COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill

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.

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.

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.

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.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

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.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): It wouldn’t be too difficult for him to do that.

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.