COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill

I move, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I want to acknowledge the last member to address the House, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. There has certainly been a number of lessons that the Government has learnt about the appropriate engagement with Māori health providers and with iwi throughout the course of the COVID-19 response. It is our job to make sure that those lessons are embedded in our response going forward. And it was just last week in this House that I spoke on the Haumaru report and the progress we have made in making sure that we can continue not only to adapt our services to make them more responsive to Māori, as we have done in the area of immunisations and antivirals, but also to make sure that we are creating more opportunities for Māori to lead elements of the pandemic response themselves.

However, it would be remiss of me not to note the large amount of advice we received from iwi and Māori health experts about their concern about removing powers altogether and that the fundamentals of the response, which this bill keeps in place, such as the ability to isolate cases, contacts, and use mask mandates, are important in order to be able to ensure that Māori communities, as the member has said, do not continue to face disproportionate impacts from COVID-19. We need this Act in order to protect Māori and other communities who bear the brunt of worse health outcomes due to COVID-19.

I also want to respond to some of the comments about the summer ahead, raised by my colleague Mr Tuiono from the Green Party. I think the Act, as I’ve mentioned, continues the ability for case isolation, which is an absolutely fundamental plank of communicable disease control, to remain. I’ll just note that some Australian states have removed case isolation and, while experiencing the same change in variants that we have, have had a higher increase in case numbers—I think that’s what is occurring in Queensland right now. In addition, we have actually been here before. We have had higher case numbers earlier in this year in winter, in combination with a flu outbreak, and earlier in summer. We managed that through having greater requirements on contacts at the beginning of the year and, also, in the middle of the year, in the July surge of Omicron, we had wider mask mandates. Those powers remain in the bill, should they be necessary and, as always, exercised in a way that is proportionate to the public health risk, to the demand on our health services, and in a way that is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is, as always, a balance.

So through the pandemic, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act has served us well. It has been a flexible piece of legislation that allowed us to change in response to the situation as the pandemic evolved. Our response has continued to change, and the bill we are considering today is an important step in that. It significantly narrows the powers because the extraordinary powers that were granted by this Parliament in the early stage—or by the last Parliament, I should say—of the pandemic are no longer necessary. We will be utilising, instead, our most effective tools in stopping transmission of the virus: isolation and mask use and, also, if necessary, requirements on travellers. These tools will help us practically manage the ongoing impact of COVID-19. Of course, there are non-legislative tools that we use as well, including continuing to support a vaccination programme and the widespread availability of antivirals for those that can benefit from them.

As we move to take out the most restrictive measures in the Act, I’d like to acknowledge the impact lockdowns and managed isolation and quarantine have had on New Zealand. There is no doubt that going hard and early with the response to COVID-19 was the right thing to do. We still have one of the lowest death rates in the world; you can see that in our economy and our low excess-mortality rates. The freedoms that we enjoyed in 2020 and 2021 were much greater than those experienced elsewhere in the world. But it does not mean that the response was without cost. New Zealanders have worked incredibly hard to get through this pandemic. As a result of those efforts, we are continuing to move forward and change the way we do things. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

I take a call for the National Party for the second reading of this bill. As has been indicated, there is support for the amendment bill and, as has been commented too, there is concern about the haste with which this has been rushed through.

So, ordinarily, a second reading is where, after an introduction in first reading, the bill goes to a select committee for public submission and scrutiny for the public to have input and, rightfully, to have a say, particularly about a bill that has been an imposition and restriction on freedom and liberty of movement, existence, and democratic rights, which the Minister has appropriately acknowledged. Also, ordinarily, under normal circumstances—and these have been abnormal times for New Zealanders—at a second reading, there will be a select committee report back to the House indicating whether or not there should be further amendments to the amendment bill before the House now. There’s not been that opportunity to do so.

I indicated in the first call I took that the Opposition parties were notified of this bill on Tuesday this week—two days ago—and here we are debating it before the House at a second reading, soon to go to the committee of the whole House, and a third reading estimated within the next half hour. This is unusual—highly unusual.

So this second reading—part of that unusualness as well is—I’ve done a little bit of research and this would have been disclosed had ordinarily it come before a select committee and public engagement contribution participation—there has been what is called a departmental disclosure statement. That statement is dated 21 November 2022. Here we are today, Thursday—the 24th, is it?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): It’s still the 22nd, actually, because we’re in urgency. So it’s still Tuesday.

So still Tuesday, for the benefit of the public, today is Thursday. So for the peculiarity and the unusualness of this under urgency, it’s deemed as Tuesday the 22nd—thank you, Madam Speaker. But this is about how it resonates and connects with New Zealanders and the New Zealand public.

So I have referred to a departmental disclosure statement, dated 21 November, made available publicly. As a member of Parliament, I had a look through that in the very limited time, just noting that the Government has said there has been external consultation and that overall, most stakeholders indicated support for the narrowing of powers in the Act to improve its proportionality whilst retaining the ability to implement a limited set of public health responses or public health measures. I’ll detail those at the third reading, because I do have some questions to the Minister at the committee of the whole House.

Also, in terms of the peculiarity, abnormality, the unusualness of this being under urgency, I also searched out and had a look at the regulatory impact statement. That statement was dated, initially when it had been provided to Cabinet, September of this year. Unusually, it was only made available to members of this House on Tuesday—although it’s Thursday today, under urgency, it’s deemed to be Tuesday, 22 November. So this regulatory impact statement has been made available to the Government, to its Cabinet since September 2022, and here we are today: it’s only been made available as of 22 November. What a regulatory impact statement does is identify concerns and associated risks.

So my legal eye looked through to whether there are any risks or associated concerns about New Zealanders’ rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is well known that when this Act came into force back in March 2020, there was significant consternation and concern not only from members in this House but also from New Zealand members of the public. So I’ve turned to page 9 of the regulatory impact statement that was dated September 2022, only released and made available on Tuesday, 22 November. There’s a section there: “New Zealand Bill of Rights: Considerations with Respect to Constitutional Issues Regarding Maintaining Powers to Respond to COVID-19”. Interesting. That advice has all been redacted. It has not been made publicly available to members of this House or the New Zealand public. Again, unusual and a measure of concern to be noted as to why it is that the Government and its Cabinet is not prepared to disclose to the New Zealand public the legal advice that has been received around New Zealanders’ rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

It’s understood by the National Party, the importance of maintaining a continuum for the health and safety of New Zealanders with a concern associated with COVID-19. However, there does need to be a balancing off of New Zealanders’ rights in terms of their rights, but, also, New Zealanders do have responsibilities, and it’s about how far the Government goes in terms of imposition against New Zealand’s rights around freedoms and liberties, and that has been a big issue that has driven a wedge of division in our country.

So at the second reading, I’m indicating the bill would usually have gone to a select committee for scrutiny, I’m noting that under the regulatory impact statement, the advice in relation to New Zealanders’ rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has been redacted, not made available, and there has to be some concern associated with that.

It has been indicated that the National Party supports this bill because it appropriately recognises the fact that the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act needs to have some of those initial powers removed, reduced, restricted, repealed, and limited. At the third reading, after there has been further debate at the committee of the whole House, I will go through a summary of what those matters are. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee to be able to take a call on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill.

It may seem unusual that a chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee stand to take a call, however, it actually isn’t unusual. If I take the House’s memory back to the Inquiry into the operation of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, that particular inquiry was led by the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which was well-chaired by one of our predecessors, Dr Deborah Russell. I thank her for her work that she did back in 2020 with the committee to have a look at the powers that were brought in earlier in 2020.

If I go back to the early time of basically the predecessors of this bill, which was then amended in 2021, I recall I was working in the Minister of Police’s office at the time. This particular bill is removing probably one of the most contentious powers within the COVID-19 Act, and that is the warrantless entry powers.

Now, I remember the policy discussions that were taking place in the Beehive at the time. It was a really difficult discussion—not for any particular reason—as we wanted to be able to introduce these powers, but, actually, we had really make sure that introducing such an extraordinary power was taken with careful consideration.

At the time, it was finely balanced. The Minister of Justice at the time, the Hon Andrew Little—I remember we were also part of those conversations with the Hon Stuart Nash. At the time it was finely balanced. It was agreed that we would include these powers, including into marae, on the basis and the foundation that when they were not needed, we would remove them. That time has now come. This is what this bill seeks to do: remove those warrantless entry powers, because they are contentious.

I respond to the member on the other side of the House, who looked at the regulatory impact statement and noticed that there were parts that were redacted. They had been redacted for a very good reason; if you read that paragraph 16 just before, it says because they’re legally privileged. In order to be able to waive that privilege, they would need to seek the permission of the Attorney-General. Obviously, based on the context of where it is in the bill, it is around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act considerations.

I just want to be able to say: now is the right time to strip back these powers; now is the right time to ensure we still have protections but balance that against the ability to remove the powers that are not necessary and that are not needed, given the COVID response that we’ve had in the last two years. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise again on this second reading of this bill. I have a couple of reflections and agree with sentiments around the House around the amazing work that our Māori health providers did, the amazing work that our hapū and iwi did as well, te whakatū kaupapa mate urutā, ērā tāngata katoa, me mihi atu ka tika [setting up initiatives in the pandemic, all those people should definitely be acknowledged].

I see the removing of the warrantless search into marae and the pivot—which should have happened in the first place—to making sure that that iwi organisations, that hapū, are always listened to and that they are resourced to do all the things that they can do to support their communities, to support our communities. That should have been done in the first place.

So the intention there should always still be there. It’s about protecting our communities. So I see that as an upgrading and a correction of what should have already been there in the first place. But I do see it different in terms of all of the other tools in the tool kit.

As I said in my first reading speech as well, it’s all very good and well to upgrade your tools. Should we listen to Māori who know how their communities are, who culturally understand and are deeply embedded within their communities? Of course. That is something that should have been there in the first place and that is something that the entire health system, hopefully, is really more cognisant of as well. So a movement to that is an important thing and that’s a good thing.

But how does that flow down to the rest of it? How does it flow down to the rest of the powers that are in this bill? Because—and I said it before in the first reading speech—we are moving into the possible summer peak of COVID. And yes, there were lessons learnt through the winter peak as well, but there were things in place. Who knows what could have happened there? Summer is going to be very different. Summer’s going to be very different. There are going to be more tourists around, there’s going to be festivals. Who wants to be stuck inside? Not me.

So what I would like to see in terms of trying to make sure that we alleviate—this House, the Government—the anxiety out there is to have, first of all, a very, very, very clear communication plan about how we are going to get through the summer. Because I reflect on this in terms of what was said last week. We could be up to 11,000 cases; there could be up to 100 hospitalisations per day. We know that the hospital system can’t take that pressure. You hear and see doctors talk about the pressures that they have already—already.

I acknowledge that there is work being done to make sure that there is service training, to make sure that there is flow-through for workers, for nurses and so on and so forth. But that’s down the pipeline a bit; that’s a bit further down the track. I’m talking about this summer; I’m talking about over the next few months as well.

So what I am interested to hear from the Minister—and from that side of the House—is, first of all, that communications plan and those tools. How is that going to impact us as we try to move through the summer as well? Because we’re removing things, but what’s getting put in place? Right. Some things have been removed; what’s being put in place? There are things that are being removed here.

The other thing I am quite interested in understanding is the whole issue around proportionality. How did we arrive at option three in the regulatory impact statement, as opposed to maybe a different version of option two? I think I understand why we didn’t go for option four, because that would take a lot more work in terms of making it agnostic to COVID and I want to acknowledge the way—and I’m assuming that I know, because I’m not a doctor—that that was kind of put to the side as well.

I also want some reflection from the Minister around that proportionality in terms of the way that public health advice arrives—how the public health advice that the Minister gets arrives as well. I reflect on that in terms of answers given in the House last week when we heard that the public health advice was for there to be retained, the use of masks on public transport.

The answer as I understood it—and I’m happy to be corrected, I’m happy for that to be further explained because maybe it didn’t land with me appropriately and properly enough; I’m not a doctor. But it seemed to me that the answer was, “Because it was too difficult.” You know, it was “not feasible”, I think the phrase was that the Minister used. If it isn’t feasible, because people don’t want to wear masks on public transport and so on and so forth, then what are you going to do? If this is what the public health is telling us, then we should do it. If we’re not going to do it, we need to have other things in place—and I don’t see that in terms of the response going forward.

I—and we, as the Greens—in this second reading still cannot support this bill because there is not that clear picture of how we’re going to get through the summer, what it means to actually, if we don’t know how we’re going to get through the summer, leave the tools in the tool kit and not throw the tool kit away until we have a clearer picture of how we’re going to get through that summer.

So on this second reading, the Greens, once again, will not be supporting this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Once again, I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill—these bills are very long-winded. Like COVID, it’s going to be around for years and years and years. As my colleague to my right said, read the impact statement—they were throwing all this to us just on Tuesday for us to look at. And, yes, I know it’s all very redacted and I know it’s all sensitive stuff, but when I also look the departmental disclosure statement, I feel a little bit happier, because when we look down to considering the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, it’s got a yes in it.

So it shows me—I’m hoping—that they have done their due diligence and they have gone through and made sure that this bill is OK with the Auditor-General and the Ministry of Justice, and they are happy that this new bill is not going to affect people by removing the power of warrantless entry to private dwellings and marae. So this is everybody’s house. It doesn’t matter who you are. They could have come in and seen you because you disobeyed an order.

But also, again, sometimes those orders were getting very confusing for a lot of people, so I am glad that we are getting rid of a lot of these orders that have been constantly coming up. I’m a member of the Regulations Review Committee and we were scrutinising them quite carefully to make sure that nothing sneaked through that would affect people and their lives. The biggest thing of all is that the orders were confusing, and confusing for me. I am not a lawyer and the average person out there is not a lawyer, and they were very, very confusing. I love it when things are made simple so that people can understand. If you treat people like that, they will understand and they will do what is required of them.

I know that we still have masks in place for our healthcare workers. I understand that. However, when you work in the health profession you do have a bit of a higher standard of looking after yourself and those around you. It would be nice to see the lovely smiling faces of our nurses and doctors, but, also, they don’t want to make their patients sick if they get COVID or anything else. As I said, we have learnt a lot over these past two years about looking after ourselves and others. We stand up as individuals and take responsibility for ourselves, and we judge when we need to wear a mask, and we look after our vulnerable communities. As we’re saying, everyone’s whānau is important. Be it the immunocompromised, be it our elderly, be it Pasifika or Māori or any ethnic group that we have here in New Zealand that have any risk factors, they still need to be taken care of.

But the communication and also the language barriers—what I’m learning is that a lot of people had a problem around language and understanding some of the COVID orders. That is a huge thing—getting down to the grass roots of our communities and really talking to them. This is why we’re really happy for a lot of the COVID orders to be gone, but, as we’ve been saying since October, we do need to move on. We have to live with this and not still have orders hanging over us. We know we need to learn. We know a review is going to happen. But we don’t necessarily need to continue with all that is here, and I’m pretty certain that even if we didn’t have the orders, people would speak up and say, “Hey, we’ve got a resurgence of COVID and we’ve got a new variant. Hey people, mask up. Be careful what you’re doing and wash your hands some more. Sneeze into your elbow or shoulder.” I’m pretty sure we’ve had that message drilled into us.

So the ACT Party still opposes this bill on the grounds that we don’t need any more of this. I think New Zealand is wise enough to know what to do, and all we need to be told is that this is happening and we can do it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

E te Pīka, thank you. I stand for the second reading of the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill. Look, I do want to acknowledge the Government and the fact that this bill is removing sole powers of the Director-General of Health, and it’s retaining some of the existing safeguards of the Act. As has been said, this is positive. I guess its overreach and the one-stop-shop approach that it created was so damaging, as the Waitangi Tribunal Haumaru report stated, that to support it with hand on heart would be just too difficult for this party.

It compromised trust—and still has—for a large proportion of our population. I want to, again, highlight that the Government’s vaccination rollout disadvantaged Māori by failing to take not only expert advice, but it equated the risk of a 45-year-old Māori male with a 70-year-old Pākehā. It was like no one had ever heard of their tangata whenua before and we were completely mis-profiled. Six hundred thousand over-65-year-old non-Māori were vaccinated while we had a whole lot of young Māori who are at risk put and pushed to the very, very, very long back of the queue. So I guess what we need to sort of remember is that this bill was in place—and we talk about its power and its ability to protect us. Where was that, then, when we had Māori who were disproportionately being put at risk of being infected by Delta?

I respect, and it’s good to hear, the Minister’s reflections that the Government is working to implement the recommendations of Haumaru. But, yeah, let’s talk about that. It stated that the Government needed to show agility, it needed to have change, and it needed to completely change some of its approaches in consultation and its outreach for Māori. It reinforced that different approaches were necessary for different communities, as my colleagues have said, and the importance of devolving resourcing. In the ministry’s view, the Māori response has shown that it could be remarkably innovative. Wow! We’ve all been saying that for 182 years, but it was good to see that’s finally acknowledged.

So what, I guess, we’re trying to gauge from this is that if the ministry considers that it’s important to have this bill and it’s important to build on the work that was learnt from the COVID-19 response and the health system more broadly, where is that? What has been learnt? Where is the evaluation of the response to the pandemic? Again, we understand that there are reflections and there hasn’t been a lot of time afforded to this because of the amount of years that we’ve had to endure lockdowns and traffic lights and not traffic lights—and orange and red.

But I guess the thing is that the Minister has observed that, yes, we’ve never had the time previously to evaluate the response, but we’ve now got examples of real-time quality assurance that is being carried out in the interim. So just bear with me. It included undertaking more than 40 investigations into elements of the response, which ranged from an investigation into contact tracing early in the pandemic to more recent ones about laboratories. So the investigations resulted in more than 1,000—1,000—recommendations, which are all tracked centrally to monitor the implementation. Where I’m going with this is that the Minister was told, and we’ve been assured, that they were going to set new norms. There were going to be new norms set for public health response, new norms for us as Māori, and new norms that we can say that we’re never, ever going to have to experience the displacement, the disproportionate effect in the way that we were chucked to the back of the queue—particularly our youth. Again, based on the failed experiences from this bill, we cannot as Te Paati Māori be seen supporting it. Kia ora rā.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill.

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020