour notice before any public health measures come into effect. All of this, I would say, is a vast improvement on the kind of seat-of-the-pants, unclear, and arbitrary diktat to which New Zealanders were subject during level 4 and level 3 of this COVID-19 crisis.

But where it gets difficult is that the Director-General of Health can also introduce measures that restrict New Zealanders’ freedoms—in fact, in all the ways that a section 11 notice allows your freedoms to be restricted. You can be stopped, stopped from gathering, stopped from doing certain things, stopped from moving things around the country, stopped from opening a business, stopped from going to your church or worshiping, having a funeral—just about anything you can be stopped from doing under a section 11 notice, and the director-general can issue them. So we support the principle of the democratically elected Minister being able to do it; what we don’t support is the principle of the unelected director-general being able to issue these notices. The director-general doesn’t have to consult the Prime Minister, doesn’t have to consult any other Ministers such as the Minister of Justice. He can just make the decision unilaterally.

So, in many ways, the director-general actually has greater powers than the elected Minister of Health. What’s that about? Well, a couple of clues: the director-general can only issue a notice for a region, one territorial local authority at a time. No obvious reason why they couldn’t just issue 70-odd and lock down the whole country, but that’s one constraint. And they can only issue it for a month at a time, but it’s infinitely renewable. So there are some constraints, but, by and large, the director-general has all of the powers of the Minister of Health and far less responsibility and accountability. That seems to me to be a mistake.

Now, I have an amendment, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 495, which is designed to get around this. The solution, it would seem to me, if the objective is for the director-general to be able to issue sudden emergency orders, if it seems that a virus or an epidemic is about to break out in a particular region and it’s a matter of hours, a matter of days, to take action and squash it, well, you can see why the Government might have thought it was good to give the director-general the power to do that in a small region for a short period of time. But a much better way to approach this would be to say, “OK, if that’s the objective, fine. I’m not sure I agree with it, but OK, fine. The director-general should be able to issue a notice for 48 hours.” Why 48 hours? Because that is the warning that the Minister of Health has to give before his or her notice comes into effect.

So the policy objective is maximum democratic accountability and maximum nimbleness in moving to stomp out an outbreak of virus. The way to do that is not to give this kind of workaround where the director-general basically has all the same powers, but, actually, to say the director-general and the Minister of Health have different roles. The director-general can issue a short-term, regional directive for a maximum of 48 hours. After that period, it is necessary for the Minister of Health, with all the democratic accountabilities and constraints—they need to consult the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice and risk being voted out of office for not doing a very good job. That Minister is the only one who can make a directive that lasts longer than 48 hours—so the director-general for the first 48 hours in a region, but everything more permanent than that has to be done by the Minister.

This is what I mean by engaging to make better law. I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that, actually, this law shouldn’t pass. It’s just not good enough, and it’s almost—in fact it is—worse than what we’ve had to date. But let’s continue to engage and try to make it better. I would hope that members of Parliament from all parties would consider this point about the interface between the rights and controls afforded to an unelected civil servant—the Director-General of Health—and the responsibilities of an elected politician who can be voted out—the Minister of Health.

I’d appeal to the Green Party, because for as long as I’ve been in Parliament, and a lot longer before then, there was one thing you could always say about the Green Party. You might think that maybe their economics were a bit on the unorthodox side, to be polite; you might sometimes wonder if their environmentalism was entirely based on science; but you could always rely on the Green Party to be there standing up for civil liberties, until they got into Government. Here’s a great opportunity for the Green Party to stand up, speak their mind, and assert their independence, because I can tell them from bitter experience, if a support party in Government doesn’t do that, they’re in political trouble. So even if they don’t care about civil liberties, they should still do it for the purpose of their own political survival.

I say to New Zealand First: there’s a reason that Winston Peters has been voted out of three electorates and sacked from three Governments. It’s because when it really matters, he’s silent—haven’t heard anything. Maybe he’ll try and take the credit for the bill as introduced. Well, that would be politically suicidal in my view. The fact of the matter is Winston Peters should be down here in the Chamber standing up for the basic rights and freedoms of the ordinary bloke and “bloke-ess”, which is how he likes to profess himself. But where is he?

Hon Member: He doesn’t care.

DAVID SEYMOUR: He doesn’t care, is what I’m hearing. I think that’s a bit harsh. But I would actually appeal—even on such a basic issue as do we give this power to elected officials New Zealanders can vote out or unelected civil servants—for the so-called support parties of the Government—New Zealand First and the Greens—to get down here to the Chamber, take a call, stand up for themselves, and stand up for New Zealanders, because if they don’t do that, New Zealanders might just decide to stand up to them in a few months. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Can I thank the member David Seymour for acknowledging that the format of the exercise of the powers under this bill, through the Minister, with political and democratic accountabilities, is an improvement on leaving those powers as they currently are under section 70 orders under the Health Act with the director-general. This is achieved through clause 9 of this bill. I agree with the member, and I also note that this is what the overwhelming majority of constitutional academics have been calling for. I think that is very responsible of the member to put that on the record, and I think he is correct.

In respect of the statement that this is preferable to—and I think he used the word “diktat”, that has been used previously. Can I remind the committee that, actually, the Government is bound by the law, and the existing law under the Health Act required us—and the only powers we had were under the Health Act—to do it that way, which is through the director-general exercising those discretions in respect of those notices, not the Minister. That’s what’s changed by this bill.

As to the member’s secondary point about whether the power for the director-general to make orders within a single territorial authority—oh, sorry, just before I go that point, I’ll go to the point that the Minister must have regard to the advice of the director-general. Now, if that advice from the director-general said, “Look, COVID’s passed, no need to do this.” or “The risk’s passed, you don’t need to do this.”, obviously, if the Minister then took a decision to impose what were seen by the director-general to be unnecessary constraints on the way we live our lives, that would be just justiciable—and that’s another point that David Seymour made yesterday. Obviously, if that happened, I would have thought that the courts would strike down an order from the Minister to that effect, and that’s an additional protection that doesn’t currently exist at law.

In respect of the issue as to whether the narrower power in respect of an urgent order for a single territorial authority district should expire after 48 hours, I would note that the director-general has to have found that it’s urgently needed and it’s the most appropriate way. So, again, there’s something justiciable there. I would also note that under clause 15(3), I think it is, of the bill, the Minister has the whip hand and the responsibility, essentially, because it says that “The Minister may, at any time, revoke [a] section 11 order made by the Director-General.” So the ministerial authority through that accountability regime and democratic oversight and democratic responsibilities that Ministers have to take is actually seen through that provision. So, for that reason, we’re preferring that mechanism rather than a 48-hour expiry.

MATT KING (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’ve been getting quite a few messages from up north asking me what the hell’s going on in Parliament, this morning and last night, and so I thought I’d explain it in layman’s terms. I said, “Basically, what we’ve got here is we’ve been managing a crisis”—and I’ll give credit in part to the Government in some of the way they’ve handled it—“but they didn’t have the legal framework to actually do some of the things that they’ve been doing.” I’ll give you an example: the checkpoints up north. There’s no legal authority to block the road and direct people to receive brochures or be turned around—there’s no legal authority to do that. So, effectively, for the whole time that this lockdown’s been going, the police have been bluffing.

I don’t blame the police—I’ve got a lot of time. I’ve had a lot of contacts from a lot of the police, and they have been really, really unhappy with the situation that they’ve been put in. So they’ve been put in a situation where they’ve got to try and bluff. They had no legal framework. So, effectively, up until now, several aspects of the lockdown have been illegal. So I understand that they’re bringing this legal framework in—I get that.

I sort of wonder to myself: would the Greens have supported this legislation if National had proposed it? Honestly, would they have supported this legislation if National had put this forward? I’d say it would be a big no, but they’re swallowing a dead rat.

So the reason why they won’t release the legal opinion is because it’s been illegal. But what gets me about this legislation is that the politburo, the Minister, can make a ruling under section 11 and it can be 10 people allowed to go to a funeral and yet 100 people in a bar, and that makes no sense. There’s no logic. It’s not fair. We have a woman that was locked down in quarantine in a hotel in Auckland, and she couldn’t get to see her dying mother, and she was beside herself. They wouldn’t test her—she hadn’t been tested. She’d been there for about seven days, and she just wanted to go and see her mother and go straight to her house, lock down there, and spend the last two or three days with her mother. I found out from speaking to her that she might not last the four days she had left before she got out. It took the court to overturn a stupid ruling by this Government that they had to lock them down for two weeks and there are no exceptions—it took a court ruling.

I’ve got this situation in Kaikohe in Northland where there were five dairies open, with people going in and out at random, buying their product, and yet the butcher and the greengrocer at each end of town couldn’t open. One of the greengrocers—he’d spent 20 grand on product because he’s stocking up, thinking that he was going to have a run on his product, and he lost the lot. He couldn’t trade. For me, that was like, “Where’s the common sense in that?”

So I look down here and I see the rulings that can be made by the Minister or the director-general. I think it’s the Minister now; it’s not the director-general but the Minister. They can impose conditions on you that they might be able to justify, but as for what’s happened previously, it cannot be justified. So we’ve got an authorised person that can come and enforce these regulations, and the stipulation of what an authorised person is is, to me, a clipboard warrior—a Government employee. I mean, it could be anyone in a high-vis vest who’s going to turn up at my business and shut me down based on some rules made by the Minister, and the current Minister is the one that bikes to the beach and goes and moves house and all that sort of thing—so no credibility there.

So I have real serious concerns about this. The warrantless search of a person’s property because they might have 11 people at a wake or a tangi—I can’t believe that we are allowing that and that we’re going to put a law through that allows even the police or an authorised person to actually go into someone’s house over some regulation that the Government have put forward, as dumb as 10 people at a funeral. I mean, it just gets me.

But what gets me more about this whole thing is that they gave it to us a day or so ago—no select committee, no scrutiny. We’re doing it under urgency—no regulatory impact statement, nothing. I’m struggling with how this Government’s operating. In my view, this Government should be hanging their head in shame, collective shame, over this bit of legislation. The quote says, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men or women to do nothing.”, and that’s what I think is happening here.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I acknowledge the Attorney-General’s comments in relation to what I said earlier about clauses 9 and 10 and the different powers and responsibilities given to the director-general, a civil servant who’s not elected, and the Minister of Health, a politician who New Zealanders can actually vote out if they don’t like. I acknowledge what I think was the Attorney-General’s answer, that, well, if you don’t like it, you can go to court. I actually think it’s an improvement on what we’ve had, but just remember: something happening within 48 hours to get a judicial review—I can’t tell you exactly what the going rate is, but as a rule of thumb, getting a judicial review is 60 grand. Not every New Zealander has a spare 60 grand ready just in case they don’t like something the Government does and want to get a judicial review. I think it would be better to adopt the amendments that I have proposed on Supplementary Order Paper 495, and properly circumscribe the power of the director-general, than rely on people to take 60 grand off to their lawyer and get a court order, because judicial reviews are not a cheap hobby.

But I’d like to move on to clause 11, and that is “Orders that can be made under this Act”. It starts off fine: it basically gives a list of orders that could be made, but once you look into that list, you see quite how extensive they are. There are some of them that I don’t think are that bad—for example, it says, “stay physically distant from any persons in a specified way”. Well, that’s the sort of law that we could have and perhaps should’ve had all along, that, you know, you can’t come within 2 metres of someone or you can’t come within a metre of someone, and you have to be able to wipe down surfaces. If that was the way of stopping the spread of a virus, that might’ve been OK, because it wouldn’t tell any specific person what they could or couldn’t do. It would say, “Here are the rules; you innovate around them.” A lot of businesses that did innovate got shut down by direct orders, by these “King Henry VIII” - style powers. It’s actually really deadening to innovation, to people’s sense of ownership and creativity.

So some of this stuff is not too bad, but there’s a lot of it that is far too general. It says, for instance, “stay in any specified place or refrain from going to any specified place: (i) refrain from associating with specified persons: … (viii) refrain from participating in gatherings of any specified kind … require things to be closed or … open … prohibit things from entering any port or place”. These are the kinds of powers that allow what we are seeing that is outraging New Zealanders so much. So it’s OK to say you can have a funeral with this many people, but a party with this many people. You can worship in a church with 10 people, but you’re allowed to have a bar open or a gym with 100. It’s that kind of specific diktat that New Zealanders can’t understand and are angered by.

These initial basic rules: don’t go within a metre of another person, wipe down surfaces—you know, that sort of thing—don’t go near somebody who has tested positive for COVID-19. Those are basic rules that people might say, “OK, we understand the need for that. We can operate around it.” But when it comes to these rules that impose on a particular person or a particular type of business or type of activity, that’s when it gets really hard, because people get picked and chosen against, and that is not consistent with the rule of law—the rule of law being one of the reasons that you might have thought this bill was worth supporting. I certainly did at the beginning of this debate.

That takes us to clause 12, which further compounds the problems I’ve identified with clause 11. You see, you go to clause 12(1)(b) and it says these orders can apply “in relation to people, generally to all people in New Zealand or to any specified class of people in New Zealand”. This is where it gets extremely tricky, because instead of making basic rules—we say, “This is the rule of law. These are the conditions that everybody must face.”—the Government starts to pick and choose between different groups of people. This is where you have a real problem, because you can only assume, in the context of what’s happened with COVID-19 in the last eight weeks, that what they might have in mind is that the elderly should have different rules made for them. Well, a lot of elderly people out there would be highly offended by that. They might say, “It’s my life, it’s my risk, and if seeing my grandchildren is more important than some calculated reduction in the odds of contracting COVID-19, I should have that right.” A lot of people over 70 highly offended by the way that they have been, in their view, patronised.

But what if it was discovered, for instance—and there’s a lot of chatter about this out there—that different ethnic groups actually had different susceptibility to the virus? In theory, this law would allow a class of people to be a race of people. That is an outrage. That is an absolute outrage and should never be allowed under New Zealand’s laws. There could be bases for that that we’ve actually heard people discussing lately, that maybe different cultures have different cultural practices and should be treated differently. Normally, if someone told me that members of this Parliament would start saying that different races should be treated differently, I’d say you’ve got to be kidding—that wouldn’t happen. Well, it’s actually started to happen, and now we’re being asked to put in place a law that actually allows it to happen.

Then it goes on to clause 12(1)(c) and says, “exempt (with or without conditions) from compliance of the application of provisions … any … class of persons”. So not only can a particular group of people be singled out and have an order placed on them but a group of people can be exempt from it. I spoke at the beginning of this debate, the first reading speech—I said the critical, critical concept here is the rule of law. The rule of law protects the weakest or the most vulnerable and the minorities in our society, because everybody can see it written down in black and white and have it applied to them equally without fear or favour, no matter who they are. The rule of law and the right to live in a democratic society where we can send representatives to this House and debate and make those laws that protect our rights—well, if that’s not what it means to be a New Zealander, I don’t know what is.

But this bill—as we get further and further into the detail, we discover that, actually, it allows directives to be made by the Government that apply different standards to different groups of people on who knows what basis that are not properly defined. There’s nothing in this bill that says why a different so-called class of people might be treated differently based on the Government’s presuppositions about them. That is not the hallmark of a free society where people can point to the law and say, “I have my rights, and you cannot violate them because it’s written in black and white in the statutes of the Parliament I helped elect.” A society that believes that is the one I want to live in, but the society that this law gives us is one where classes of people can be treated differently by the Government of the day because the Government of the day thinks that it should.

Now, that is the criticism, but how would it be done better? How could this have been done to achieve the Government’s public health objectives, balancing, as I’ve frequently said in this debate, those objectives with the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders? Well, if the content of clause 11 notices was limited to making basic public health rules that applied to everybody—don’t come within contact of another person, don’t come within a certain proximity of another person—and didn’t single out classes of people or types of businesses or activities such as funerals versus parties, then I think we could say that is the right way to make laws. That is what the great economist and philosopher F A Hayek told us we should do, that we should have basic laws that people can follow, leading to a spontaneous order as people plan their activities around those laws. Unfortunately, this bill goes so much further. It cannot be supported. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I think it’s really important, in this Chamber, that we take a moment to reflect on the significance of this bill, and I want to quote back the acting Attorney-General in the opinion that he put up where it said this could, effectively, “if applied to their fullest extent, impose arguably the most extreme and significant limitations on New Zealanders’ ability to freely go about our daily lives as has occurred in modern New Zealand history.” It is important to look at the backdrop for this bill. I have said many times to my constituents that we understand the scale of what the Government has been dealing with. They’ve been dealing with imperfect information, a global pandemic at rapid pace, and National supported—as you would do in a national emergency—the capacity of the Government to act and flatten the curve. But the debate in New Zealand on the backdrop to this bill has been about three or four things.

The first is: what is the country strategy for New Zealand? Is it about elimination; is it about containment or suppression? We have watched across the world as countries like Australia have had similar health outcomes, and it’s very relevant for this bill because we are, naturally, as a nation, comparing their outcomes and then what the restrictions of freedom of movement, of freedom of association, are on New Zealanders. So we have had those questions that have been asked. We then had the extraordinary situation where there has been a question of the legality of this Government acting at this time of national emergency, and what we have argued is a very basic principle: not only would you consult with the Opposition at the largest juncture of national emergency in our history but then also you would have transparency about the legal situation in New Zealand. The fact that we have not had what I think is genuine engagement with the Opposition to operate in a way, at the time of national emergency, but also that we have not had transparency about the legal basis of lockdown is incredibly, incredibly shameful.

The reason that we are here is because we want to do something about it. We want to—and we have an obligation to—assist the Government in a constructive way to develop rules and laws that enable us to, as my colleague David Seymour has said, ensure that we can keep the public safe while doing it in a way that is forensic and surgical and does not impinge unnecessarily on the freedoms of basic New Zealanders. The reality is that what we have had at a process level is absolutely appalling. There have been weeks and weeks of this emergency, and to give the Opposition 24 hours—and I have referenced Andrew Little’s opinion about the significance of this legislation—is not good enough. So if we are standing up here and standing up for the right of New Zealanders to have a decent process around this law, it is because we understand the capacity to restrict basic freedoms.

I want to remind the committee of some of the constituency cases that I have had, but also why the stakes are high. I have dealt with people who are dealing with dying relatives. They can’t get out of quarantine; they are, literally, counting down the clock as they may not see their loved ones. I have dealt with people who have not been able to see people and have actually ended up with significant mental health issues. I have dealt with families who are dealing with people who have committed suicide. I have dealt—as many other MPs in this House have dealt—with the social consequences of the restriction of freedom. So we absolutely, in this House, must have a decent process around this legislation, because it deals with very, very sensitive areas of society. The reality is, when you’re dealing with the passing away of someone, it is a significant issue to restrict that to 10 people.

Now, we completely understand that what the Government is now saying is that they will make these rules up post this bill, but my argument to the Government would be: on the backdrop of a major national emergency, where you’ve got questions of proportionality, you’ve got questions of the basis of science and the public rationale, you’ve got questions of transparency, how could you possibly turn up to the Opposition and give us 24 hours’ notice to be able to debate very complex rules and the balance of freedom of association, and the balance of how we mitigate the public health risks with basic freedoms of New Zealanders?

So my question for the Government is: why can’t you properly get to the table with the other political parties in this Parliament at a time of national emergency and work together to adequately define and deal with the real issues of concentration of power? Because I think that that is the right thing to do—I think it is the right thing to do in a national emergency, as a former Minister of Civil Defence, and I think that New Zealanders expect that, because they believe that, actually, this Parliament needs to be respected because this Parliament represents them. So that is my question for the other side.

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We’ve had a lot of contributions—and I will call David Seymour. I just want to ask members to—there’s been quite a wide debate that has gone beyond Part 2. One of the exceptions is Mr Seymour, so I am going to give David Seymour the call.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you very much, Mr Chair. It’s not that I don’t deeply empathise with the points that Nikki Kaye has entered. I represent the Epsom electorate, which is adjacent to her Auckland Central electorate, and we’ve got a lot of very similar issues going on. It speaks to the need to balance public health measures with the other objectives people have, such as farewelling their loved ones at funerals.

But I do, in the spirit of what you’ve said, want to keep very closely to this bill, and specifically the clauses in Subpart 3 of Part 2. They start with clause 18 and they begin with this idea that we’re going to have so-called enforcement officers or authorised persons. I think it’s really critical that we’re having this debate because people who are watching this committee—and I know we’re in a ratings war with the Epidemic Response Committee right now—need to know exactly what this bill actually proposes.

One of the most extraordinary parts is this idea that the Government is able to appoint—or, actually, not the Government; the Director-General of Health, specifically—so-called enforcement officers who can be, initially, anyone. So when they introduced the bill, it literally could have been a group of people who are having a roadblock or checkpoint in the community. People such as that could have actually been given a badge by the director-general and told, “Go hard, and enforce my directives.” I think that’s something we just need to dwell upon for a moment, because it’s quite an extraordinary thing that the State actually has a law that allows it to appoint vigilantes.

Now, I think it’s worth noting that the Government has subsequently introduced a Supplementary Order Paper that says that the person made an enforcement officer has to be an employee of a current Government department. I think that’s better, because people in Government departments at least have some sort of obligations to behave in a responsible manner—whether or not they always do is another issue.

Yet at the same time, we’ve done the most extraordinary thing, that we’ve introduced people with quite extensive powers—which I also just want to get to, because people need to understand what powers these enforcement officers have—and yet there is no accountability mechanism for them. I’ve got amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 496, which I’ve put up, which basically do two things. First is that there’s actually the right to complain about one of these enforcement officers, because as the law’s currently drafted, they can come into your house, shut down your business, do all sorts of things, tell you that you can’t drive on the road, and if you don’t like it, tough.

The problem with that is that you actually end up with people who know they have no accountability. So it’s not just that they’re randomly bad and you can’t complain about the bad ones. I’d like to remind the committee of a great book again, by one of my favourite thinkers, F A Hayek, called The Road to Serfdom. Chapter 10 of that book is entitled “Why the Worst Get on Top”. It’s because when a Government introduces a regime for people who want to exercise power—all the nasty little people that maybe had a tough time at school and want to exert some revenge on society—guess what sorts of people sign up for jobs with untrammelled authority! So it’s worse than you think, because as soon as those jobs are created, you either get people that have always dreamed of them or people that realise they have unconstrained power and use it.

So that’s why my amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 496 first of all would say that a person may complain to the director-general about the behaviour or conduct of an enforcement officer that, let’s remember, the director-general has appointed. I think that is absolutely critical. Secondly, this amendment would give a person the right to receive from the enforcement officer the terms on which they can complain, and the rights that they have under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act when these enforcement orders are visited upon them.

I think it’s absolutely vital that that process is in place. I’ve had some discussion with the Attorney-General about this, and I appreciate him being prepared to engage. What he said is that he was open to entertaining part of my amendment, but he’s now unwilling to do that because Government employees who work for Crown entities already have a complaints procedure. Well, I understand his logic, but I don’t think it’s sufficient. Here’s why: if it was, for example, a WorkSafe inspector coming into your business and acting at the behest of the director-general, acting at the behest of the Minister of Health, where is the process for a person aggrieved by the way they’re treated to actually go and complain?

This happened, in the lawlessness that preceded, to Jack Lum’s, a fresh fruit and vegetable store, an iconic venue in Remuera. They were told, in no uncertain terms—with no comeback and no right to complain—that they had to shut down. Now, the interesting thing about that is that the plain-clothes police officer that told them they had to shut down does have a complaint process; it’s called the Independent Police Conduct Authority. But the problem was there was no accountability for the enforcement of this particular directive. That’s why this Supplementary Order Paper, that gives people the right and gives people the right to be told their rights, gives them the right to complain to the person that put the directive in place, is so essential.

I, again, would appeal to members of the committee to actually think carefully about the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 496, and perhaps for some of the Government support parties that have always been standing up for the ordinary bloke, in the case of how New Zealand First professes itself, or the Greens, that erstwhile defender of civil liberties in this country, to actually consider crossing the floor and voting for it. The reason they might want to do that is that they need to recognise quite how severe the powers of enforcement that these enforcement officers—who are not police, by the way; these are people basically commandeered by the director-general to enforce the director-general’s or the Minister of Health’s will. Well, they can enter without a warrant any land, building, craft, vehicle, place, or thing, if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is failing to comply with any aspect of a section 11 order.

So the Government makes an order, and a person can enter your property or your boat or whatever and come and tell you to stop doing it. They can also come into your house or your marae with no warrant, if they are a constable. You know, these are quite big steps. I think we should just think for a moment. I know that there’s been a lot of panic around the global COVID-19 pandemic. I know it’s a problem, but do we really have a sense of proportionality about the rights and freedoms we’re giving away here in order to fight it? I’m not so sure that this Government has thought that through.

Not only can they enter—going on to clause 21, the power to give directions: “direct any person to stop any activity that is contravening or likely”—likely—“to contravene the order”. It doesn’t take much of a threshold for you to suddenly get ordered around by a person who wants to be in this role—remember “Why the Worst Get on Top”—of unconstrained power, where you don’t get given your rights and you don’t have the right to complain to the person that was responsible for all this. It’s quite an extraordinary situation that the Government wants to put us in.

Once they’ve done that, well, you know, they can close roads, public places, and stop vehicles. Directions may be given verbally or in writing, so they can just tell you. Then you get to the offences: you can be put in prison for six months or fined $4,000 if you don’t follow these directives. Now, I actually wouldn’t mind having penalties for enforcing the law if the law was tight and clear and appeared to everyone equally and was enforced without fear nor favour, but none of those conditions are met. What you’ve got is a commandeered rabble of people that the director-general has raised up who can go round, tell you what to do, fine you, or even get you put in jail for six months if you don’t follow these poorly defined Government directives. That is why this bill should not pass. The more one looks into it, it’s impossible to support.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon David Parker to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 497 in his name to clauses 11, 12, 18, 20, and 24 be agreed to:

in clause 11(1)(a)(ix), replace “contract” with “contact”;

in clause 12(2)(c), replace “section 11(b)(i)” with “section 11(1)(b)(i)”;

in clause 12(2)(d), replace “section 11(b)(i) or (iii)” with “section 11(1)(b)(i) or (iii)”;

in clause 18(1), replace “the Crown” with “the Crown or a Crown entity (if specified in Part of Schedule 1 of the Crown Entities Act)” in both places where it occurs;

in clause 20(2) and (3), replace “any specified private premises” with “a private dwellinghouse”;

in clause 20(8), replace “subsection (3)” with “subsection (1)”;

in clause 24(2), replace “a District Court Judge” with “the District Court”; and

in clause 24(3), replace “The Judge” with “The Court”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 497 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 501 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to clause 9 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 495 in the name of David Seymour to clauses 10, 14, and 15 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 500 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to clause 11 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Simon Bridges’ amendment to clause 22 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 498 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment agreed by the committee.

The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 498 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 502 in the name of David Seymour to the proposed amendments to Supplementary Order Paper 496 in his name to clause 19 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 496 in the name of David Seymour to insert new clause 18A and amend clause 19 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): In my contribution during Part 2, I mentioned I wished to seek leave to table a letter from Nelson funeral directors around the impact of the controls. I seek leave for the letter, dated today, from Marsden House to be tabled as part of the House record.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. That can be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Part 3 Amendments to Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I hope that this will be one of the least controversial parts of this bill, although I’m always open to being surprised on that. These provisions have a relatively simple purpose, and one that I hope members across the House will agree with, which allows for there to continue to be local states of emergency not related to COVID-19 whilst there may be a national state of emergency in place. It is important that we allow for the fact that other bad things might happen around the country and local responses to those will be required even whilst we’re still grappling at a national level with COVID-19.

The second principle behind this particular set of provisions is that local responses to COVID-19 should not be inconsistent with the overall national response approach that we are taking as a country to COVID-19. It’s important, as we move out of lockdown, that there aren’t contradictory local responses under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act, and these provisions—I hope which will be less controversial—ensure that those things can happen.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Part—

Hon Alfred Ngaro: Mr Speaker, sorry, is this Part 3?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah, I’ve already started putting the vote, sorry. Members need to be a lot quicker.

Hon Alfred Ngaro: Sorry, Mr Chair, I thought there was an order there and I was just waiting. The gentleman was getting up. I thought he was seeking a call. The only reason why I hesitated was because I saw the gentleman David Seymour looking like he was taking a call.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah, but that’s not your decision—

Hon Alfred Ngaro: I do apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): —about who’s taking a call. The issue is that (1) members need to stand and seek the call; no member did, therefore I started to put the vote. Once I start to put the vote, I must continue. It is unusual to accept points of order during the—I’m going to seek the guidance of the committee, because it is unusual.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have been in this position when I was an Opposition member myself. The only way to resolve it—and it is unusual, and, at the time, the Chair was very clear that he could not stop a vote once it had started, even if there had been some confusion, and at the time it was a National Party Chair of the committee who did it. The only way the committee was able to resolve that was through leave. So, therefore, if the member wishes to take a call in this—I think there is a bit of goodwill here on the fact that this should be well scrutinised—that is a course of action that is available to him: to seek leave to stop the vote and to go back to the debate on Part 3.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just wish to follow up what the Hon Alfred Ngaro has said. He did hesitate because he was very politely waiting to see if I was taking a call. I understand what you’re saying about what the rules are strictly, but he shouldn’t be penalised for showing a bit of goodwill in the Chamber. So I wonder if I can seek leave to go back to debate on Part 3 in order that he might make a contribution.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I do want to acknowledge the indulgence of the committee and the goodwill of the committee during this time. It is correct that during this period of time, during the pandemic, we have all been showing a sense of goodwill in the sense of contributing while we’ve gone through this period and this process as well. It is the role of the Opposition to be able to put forward, I suppose, the cases of concern, though, that have been raised, and I’d like to do that just in my contribution in Part 3 in the Chamber.

The concerns I raise—and I did raise them with the Minister in the committee stage, but they weren’t answered. I raised them because the Prime Minister came into the House and made it really clear that the reason and the purpose was to ensure that we had a legislative framework to ensure that when we went through from level 3 to level 2 that that was appropriated at the right time, but also too that there was a process to engage and there was an exposure draft that was given to those who were concerned, to those inside our community that needed to be contributing, I suppose, to the process. I am concerned, though–when I asked the Minister whether he had received advice from Māoridom, that quite clearly had been given to him prior to when the original draft that had been put out there was submitted into the House—that that advice was not adhered to.

I want to put this on the record in Part 3: that the advice that they had been given was really clear—that to the Minister and to the Government of the day there is neither a general Treaty clause nor any obligation to have regard to the Treaty of Waitangi or its principles at any point of decision making or performance of functions under the Act. The reasons for that and the principle of that are quite clear. There’s no reference point; there’s no framework that can be used. Instead, what we’ve seen are Supplementary Order Papers that have entered into the Chamber during the committee stage to accommodate the concern that has been raised.

So my speech here is going back to first principles. My speech here is that if we are truly to have a relationship—and I’m now talking to the House, to the history and heritage of the House, where there is a role of responsibility, where there is a Treaty partner. And, then again, the role of that Treaty partner is more than just a partnership. It’s called kawenata. It’s a covenant. It’s a sacred relationship. It’s morally irrevocable. Those are determinations. Those are the definitions that are given. And, yet again, that has not been put into place in regards to this bill—that is quite clear.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I just want to remind the member that we are on Part 3 of the bill and if he could reference his comments to what’s actually in Part 3 of the bill.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): It wouldn’t be too difficult for him to do that.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: I’ll do that, and I do appreciate that indulgence there, and I’m getting to that point of wanting to set that as a reference point, heading towards those elements, which are in Part 3 of the bill.

But I again want to go back to that, because that sets the platform for the considerations, and these are some of the comments that have come through which do relate to Part 3 of the bill. Because that framework has not been put in place, this is the legal concern from Māoridom in regards to the elements of Part 3, which I’ll go through as we are now declaring now inside of this.

For instance, in Part 3, the amendments to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act are there. In amended section 66, set out in clause 35, in the amendment, the Minister may declare a state of national emergency. In all of these and the advice—and I have the report that was given to the Minister—it quite clearly states that in all of those elements, what they were seeking for as a Treaty partner was to have a consultation, a point of reference, for all of those decisions when they were able to be made. I’ll read from this: “It is of great concern that the interest of Māori are not referred to at all in these sections.” And that’s the reference to Part 3; that’s really clear.

So I just want to put those on the record and just declare those things. I just want to make that comment in Part 3. Again, this is a part that I’ve been asked and requested to put forward, and so I’ve done that in due conscience as an advocate for those constituents that have concerns with this bill.

Part 3 agreed to.

Part 4 agreed to.

Schedule 1 Transitional, savings, and related provisions

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 497 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Schedule 1 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I don’t wish to labour a contribution on the title and commencement, but I think there is a problem with the title. The title that the Government has chosen, like much of the drafting of this bill as it was introduced, reveals something about how the Government is approaching this issue, and it’s approaching it in a way that is unbalanced. The Government has called this bill the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. OK, we understand that’s part of the problem that this country faces, but there’s actually a much wider crisis out there now. Yes, COVID-19 is a problem, for now apparently beaten, but it may come back in mutated strains or in a winter outbreak—who knows? It’s certainly a problem we face, but it’s not the only problem that we face.

One of the other problems we face is a global recession, if not depression. We also face significant problems caused by the Government’s response to COVID-19 and some of its excesses, arbitrariness, and inflexibility. Those problems are the loss of livelihoods, the businesses that haven’t been able to operate, the people who have not been able to grieve their loved ones, and, the most tragic of all, those stories which are starting to emerge of people who have taken their own life in despair at losing their business and losing their livelihood as a result of the Government’s COVID-19 policies.

The proper way to approach this crisis is to see it as a range of economic, social, and health challenges facing New Zealand over the coming few months and, potentially, years. If the Government started from the very simple position that we are going to have to balance quite a range of challenges as we face COVID-19, then it would be in better standing to maximise New Zealanders’ rights and freedoms and welfare. We saw it in earlier parts of debate on this bill. We saw it in the Part 1 debate, specifically clause 4, where the purpose of this bill is to fight COVID-19. Aside from saying that that fight should use measures proportionate—to what, it didn’t say—there was no concession to the other objectives the Government should have for New Zealanders: preserving their rights and freedoms and the ability to protect their livelihoods in the context of a COVID-19 crisis.

Hon Andrew Little: It’s in there—it’s in there.

DAVID SEYMOUR: The interesting thing was the Minister, the Attorney-General—I’ll come to that, Mr Little, who says it’s in there. Andrew Little’s right: in clause 9, there’s one sentence—which, actually, I don’t think is a complete sentence, if you want to be an English language pedant—and it’s in brackets. So the only referral to New Zealanders’ other needs in this bill is in brackets. It’s all about COVID-19, and the title of this bill, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill, tells us something about the psychology of the Government in drafting this bill and, indeed, in approaching this entire crisis. There has simply been a lack of balance.

So what would ACT have called this bill? Well, we might’ve started by saying it would be the “COVID-19 (Balancing Economic Health and Welfare) Bill”. It might’ve been, to use the Government’s language, the “COVID-19 (Overall Wellbeing) Bill”. We could come up with names all day, but anything that sent a message that this Government wants to strike a balance between New Zealand’s other objectives and its COVID-19 objectives would’ve been welcome.

Then we come to the commencement, and this commencement is something that is worth noting because it’s quite different from the commencement clauses in just about any other bill that I have debated. The commencement clause, for people that don’t often read legislation, is a clause that says when the bill comes into effect, and it varies. Often, it’s a year; sometimes, it’s six months. It gives respect and notice to the fact that people need time to plan for new laws. This is this fundamental principle that people should be able to plan their activities, as Hayek said, without concern for arbitrary coercion by another or others. People should be able to plan their future without someone else coming along and saying, “The rules have all changed, and your plans are no longer going to work out.”

That’s why, normally, a commencement clause comes with some time between when the law is passed in this Parliament and when it comes into effect and people are required to follow it. I won’t labour the End of Life Choice Act, which has to have a referendum passed and then another 12 months before it comes into effect. This bill comes into effect almost immediately. As soon as the bill is taken over on its fine parchment paper from this House to the Governor-General, who signs it, it’s a law. The reason that’s being done is because the Government wants it to be in place by 11.59 tonight so that this country can move to level 2. Well, that’s an understandable desire, and, under the circumstances, it’s the right thing to do, but that’s the critical point: under the circumstances. And what are those circumstances that led us to have a bill that’s rushed through Parliament and must have the Royal assent immediately so we can move to level 2? Well, basically, the Government started late. We’ve been told ad nauseum that this country decided to go hard and go early. Well, actually, on any reasonable time frame, we are here with a bill that commences immediately because the Government started legislating so late.

Let’s go through these time frames. There’s the time frame of New Zealand’s response. Back in February, when I was saying, “The Prime Minister shouldn’t be in Fiji for three days; this thing is getting serious—the share market’s tanking; 37 countries have it.”, well, the Prime Minister stayed in Fiji and was planning to have a huge commemoration with thousands of people for the 15 March tragedy. This Government only put in place serious public health measures in mid-March. They’ve had two months since then to get serious about legislation—more than enough time, had they anticipated that maybe they would need legislation, to start drafting it, to circulate it, to have a more lengthy parliamentary process so that it could be debated and maybe actually be ready ahead of time so that the commencement wouldn’t say it comes into force immediately but actually says it comes into force at least a couple of weeks after, so people would have time to plan. But, sadly, the reason that we have a commencement that is immediate is purely because this Government has been behind the eight ball and behind the preparations of New Zealanders every step of the way.

You just ask the Retirement Villages Association. They started taking public health measures two weeks before the Government announced any, because they could see it coming. You ask the pharmaceutical guild. They were working with their counterparts around the world weeks before this Government. You ask the people of Taiwan. They told the World Health Organization about human transmission on 31 December last year, and then they issued all of their public health response by 20 January. That’s the real time line, and then the Government will try and say, “Oh, this Government went early compared with when the virus arrived in New Zealand.” This Government was lucky it arrived so late. It was almost waiting for the virus to get here before it did anything. If we had truly gone smart and gone early like other countries, this legislative drafting process would’ve started at least two months ago. We would’ve had eight weeks for it to be consulted on with the public, we would’ve got much better laws, and we would’ve had laws that we could live with and support, but, unfortunately, even the title and commencement are extremely difficult to agree with in this bill. Thank you, Mr Chair.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Attorney-General: I move, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill be now read a third time.

It has been a very instructive debate through all the stages of the House in the last day or so. I thank all members, and particularly the members of the Opposition who were right to vigorously scrutinise and contest and challenge the legislation the way that they did. This is not the way that laws should be passed, and I think we’ve acknowledged that. But these are extraordinary circumstances, and they do call for both the Government and Parliament to be nimble and agile to be able to respond.

In the contributions that have been made in the last day or so, members opposite have quite correctly raised concerns about the threat to and the curtailing of the various freedoms that invariably orders of the nature contemplated by this legislation would create. They express concern about the threat to the freedom of worship, although the bill does not talk about the freedom of worship and putting limitations on expressing particular religion, and, in fact, it’s interesting that even in the last six or seven weeks, many adherents of many religions have been able to worship—differently to what they used to do. They haven’t necessarily been able to go to their houses of worship, but they have nevertheless participated in reasonably public services and expressions of their faith.

Members opposite raised concerns about, as they characterised it, New Zealanders not being trusted. I’m going to come back to that. [Audio failure]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Keep going until we stop you.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: [Audio failure] issues, and I know the honourable member Mr Macindoe would like me to talk at length, and I would like to respond to many of the things that he raised, but, of course, that won’t be possible. I know that some members have claimed that this bill is somehow covering for a lack of authority from the period from the original lockdown, and that is not correct. We’ve had a debate about the legal professional privilege and whether that can be waived by the Opposition, and I’ll just make this point: it is not for members of the Opposition, nor any member of this House, to claim the authority of the members of our judiciary. They are the ones who, once this House has passed a law, determine what the law means and how it applies. That is their job. Our job is to pass law, and no member should be acting in a way that contravenes that relationship of comity between these two branches of Government.

Members have claimed that there should be greater consultation with them, or at least with the Leader of the Opposition. So I’ve noted all those sorts of aspects. I note, also, the leader of the ACT Party, David Seymour, who’s expressed great concern about the fact that the powers in this bill will allow an undue curtailment of rights, particularly those rights that are adumbrated in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and I draw that member’s attention, and indeed the House’s attention, to clause 4 of the bill, which sets out the purpose.

This bill is about a response to COVID-19, that vicious and incredibly virulent and contagious virus that has afflicted the world. The thing about that virus is we don’t fully know all the characteristics of it. We know that it is very contagious. We know that it can take up to 14 days to incubate in an individual, and there’s some scientific suggestion now that that may, in fact, be longer. If you look at the people, the new cases that are emerging now in New Zealand, some of those recent cases have returned negative tests, and, in fact, I understand, at least in one case, two negative tests have been returned and yet subsequently the person was diagnosed with the virus. We’re seeing stories out of the United States now that children who have contracted COVID-19 are now experiencing the symptoms of toxic shock. This is a virus that can have an extraordinary impact very quickly on the community and particularly on vulnerable members of the community. So it is right that we clarify that we have the power to deal with it as we move down the levels and give ourselves the power to respond in a more nuanced sort of way and a more agile sort of way where it might crop up.

The powers in the Health Act 1956, a piece of legislation promulgated at the time of Sid Holland, as I reminded the House last night, is very crude and very blunt, and extraordinary powers are given to pretty much shut down anything. It is important—as we move out of the most contagious and high-risk period that we had from the end of March and as we move down the alert levels and are able to respond effectively to the risks as they are now—that we have a set of powers that reflects that, that gives the Minister of Health and, where necessary, the Director-General of Health the ability to respond, whether on a national level or at a local level. What we don’t want to do is to repeat the experiences of those countries that only weeks ago were being lauded internationally for their response and performance in controlling and containing this virus but are now having to go back the other way—countries like Singapore and Taiwan and, indeed, some of the Nordic countries, too, who were held up as the example—because the reality is we still don’t know the true characteristics of this virus and we must have the ability to respond.

No one, no member of this House, at whatever time they’re sitting on whatever side of the House, ever wants this House to be passing legislation that wholesale curtails the freedom of citizens in this country and removes their basic civil rights—those contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. But also what New Zealanders expect this House to do when confronted with the emergency that we have had and will continue to have with COVID-19 is to take responsible and proportionate action to make sure that we’re not putting lives at risk and public health at risk. That’s what this bill does.

I want to congratulate the Minister responsible, the Attorney-General, who has shepherded this bill through the House in his responsive approach to members opposite who have raised concerns and the changes that he has agreed to, now reflected in the bill as it is before the House in this third reading, to create a piece of legislation that I think is not only responsive but also proportionate and that is fair. It is a bill that gives powers in the special New Zealand context that we have: a police force that is more responsive and diverse than it ever has been, that has a demonstrated track record of following its philosophy of educate, encourage, and the last thing they do is enforce, but they take an approach that is about taking people with them.

I think the House has acknowledged that the way we as a country have managed our response to COVID-19 has been in a way that has taken people with us. There is no such thing as an economy built on a status of public health where too many people find their health at risk, and they just don’t know with certainty what might happen. It’s actually in the economic interests of New Zealand that we have a regime as represented in this bill that allows us to respond effectively, efficaciously, properly, and proportionately so that we can continue the long, arduous task, along with the rest of the world, of eliminating this virus and getting our lives back to normal. That is an objective we all have. Hopefully, it’s not a dream we have, because, hopefully, with effective management and acquitting the powers that are contained in this bill properly in the weeks and months to follow, we will get to that point. We all want to get to that point, and the role of this House is to make sure, and the role of the House will continue to be, under this legislation, of the ability to scrutinise what is happening, bring the orders back—whether that’s the Regulations Review Committee or the whole House—to look closely at what this Government is doing.

I commend the bill to the House.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to thank the Minister of Justice for the comments that he made at the beginning of his speech and also to acknowledge that I do agree with some of the other sentiments that he’s just expressed. But I have to say to him that judging by the deluge of emails that I have received—text messages, phone calls to my electorate office, posts on social media, and so on—I believe that the Government has badly misjudged public sentiment on this particular issue. Unfortunately, New Zealanders have gone from feeling valued to feeling patronised. They’ve gone from feeling trusted to feeling that they’re being treated like naughty children who can’t be trusted, and they’ve gone from feeling that we’ve been pulling together as a team of 5 million to feeling that their reward is a chilling and unjustified attack on our civil liberties and our religious freedom.

This process for this bill has been unjustified, undemocratic, and, therefore, frankly, dangerous, considering how serious the issue is. The most significant constraints on our freedoms, outside of a state of emergency, are being enacted under urgency without calling for submissions, with limited and mostly fawning media coverage, and with no select committee scrutiny. This bill should have gone to a select committee, even if only for a very short period of time, because we should have been reaching out to the public, to legal academics, to practitioners, and to other commentators, who all would have been able to make valid points to improve this bill.

So I want to quote, if I may, from one email that was sent by a lawyer to the Attorney-General in the early hours of this morning. It’s in the public domain because he copied it to all MPs. If I could, I’ll just cherry-pick and try to pick out about three paragraphs. He made the point that in one of the speeches the Attorney-General was making in the House last night, he was looking around and asking officials for advice on whether future executive orders would be made under the current section 70 or under the new law.

He went on to write: “You are the Attorney-General of New Zealand. Who is running this show? First, as Attorney-General, you don’t know any warrantless search powers in New Zealand, despite trying to justify the proposed law by comparison to powers you do not know. Next, you do not know which public health power is intended to be used in the future, which begs the question: why are you using urgency to pass the most Draconian legislation for 88 years? The bill seeks to put virtually unlimited and unchallengeable power to control the liberty of an entire population into the hands of one human being—does that sound like another type of society you can think on?”

He went on to write: “The bill does not provide a general right of appeal, and the majority of the House blindly have the Prime Minister’s back. Most people do not have the wherewithal to take judicial review proceedings. And, as the Hon Michael Woodhouse points out, the overbroad purpose of prevention adds significant difficulty in challenging an order.”

Some of his concluding remarks were: “Moreover, how can this bill be something done by ambush under urgency? As Nicola Willis said, we have had seven weeks of restrictions, so, surely, the legislative basis for moving to level 2 should have been considered and tabled before late on Monday of this week in order to allow a democratic process. That is not democracy; that is a circus. It is shameful. This is the most Draconian piece of proposed legislation ever seen in this country, at least since …”—and he quoted a depression-era Act of 1932—“This is a Government that was asleep in allowing, indeed, encouraging, the importation of the virus by telling people to rush home to avoid self-isolation. Months after foreseeable risks, this Government continues to make panicked reactions that are destroying individual lives and livelihoods and now democracy itself.”

So I thank that gentleman for his detailed and considered email. I hope that following Government speakers will answer some of the questions that he raised in it and respond to the concerns—and, as I say, I have only been able to highlight a few of them.

Let me pick up again on the point that the Minister of Justice was making: all New Zealanders wish to continue to lock in the gains that we have achieved together during the COVID-19 crisis. We’ve all been looking to minimise the risk of further importations or community transmission of this disease. That has never been in dispute, and it isn’t now. It’s why there was such unity and firm resolve in this House when we voted to suspend at the end of March and place our country under lockdown.

Public support for those initiatives has been evident in neighbourhoods around the country where physical distancing has been observed and people have worked from home wherever possible, while essential workers have continued performing their vital roles under stringent rules and often challenging circumstances, and I’m sure we thank them all. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to everyone in our team of 5 million who’s assisted us to reach the point where we can now move to level 2 tonight—not a moment too soon.

The Government has repeatedly made its expectations clear of all of us throughout the period since the crisis began. The Prime Minister repeated her expectations—albeit, not all that clearly at times—when she announced the decision to move to level 2, during her media conference in The Beehive theatrette on Monday afternoon.

But there are clear expectations from the public that the level 2 regulations will be justified, reasonable, and necessary. As I stressed in my previous speeches, and so have many of my colleagues, the cruel and inexplicable constraints on religious worship, tangihanga, weddings, funerals, and so on, are anything but reasonable. New Zealanders are distraught that the Government has refused to make the changes despite being offered the opportunity in some Supplementary Order Papers today. For that reason alone, we should be cautious in proceeding with this legislation and alarmed that it’s had such a truncated process under urgency.

Last night, Kiri Allan called me out, I think, for comments that I had made about the urgency process. So I want to point out that the Attorney-General wrote to me and put through a courteous phone call at 5 o’clock on Monday evening, but he wanted a response by 10 o’clock the next morning. Well, I don’t know any time that a caucus—particularly when flights are not operating and members are in their electorates the length and breadth of this country—could possibly meet to have a considered approach to a bill that they haven’t seen—and the bill wasn’t available—and have a response in by 10 o’clock the next morning. So I say to Kiri Allan that her comments last night were disingenuous, they were wrong, and she should not purport to suggest that this was just urgency as we know it. It was not—it could not be. No party caucus is able to consider its position under those circumstances. So that’s why I say it’s been a very poor process.

Some laws do need to be considered and enacted at speed. No one denies that. We’ve done it, and all previous Governments have done it. But this Government has had weeks since we went into the lockdown to get its arrangements for level 2 under control, clearly articulated, understood by members of the public, and to have taken the time—albeit with a truncated select committee process—to pass such a bill, if needed, through the Parliament.

Yesterday morning, we requested a briefing from the Attorney-General and some of his officials—and I acknowledge that we received that, although the Attorney-General wasn’t able to participate in it, and so the officials weren’t able to engage in the more political aspects of that discussion. So it was of some value, but only of limited value.

Let me just return to the point that I made in my first speech, because it’s all about the whole purpose of this bill. The Attorney-General was right at that point to highlight the fact that for our economic and social prosperity, we need to go to level 2. Livelihoods have been put at risk. Jobs have been lost. Many people have gone on to benefits. Many businesses have gone under, and many more, sadly, will in the weeks and months ahead. We all collectively share grave concern about that. We all collectively wish, and need, to see our economy get strengthened, get back on track, for businesses to have the confidence to take on staff, for investors to have the confidence to invest, and so forth—particularly for industries such as tourism.

But a move to level 2 was never dependent on the enactment of this bill. Our civil liberties have been put at risk in ways that cannot be justified and that, in weeks and months ahead, I’m sure, will be shown not to have been justified and that it was too high a price to pay.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): In fighting COVID-19, New Zealand went hard and we went early, and we are now enjoying the success of that effort. We shut our country down far sooner than just about any other country in the world, when our case numbers were still very, very low. The result of that is that we not only flattened the curve; we squashed it. The last thing New Zealanders want to see now, as we come out of the other side of a very harsh seven weeks, is to see that curve tip back up in a dramatic fashion. That is what we are working to stop. Let’s be very clear about that. The Government on this side of the House does not want to see the enormous sacrifice that New Zealanders have made over this last seven weeks be in a vain. We want to lock in the gains that we have made and ensure that COVID-19 cannot get a foothold.

We have seen in the House in the last 24 hours some passionate speeches about civil liberties, some passionate speeches about good parliamentary process, and they’ve been very, very well made. They’ve been very good points—very legitimate points. As a parliamentarian, I agree with many of the points that have been made by members opposite.

COVID-19 respects none of those things. The reality is this virus will grab a foothold wherever it can. It does not respect civil liberties. It does not respect something as sacred as a funeral. If someone goes to a funeral who has COVID-19 and there are other people at that funeral who are in high-risk categories and that virus is spread, there could be more deaths from that funeral. That would lead to greater tragedy for all those involved. I acknowledge funerals are a tragic time. They are a time when we come together to comfort the grieving. But COVID-19 doesn’t respect that. It simply doesn’t respect it. We as a country have to stick together by staying apart. That is the reality. We do not want COVID-19 to take off in New Zealand, given the success of the sacrifices that we have made so far.

Now, the Opposition asked why we can’t have level 2 under the existing laws, and I think the Attorney-General has pointed out that level 2, under our existing legal framework, would potentially be harsher than level 2 under this law. This law actually allows for more moderate action under level 2 than could be taken under the existing law. So this law is actually about making sure that we can get New Zealand moving again, we can get our economy moving again, we can get people back to work, but we can keep New Zealanders safe in the meantime.

No one in this House should feel comfortable curtailing civil liberties—curtailing other things that New Zealanders in normal times would take for granted. I did not feel comfortable sitting on that side of the House when Gerry Brownlee brought a bill to the House that curtailed the civil liberties of Cantabrians, that confiscated their property rights, in urgency after the Christchurch earthquakes, but it was the right thing to do. It was an extraordinary set of circumstances, and Parliament needed to take extraordinary action in those cases.

Gerry Brownlee did the right thing in bringing that legislation to the House. It did make us all feel uncomfortable, and there was fiery debate at the time. I think—and I do want to say this; it probably wasn’t said to Gerry Brownlee at the time very much—he was placed in an impossible situation where no one was going to be happy with his response, and I actually think he did pretty well on balance overall of managing that immediate aftermath of the Christchurch earthquakes. It did mean that Parliament had to make some tough decisions to back the actions that he had to take, that ultimately curtailed people’s liberties, potentially took away their property rights, and left a whole lot of people feeling pretty unhappy.

No doubt about it, this legislation will leave some people feeling that their civil liberties have been curtailed and that they’re having to make further sacrifice. We need to do that because we do not want to see a greater tragedy in New Zealand. There are hundreds and hundreds of people dying every day in other countries who did not take the action that New Zealand has taken. They will suffer a much longer lockdown, and, if they come out of lockdown sooner, they will potentially see their curve explode, their health systems overrun, and thousands of people a day dying. That is something we’ve avoided in New Zealand, but, to keep avoiding it, we’ll have to stay vigilant. This legislation creates the right framework for us as a country to stay vigilant, and I support it.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): No one is disputing that there is a need to stay vigilant. No one is disputing that we all need to continue following the public health advice that’s been so prevalent and so much driven into us or drilled into us over the last seven or eight weeks or longer and that, I think, need to be continually repeated messages. I found it fascinating that we have to tell some people that it’s a good idea in most circumstances to wash their hands, that we should also clean down hard surfaces—those basic sorts of things. Yep, we’ve got to keep doing it, and we’ve got to also maintain respectful distance for a time longer.

But the question is: when there is no pandemic notice and no epidemic notice, who’s making the decision that we continue to have these restrictions that can be now imposed on us, if this bill passes, by a simple notice, largely driven out of the Prime Minister’s office and enforceable—enforceable—with immediate fines and possibly court action? There doesn’t seem to me to be a regime where the whole team of 5 million or so is being asked to put all hands to the pump and get stuck into beating this thing. The worst of it is that the price that’s being paid for that win is going to be decades long for all New Zealanders, and it bothers me that as we have seen now, the benefit of New Zealanders’ largely voluntary response—I won’t get into the issue of legality; that’s got a bit more to play out yet—that I think would have been there regardless of what law was particularly called on because of the circumstances that existed seven weeks ago, the benefits from that are not now being realised to the extent that they should be.

It won’t be long before the number of New Zealanders losing their jobs every day and going on to the jobseeker benefit—and remember that that’s only a fraction of those who are losing their jobs. There are many more who don’t qualify for that who would have been in work. That number will very quickly escalate to a daily total bigger than the entire number of people infected by COVID-19 over the last seven weeks. Now, if you put that into some perspective, it gives an opportunity, I think, to show a lot more trust in New Zealanders, because the other thing that’s not being recognised here is that we are never going to be without it. Yes, there will be a vaccine at some point, and there will have to be other vaccines as there are mutations of this particular COVID virus, but it’s not imminent. So we are going to have to work out how we live with it. Are we going to be in a level 3 lockdown right to the duration—well, for the foreseeable future?

I want to congratulate the Government for accepting the limitation of 90 days or so before Parliament reaffirms any actions that are taken under this bill. That’s a good thing. The good thing about it is it will mean that the decision makers—in this case, one decision maker: the Prime Minister—will have to think about all the broad consequences of any decision that’s made. I want to acknowledge the Government for deciding that the enforcement officers couldn’t be just anybody plucked off the street, given a badge, as it were, and told to go around knocking on doors and using their powers if they thought it was reasonable in their view. There is now, as Crown employees or Crown appointees or Crown contractors, the opportunity for a great deal more control over that. It’s important. I think that’s good, but I’m disappointed that they could not have seen that it was an opportune time to include the whole of the Parliament in the consultation only—consultation only—on the section 11 decisions.

We did move a Supplementary Order Paper—it was defeated by the Government—that would have had the Prime Minister consulting—that means picking up the phone and talking to—the Leader of the Opposition when there was a proposal to introduce some section 11 amendments. Now, consultation doesn’t mean “have to do as they’re told” or “must listen to every little point” or “consider every little point”; it just means “have a discussion”. This Parliament has a party of 55 on this side of the House—the largest party in the House, the largest number of voters per party of any in the House—but the Government has decided no consultation on that basis, absolutely not. I think that’s a weakness in the bill that’s being passed now—one of many.

The other thing that bothers me a little bit about this is, under those section 11 notices—you start to analyse in your head—what are they going to be used for? One area we’ve seen, of course, is perhaps a continued restriction on church services, perhaps a continued restriction on the funerals. We’re told that the number is going to be 10 for those sort of activities—10 people. A week ago, it was going to be 100. It’s gone down to 10, and maybe in another week’s time, or two weeks’ time, it’ll be expanded out a little bit more. That’s one area that is of concern. The next, though, is in the hospitality area.

I do worry that some of the influences in this bill, particularly from the police, may be sort of an underlying desire to have some sort of local alcohol policy applied across the whole country. I would hate to see uniformed policemen going into bars, counting heads, checking times, measuring distances, and any other restriction that might go into one of these. That’s not good use of police time, because one thing we can be sure of is that while the country has been diverted over the last X number of weeks, worried about this COVID virus, crime has continued. It’s also a known fact that when you do have a disaster of this sort that you’re trying to deal with—a crisis or whatever you want to call it—criminals always find a way to benefit from it.

So I don’t want to see the police made some sort of pseudo crowd-control organisation. I think they came dangerously close to that with some of that footage that was shown of them shuffling people off Sumner Beach a few weeks ago. That was not a good look. And to tell New Zealanders who were quite peaceably going about things, keeping their distance, that it was OK for them to be running on a beach but not sitting there having a bottle of water was, I think, a bit of a disgrace. It sort of worries me that many of that type of element is captured here. I feel sorry for those police staff who were required to do that, because they’re New Zealanders as well. They think like the rest of us. They enjoy the freedoms that the rest of us enjoy, and they don’t particularly, I’m sure, like having to enforce stuff that in the end is a little bit on the petty side.

So we’re not supporting this bill, because there has to be a line in the sand that at least starts to say to New Zealanders there is some light at the end of the tunnel, that we are going to be able to work out how to live with this virus in the world in the future, because it will not be going away. It will not be totally eradicated, and it probably hasn’t even inflicted the greatest amount of damage that it will eventually because of many other countries in the world where we just don’t even know what’s going on.

So yep, we’ve got to do some things that protect our local economy, but part of it has to be trusting New Zealanders to accept that in this new environment, they’ve got to do what is best for them and what is best for the country. Unfortunately, this bill takes away that sort of element of trust, takes away the element of discussion with New Zealanders about what would be a good thing to do, and, most concerning of all, it concentrates all of the decision making in the hands of one person, the Prime Minister, without any requirement for what the Prime Minister must consider before deciding to gazette the circumstances that will lead to a section 11 notice.

Be clear: it’s the section 11 notices that will put the restrictions on church services, the restrictions on attendance at funerals, the restrictions on public gatherings, the restrictions on cafes, the restrictions on bars—and you could go on forever. But in the end, we need to lighten up a little bit, trust that New Zealanders have done a good job and will continue to, keep up those public health messages, and make sure that we are all aware that this is something we live with from this point on.

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to make a short call to once again reaffirm that, despite all the conversation, the debate we’ve heard—and I acknowledge that there has been some serious and genuine debate and some serious and genuine expressions of some concerns from the Opposition—New Zealand First will be supporting this third reading of this bill.

I’ve got to say I am reminded at times like this of a view that I’ve long held, from 20-odd experiences in Parliament, that 90 percent of the people that come to this House come here for genuine reasons; they truly do want to make the lives of New Zealanders better. We may approach some of the problems from different philosophical views, and we may approach them from a party perspective, but, generally speaking, in all my time here, I stand by the view that 90 percent of the people that come here—probably 95 percent—come here and strive to do the very best they can for New Zealand. There are also times when one finds themselves here in Government, and other times when one finds themselves in Opposition. And there are times in Government when some hard calls have to be made, and one does reflect and wonder how one might approach that particular decision being made by the Government of the day if one was in Opposition.

And it’s interesting to hear—and it’s good to hear—Minister Hipkins say that, if he were in Opposition right now, he might well be expressing some of the same concerns. It’s good to hear him acknowledging the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who carried the torch for his Government through the difficult times of the two Christchurch earthquakes and through Kaikōura. My children and my grandchildren still live in Christchurch and have lived through all of that, and have noted that it is tough being in Government at times. There are decisions that have to be made that don’t sit well with our norm—the way we normally would do things. COVID, as Minister Hipkins said, does not respect any of the norms, and we have to, as a nation, be proud of the fact that, at this point in time, we’ve taken some hard decisions. We’ve paid a massive price, and the price is still going to continue to be paid for a little bit longer yet—we know that—but we have smashed COVID. Let’s be clear about that: we’ve made massive gains. The danger is one that every corporal who becomes a section commander of an infantry section knows; that every second lieutenant who becomes a platoon commander knows; that every captain or every major who becomes a company commander or lieutenant-colonel who becomes a battalion commander knows, and knows well, and it is this: you are your most vulnerable at your time of victory, when you have taken the objective and you think you’ve won. That’s when an astute enemy knows you’re weak. We’re at that point. We’re at that point right now: where a good decision or a bad decision can undo everything in the blink of an eye.

None of us likes what’s happening. I’ve had to deal with people through my electorate office who have lost loved ones. Do I like the fact that we’ve imposed these restrictions on them? No, I hate it. It cuts. If it were one of my family, how would I feel? No one likes some of these restrictions that we’re now going to have to put in place through this piece of legislation, but it’s better to have a ball-peen hammer to deal with the challenges than to be exercising the sledgehammer that a state of emergency would have us do.

On balance, I want to recognise and pay tribute to the Opposition for doing their job, but this is the right decision. This is what we need to do. If we come out of this harder and faster and moving quickly as we re-establish our businesses, re-establish some norms in our lives, and are able to hold memorial services for our loved ones that we have lost, not necessarily through COVID—I’ve got a string of veterans, and, every day on Facebook, I see another veteran has died, every day; very often two or three. It pains me to know that all their mates will not be able to attend those funerals. There will be no guards of honour, there will be no gun carriage, there will be no gathering at the RSA after. It pains me that that is the reality we are having to deal with, and we will pick these things up with memorial services, in time, in our own little ways. My heart goes out, but this is the right thing to do. New Zealand First will support the third reading of this bill.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in continued opposition to this bill. Let’s make no mistake: the powers within this bill give the Government—and that’s the executive Government, not its agencies—enormous scope to curtail the civil liberties of New Zealanders under any conditions related to COVID equal to what they have seen over the last seven weeks. And now, as we are debating in the third reading, we still have a situation where the bill that is actually before Parliament and will soon be voted on is not what was put on the tin by the Government when it introduced it. The public have a right to rely on the statements of Government and its Ministers when they say they’re doing something for a purpose, but then they discover that the purpose is actually not that which was articulated.

We were told—the public were told—when this bill was introduced, that this was about being able to set compliance conditions and manage enforcement in level 2. In fact, it was stated we had to do this to get to level 2. Now, that is actually not factually correct, and it’s not absolutely necessary. We were in level 2 a number of weeks ago. These powers weren’t available then. We did it then. We could certainly do it again. But we were told that it was needed for level 2 and beyond, which is level 1, but we’ve learnt as we’ve gone through this extremely shortened process under urgency that the provisions in this bill and the powers it unlocks are also available should we return to either level 3 or level 4. That is despite the fact that we already have a legal framework for dealing with this pandemic under level 3 and level 4 risk profiles. They include the Epidemic Preparedness Act, the Health Act, and the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act (CDEM Act).

We’ve been told by this Government, and the Attorney-General in public said, that there was no enforcement gap under the lockdown. So there’s no gap in the powers under the existing framework for level 3 or 4 conditions, so there’s no reason why level 3 or 4 should be included within the provisions for this suite of capability and powers to deal with level 2 or level 1. So I sought to test that through the process and challenge the Attorney-General, the Minister in charge of the bill, on why it was the case that these powers were in some way different for the ordinary New Zealander. I’m not saying that the wording is exactly the same. I’m not saying that every provision in the Health Act or CDEM Act are mirrored in this. But for the ordinary New Zealander, for them, lockdown meant the Government could tell them exactly what they could and couldn’t do, when they could go out of their homes, and for what purpose; that if they could work from home—oh, if they could work at all—they would have to work from home; that if they did go outside for exercise, there were conditions around what that exercise could be, how far away from their home it could be, under which conditions they could drive there; what businesses could open and under what conditions they could open; and what businesses the public could or couldn’t access.

We are left now with the position of a suite of powers which mirror the ability to do that level of impingement on civil liberties. As I say, they may not be exactly the same as the powers in the existing legislation, the Health Act and CDEM Act, but for the common New Zealander who’s experienced lockdown for now seven weeks, or just about, the powers in this bill enable the same level of impingement on their rights. So I challenged the Minister on not what was different; what was materially different, or what was constraining powers. He started off by saying, actually, this is more constrained because for warrantless entry on to premises the constable will have to report on it. Well, actually, that’s a good thing. But there’s no reason why that provision couldn’t have been an amendment to the Health Act and the CDEM Act, and actually should be, because it’s probably a good idea under level 3 and 4. On its own it is not a reason to have a new legal framework and powers that include the ability to use it under level 3 and 4.

Then the Minister said, “Oh, it’s actually needed because this has got an ability to control the basis under which businesses can open and operate.” Well, we’re still under level 3 at the moment, so I refer the Government back to lockdown. During this whole process, the Government has decided what businesses can and can’t open; the nature of how customers can enter those premises, such as supermarkets, which have limited numbers, or dairies, which have one in and one out; why dairies can open but butchers can’t; and how under level 3 a business could reopen as long as it was contactless ordering and either delivery or pickup.

So the Government’s either saying that it didn’t have the lawful authority to do that under the pre-existing framework so it’s necessary to be in this new bill, in which case that opens one large can of worms, or, if it claims it did have the lawful authority to do that over the last seven weeks, then it is not necessary for that part of the provision to be in this new bill. To the extent where it isn’t necessary but may be desirable, I go back to the point that they could have made that amendment into the Health Act, possibly into the CDEM Act, and, to the extent they needed a separate bill, the separate bill could have been, and should have been, limited to alert levels 1 and 2, which is what the Government actually said when it was introduced.

So then the Minister said, “No, it’s got further constraint on the powers, because Parliament will have to confirm an order made under section 11, and, if it doesn’t confirm it, that is revoked.” Well, the confirmable instrument is a very important part of our constitutional protections. And, ordinarily, it’s used for matters that are expected to persist for some time longer than a single order under this bill and particularly not in areas which are so severe in their potential curtailment of civil liberties.

So the point more than that, though, that I would make about the bill, as it may shortly be enacted, is that Parliament may not be able to make a determination on that confirmation for up to 60 days after the Government’s given itself the power to do things. What is more, there’s an explicit provision that says, if Parliament doesn’t confirm it—doesn’t confirm the order and therefore it is revoked—any action taken under it is still valid. So if Parliament says the order was wrong and shouldn’t have been done, there is no remedy for the persons affected by that order for the period until Parliament makes that decision. But if it was held, none the less, that such notices should be confirmable instruments, then, again, it goes to my point that for level 3 and 4, which are already dealt with under an existing legal framework which includes the Health Act and the CDEM Act, that amendment should have been made to those Acts and that this bill should have been limited to alert levels 2 and 1, which is precisely what the Government said it was for when they introduced it.

We are debating a bill, and, if the numbers stay the same—unless the Greens suddenly reawaken and rediscover their passion for civil liberties or New Zealand First discover that they truly do believe in the common New Zealand bloke and blokess—then this thing will pass. And it is going to pass in a way that allows the executive Government to do things to New Zealanders that they haven’t been able to do to date, and they were sold on it being something else.

I want to touch upon a part of the debate that didn’t rage—it was discussed—about who it should be that issues these orders and has the power. And we were told that some legal academics think it should be the Government because it’s accountable democracy—people can vote them out. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t disagree with that, but in the area where you are fundamentally locking people down, where their liberties are constrained so much, it should be the Government that brings the bill, Parliament decides whether or not it can be used, but the execution of those powers should be at arm’s length from political manipulation. It’s actually why it’s right under the current framework that is the Director-General of Health under the Health Act and the Director of Civil Defence Emergency Management under the CDEM Act, because it takes away the risk or imputation that the powers are being used with some political agenda in mind. Flipping that over to be the Minister of Health will simply reduce confidence within the public that there won’t be any political machinations or ideas or agendas in any decisions that are made under this.

Lastly, I’ll just briefly touch on the enforcement officers piece, which could have allowed almost anyone, such as the community checkpoint operators, to be given a clipboard and suddenly make all sorts of enforcement decisions. I’m a little concerned about the language that remains, which is “engaged by the Crown”. I didn’t get the opportunity in the committee of the whole House, but I just worry that perhaps, if a group received Government funding for mental or physical wellbeing, they could be considered to be engaged by the Crown. We do continue to oppose this bill.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): The Greens are cautiously supporting and will be monitoring this, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. What we are very clear about is that every life matters, no matter what age, no matter what community, and no matter what background or experience you have had, and that has been the driving force behind the public health collective community approach in the way that the Government has operated. That very strategy is in fact what has also helped to minimise the impact of the very communities who stand to be harshly impacted on the most—those with the least resource, those with the least support, those whose immunities are compromised, and those with long-term historical situations of being undermined by the current systemic biases in our health system. That is why the Greens have continually supported the overall approach of this Government in putting the public health and safety and wellbeing of everybody first, unlike many other countries and many other approaches, which have deemed some lives less important than others—some lives less valuable than others.

That is the starting point of why we are looking to ensure that there is then a clear set of rules and a legal framework to be sure about what our police and what our ministries and agencies can actually do to uphold that approach. Not having a clear legal framework and not having clear guidelines will also negatively impact on the very communities that the Greens—that I—have long been standing up for—the very communities who have the least power and resource and networks and lobbying power to be able to have a strong influence in this very House of Representatives that has long been historically putting particular groups of people and communities at a disadvantage. We do need clear legal frameworks and the architecture behind what our agencies—our State agencies and our Government agencies—do to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all of our people. That is our starting point.

Yes, we must have every caution over the way that our civil liberties are being disrupted, and, again, we have long been a clear voice in that instance, and we will continue to monitor with caution and be wary of the disruption of those very civil liberties, of the very way that we uphold to be able to live and move and breathe in this country. That is why—that is why—we are being very clear and worked really hard to put in place further checks and improvements on the disruption of those civil liberties.

But let me be also clear: this is a global pandemic the likes of which I have not seen in my lifetime in this House, the likes of which the Green Party has not had to deal with in our history. Those are extra considerations. Those are massive challenges that require, yes, a political balancing of disrupting our civil liberties. We understand why there has been the need—the safety-first, the collective wellbeing - first, need to disrupt those civil liberties.

We also understand the validly held, the passionately held, worries that are coming from different communities right now to the ongoing disruption of those very liberties. I do again want to acknowledge the valid concerns of Māori, low-income, and brown communities, who have long been at the unfortunate hand of the systemic racism and bias within our police and justice system. That much no longer even needs debating. It is very well-established, including with the acknowledgment of the police themselves, who I continue to look forward to working with as they seek to correct that injustice—that colonial, historical, and present-day injustice that they themselves acknowledge needs turning around. It is in that context which we have received fair outcry against the way that this bill has seemed to continue to run over those civil liberties of those communities in that context.

We need to be absolutely clear that these broad-ranging powers will not continue to exacerbate those very inequalities that have always existed—that we will not see police or enforcement officers busting into my Manurewa and South Auckland communities as opposed to those house parties in Remuera. We will need to all be very clear that this is not what this bill can continue to support. We are all on record to make sure that we do not continue to see those injustices applied the way that they have been for such a long time.

I wanted to go through very quickly some of the checks on warrantless entry powers that we have worked hard to be able to stand here and keep supporting the public collective—

SPEAKER: I apologise for interrupting the member, but it is coming up to 1 o’clock. The Government has indicated that it does not wish to continue urgency.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 12.59 p.m. (Wednesday)