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

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

We have always been clear that the measures used to contain COVID-19 need to be proportionate to the risk of the virus. Some of the tools that once were justified now need to be removed. This bill retains a limited number of powers to implement public health measures necessary to support the ongoing management. We will be retaining the ability to put in place case isolation periods and mask-wearing requirements, and, if necessary, requirements on travellers that can be called on if things change and we need to step up our response. But most other measures, including lockdowns and managed isolation and quarantine, are now removed. To reflect the changes in the risk profile presented by COVID-19 within the domestic context, these changes are proportionate.

We are also continuing the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. This will allow us to respond to the risks presented by COVID-19 until such time as the Act can be replaced with broader pandemic legislation that is suitable for a range of infectious diseases. In order to canvass that, we will be undergoing extensive consultation with stakeholders on future pandemic legislation. Any recommendation from independent reviews into the Government’s COVID-19 response will also inform the framework’s design.

With the emergence of variants and subvariants, it’s become even more difficult for us to hypothesise about what future waves must look like. Although we know much more than we did when COVID-19 arrived in New Zealand, there is still no crystal ball. But I do know that we are much safer than we were two years ago, as a result of our immunity, both from vaccination and from exposure; the availability of health tools like antivirals; and also the fact that we have all learnt so much more about managing infectious diseases ourselves. We’re prepared for it with a series of public health protections that are appropriate for our current risk. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you. In this third and final reading of the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill, the National Party supports this.

A state of national emergency was declared due to COVID-19. It was enforced between 12.21 p.m. on 25 March 2020 and 12.21 p.m. on Wednesday, 13 May 2020. It covered all of New Zealand, including the Chatham Islands, Stewart Island, and other offshore islands. The COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 was enacted in May 2020, establishing a bespoke legal framework to manage the unprecedented circumstances of the COVID-19 epidemic in a coordinated and orderly way.

This bill before the House, the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill, is a timely—perhaps not soon enough, although in urgency—third reading, about to be passed into law. Quite appropriately, the bill removes limits, reduces and repeals powers that were once available to the Director-General of Health, removing those powers, with limited select powers to the Minister for COVID-19 Response.

My call is brief, the House is about to go into dinner adjournment. The National Party commends this bill to the House.

The time has come for the dinner break. The House is suspended until 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Fa’afetai lava, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to rise as the MP for Takanini to take a brief call and also the last call on this side of the House on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill.

I would like to, firstly, acknowledge and thank the Minister for her responses and contributions during the committee of the whole House stage and her contributions in the first and second reading, because of our vulnerable communities that we’re always thinking about when it comes to a change in the Act. I would like to say thank you for giving us that reassurance that with these measures being reduced—the ones that are contentious and are not needed during this time of COVID, but also keeping in place the three other measures that will help keep our vulnerable communities safe and also being able to ramp up the measures, if we need to, if a subvariant is causing a lot of issues.

I just wanted to also take this opportunity to thank the medical providers, the health clinics that have done an awesome job during this time period. I recently met up with some Pacific providers last week—my medical colleagues that always give me good feedback and challenging discussions on how we’re going. I would like to thank them for the work they’re doing, because COVID-19 work, the care in the community, but also the work on their BAU—business as usual—it is a lot of work to be doing in our general practices. Doctors, nurses, community workers, and the work that they do—I want to acknowledge that mahi.

This bill creates that balance in order to get things right during this time, and that’s why we support this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to take a call on this third reading of the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill. I’d like to thank members in terms of the contributions that have been made during the committee of the whole House and also the first reading.

Yeah, the speed of this bill and the number of issues canvassed is concerning for the Greens, and we did talk about that during the discussions—in particular, the way that we need, as a Parliament but especially the Government to be prepared for how we’re going to handle the summer peak. As we talked about earlier, we have moved through the winter peak. But as was discussed earlier and announced earlier by health officials, we could be looking at 11,000 cases, possibly up to 100 cases—100 hospitalisations—a day. So where is the plan?

So our concerns still remain with this bill. But it’s really important, I think, to acknowledge those people that have been on the front lines protecting us and keeping us safe: our health providers, our nurses, our health workers, doctors, our iwi providers.

I do acknowledge that parts of this bill are easy to track—for example, the removal of warrantless search into marae. It was good to see that go. It was important to see that go, and also what that means for private dwellings as well. It should never have been in there. But as we talked about in those previous readings as well, at least you can track that, right? You can track the way that we’ve gone from that type of approach to the approach that works. The approach that works, which is about empowering iwi, it’s about empowering Māori health providers, it’s about empowering community—that is what works. And so the pivot from that piece in the Act to what we have now is an important thing and I would encourage the Government to continue to go down that path.

However, the proportionality aspect is not clear. As we look at it in the context of clauses 8 right down to 23, where there will be a reduction of powers and the reduction of the Government’s ability to deal with any number of a rise in cases, this remains a massive concern for the Greens—a massive concern because we are moving into the summer peak period. So I would call on the Government to really be clear—very clear—with its communication with how that is going to be handled.

I reflect back again to questions in the House from last week where we were looking at how that balance was being made in terms of the public health advice that was provided in terms of maintaining masks on public transport and how the Government decided: “You know what? Not feasible, too difficult to enforce.” So if that’s the proportionality that we’re talking about, then we need to really think about how that impacts and how this unfolds to make sure that we are safe this summer.

I accept that there will need to be more wraparound legislation in terms of dealing with the other diseases, infectious diseases other than COVID. And that’s really important to make. But we are at a crucial point in time here. We’re at a crucial point in time here of making sure that we get through the next three months. This bill does not do that. It does not give us the clarity. It falls on either the wrong side of the proportionality or does not give us a clear vision, a clear scope on how that balance is going to be made. And so the Greens will not be supporting this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Again, like my fellow colleagues, I’m speaking in the third stage of the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill. As I said earlier on, it’s a bill of two halves—one half that we’re very happy with in the reduction of powers, but not the other half with the extension of the Act. As ACT has been saying, it’s been time to move on since October 2021. Yes, we still know that there are vulnerable people out there in the community. However, we have also learnt that you give people the information and people are smart—they do realise it.

As I mentioned in my earlier speeches, we now have people taking care if they’re sick. They don’t come to work, or if they think they’re getting something, they are masking up. And we all have vulnerable people that we know—loved ones and good friends—so, nobody wants to be able to pass any virus or any infection on to them. And COVID is just one of many viruses. And, yes, it is new. Yes, we have now learnt a lot more about it, but we’ve also seen what has been going on around the world. As the Minister said, we’ve also now got passive immunity as well as vaccination immunity. We also now have antiviral meds that we didn’t have before, so we still have many things in our tool kit to help people.

But the biggest thing of all is we need to be responsible for ourselves. We can’t always rely on the Government to be able to act fast enough either. So we’ve got to keep looking out for ourselves and our loved ones, because we just never know what sort of virus will arrive into the country or is already here. As we’re saying, we’ve got measles—we’ve had an outbreak a few years back on that. So the biggest thing of all is that I think we have learnt a lot, but I think it is definitely getting close to the time that we move on from these orders. I’m also very happy that I am seeing less and less of the COVID orders coming through our Regulations Review Committee, which has been great—

Rachel Brooking: Oh, don’t you miss them?

TONI SEVERIN: We go through them with a good fine comb. Yes, fellow Regulations Review Committee colleague over in the House there.

We go through them very, very stringently to make sure that it’s not going to encroach on people’s rights. And then, also, as my colleague here on my left for the Greens said, I support finally removing the power of warrantless entry into private dwellings and marae. I understand, yes, that they needed to put this into place, but, still, you know, if we treat people like adults, then people will do, most of the time, what is right. We do know that not everyone does, but the majority of the population does.

And the other thing is all these orders have really made New Zealand very divisive. You know, there’s been so many problems from many different factions of New Zealand. You know, families, business people—everybody—are pitted against each other because of particular orders that have happened in the past. So this is why we’ve being saying that we need to move on. We don’t want these. We’re glad to get rid of most of these divisive powers that are here.

But we know, and also start to wonder, what more would happen in the case of “if”. And I know that they’re still here because of that “if” and that possibility, but the biggest thing of all is I think New Zealand has learnt a lot in these last two years, and I think we’re now ready to just carry on and move forward and do the best that we can to keep everybody as healthy as possible, no matter what the future brings. And, as I said before, COVID is here to stay. It’s one of many risks, one of many viruses, that we have around the world. And ACT says, yes, we’re happy that you removed a lot of the powers. However, we said it’s time to go. So ACT opposes this bill.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—five-minute call.

Thank you. I’m standing to do a very short call. I won’t need the whole five minutes. I will say, in response to the third reading—it’s the third—that I’m in a unique position. It’s not often that Te Paati Māori is debating a bill where the Government is asking to reduce its powers. In this particular case, it’s a reduction of powers, I guess, to wipe the footprint of a public health response that clearly didn’t work and failed not only to remember its Tiriti relationship but also our Pasifika whanaunga and our disabled community.

It’s a bill that has created so much division—and, actually, confusion—for the last three years, whether it be the levels, the traffic lights, bills that would come in and create lockdowns and then lift lockdowns, and mandate without mandates. I guess, in this case, we have been asked to reduce the powers for things like clause 16, where we have been able to remove the power of enforcement officers to enter marae without warrant—and, yes, other dwellings as well. Where we have been asked to remove clause 27 for vaccine certificates, clauses 35 to 37 are removing reference to infringements.

So, while we are extremely proud of all our iwi, Whānau Ora, provider ora, and many kaupapa who stood up in spite of the fact that the public health response forgot all about us. We are left, I guess, at the conclusion of this and asking why, during a pandemic, did the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act fail our communities so dismally.

I guess our hope is to the Government that asked for all the powers and asked to reduce their powers: have a valuable lesson from this experience that, in fact, if we have to confront anything else again—whether it be a pandemic, climate change, or anything of this nature—that, actually, they take an approach that is inclusive; an approach that remembers its communities; an approach that remembers its Tiriti obligations; and, most importantly, an approach that remembers the most vulnerable of the communities that indeed made this country look better to the world because it got in there and did what a one-stop shop public health response couldn’t do.

So we emphasise again, in principle, we would never support this bill. We haven’t from the beginning and we continue to emphasise that fact that we oppose it. Thank you.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill.