COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill

When we were last debating this bill, Marama Davidson had the call, and she has three minutes and 50 seconds left if she wishes to use it. I’m not quite sure about the technical way of how we’re going to get it up there.

Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will start by acknowledging where my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare just left off, which is that we have an understanding that the broad powers that have got us through alert levels 4 and 3, and now as we move into level 2, have been there because of the public health and wellbeing approach that we have put first in our Government response to COVID-19. Yes, this has absolutely restricted our movements and our freedoms, and that is because of the collective decision we have made to ensure that all people’s lives are cared for as much as we possibly could, and that we wanted to make sure that we had clear restrictions and guidelines on those broad powers as we move into level 2, so that we could understand how those powers are going to be applied, when and where, and how long they will last for.

What I want to acknowledge in my closing time is that—and my colleague Mr Henare also raised it—we understand that Te Tiriti is also at the forefront of the debates that are being had in our communities at the moment regarding this COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. That is because there is a clear understanding that, for example, warrantless entry powers on to marae, while that sits alongside warrantless entry powers on to other venues and other places and private dwellings, this sits in a context of unfair targeting long and historical and well established to Māori communities, Māori homes, and marae. That is why we are listening and being sure that it is not enough that this law might actually treat marae in the same way as those other private dwellings. That is what we are hearing and that is what I am listening to, and that people acknowledge that this bill is simply saying that rather than signalling out marae for extra treatment, we are including marae in the same treatment.

I want, as I did before the break, to assure people that, yes, we in this House do need to be accountable to monitor and review whose homes and communities and dwellings are entered into with warrantless entry; that we are keeping the data and record and reporting on those entries; that we review that reporting and that data at the newly agreed shorter review times, which I absolutely think are fantastic; and that we make it clear to the public that if the public health agenda of these broad powers are not being adhered to, there is power in this House to renege on those high orders that are being sought in this House; and that we absolutely must keep a check that the powers are being used for what they are set up to be used for, otherwise we will execute and exploit that power in this House to renege on that order that can be made. That is an extra step of accountability that was put into this bill as an example of trying to give better clarity and framework around applying these bills.

So I’m very pleased that we have been able to tighten up some of that stuff. It does not address all the valid fears and concerns. Yes, we are listening and we do need to take those on board and consider that in our ongoing monitoring and review and application of this legislation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to begin my speech on the third reading of this bill in the House as I began last night. It’s not the “what” that we debate; it’s the “how”. We know that what we need to do is to get our country back into a state where people can live normal lives, children can go to school, mums and dads can go to work, they can have time socialising, gathering around our country, whether it be in maraes or churches. That is what we all want and what we all desire. So the “what” is not in question in all our debates here in this House in regard to this bill; it’s the “how”. It is how this bill will give extraordinary powers in ways and in places that, for us, we object to, and we’ve heard the cries of the community at large, who have spoken to us about this.

Earlier on today, in the morning session of the House, in the debate around this bill, the Hon Chris Hipkins talked about the role of an Opposition, and as he recounted his time when he was here on the opposite side, as the Opposition, during the Christchurch earthquake, he saw that his responsibility as an Opposition member was to debate and to scrutinise the bills that were before the House. That’s absolutely correct, and that’s our role and responsibility. The issue, though, is this: the comments that he made, was it about this disease and about the rampant nature of it? The viciousness, the carelessness—that had no care and concern, whether it be by ethnicity, whether it be by social demographic. Irrespective of that, this disease would harm and hurt all peoples in its way. We understand that. But can I say to the member, to the Minister, and to the public at large: let’s not let the disease determine our sense of destiny. Let’s not let this disease and the fear of this disease determine the way in which we conduct ourselves both in this House and also in the public place.

Fear raises an awareness and a concern but should never be our motivation. Our motivation should always be that we lead both the country and its people and our communities with an aspiration that identifies who we are as a people. You don’t step out in fear. You need to step out in faith, to believe in the vision of this country and of its people. That’s how we step forward, and yet, inside this bill, it’s based on a motivation of fear. As the Minister talked about, we fear the fact of what this will do to us, and yet it’s a proven fact that, over the different levels of level 4 and level 3, the country has rallied together. The goodwill has been seen and shown in so many different ways that we are proud of as a country. That is the character and that’s the nature.

I want to acknowledge Kiritapu Allan and what she spoke about. She’s absolutely right. She talked about the history and the past. And I want to talk about, and when I spoke in my first speech, why was not the trust and confidence for Māori at the forefront of the decisions before the drafting of this bill? And this morning as I was around the place and saying karakias, I went out into the lobby—and not many of us grab a hold of the Hansard that is there. My attention was drawn to the fact of the Hansard of 1881. We remember that Act because on 5 November 1881 was the blot and the shame in our nation’s history of Parihaka, where the confiscation of land and of people’s rights were taken away. And that’s the fear at times that people have: will we revisit the past? At different times we have. I couldn’t find it there because the determination and the proclamation was actually made in October, and the Hansard finished in September, because that’s when the House rose. But what I did find—and I know the Hon Shane Jones will know this—was a petition by Nu Hare, which is for Ngati Here and the Ngati Tupako hapū, which are in the Hokianga. It was the Tapawai Block, which was again confiscated and taken from them.

When I read the Hansard, the way in which our Māori people were treated, was one in which we would hang our heads in shame. And I want to say this, and the reason I mention that is that the truth is we’ve all got blood on our hands. We’ve all got guilt in our heart for the way that we have treated Māori in this land and in this country. But how this relates to Part 3 of the bill is this: Māori were given an exposure draft of the bill. Prominent members of Te Rōpū Whakakaupapa Urutā, the National Māori Pandemic Group, gave their response—a considered, a measured response. The first comment they made: “There is neither any 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.” You see, that’s the point for all of us here, not just for those that are in the governing power. What we’ve forgotten is this: we’ve not treated this relationship, this covenant relationship, with the due respect that it deserves. And if we don’t do it now—and for those of you that are in this position, because there will come a day when it will change, and the same question should be asked: what are you doing to honour that relationship?

The words that we use are not “partnership”; the word is called “kawenata”, which is a covenant, a sacred, moral obligation that’s irrevocable. And yet we find again consistently—I asked the Minister, the Attorney-General, when did he receive that advice? I do know that advice came prior to the bill being drafted and being submitted into the House. So why, again, was it not included? None of the provisions or the submissions that were made were included in anywhere near the draft. I can read from the comments that we hear, and I want to state this. They said, “To ensure that there is no further erosion of goodwill, it is critical that the actions are proportionate and enacted in a high-trust environment. In particular, there must be recognition of the significance of marae and their expression of mana motuhake.” That was prior to the drafting of the bill, and that’s the point. It’s not the fact that you’ve changed it. And I want to acknowledge the fact of the advocacy. I do. Kiritapu Allan and others that are here; the Hon Peeni Henare, the Hon Shane Jones. I know that you advocate, but, you see, there’s a failure in our system—I’m going to own this; our system—where we’ve not taken on board what should have been included right from the start, a piece of legislation that impacts all of our people. And here’s the point: if we can’t get that covenant relationship right, how will we conduct ourselves for the rest of New Zealand?

This is how we conduct ourselves. When it came to the funeral directors and others, and clergy, those who conduct places of worship, we didn’t trust them to be able to accommodate and put in place—when it comes to tangihanga, we weren’t trusting them. And now we have; we’ve come half way. They said a hundred; now it’s 50. When it came to places of worship, you can go to a gym where there’s a hundred people, you can even go to the movie theatre, but you can’t go to your place of worship, where it could be 2,000 square metres of space and yet you can’t even have a hundred people in there. Why? The question is that you’re not trusting the people. If we haven’t had the ability to trust a covenant relationship for tangata whenua, that will impact all of us, and I say all of us. If we don’t change this part of the system, we’ll not learn the lessons of the past—and what I hold here is part of Hansard of 1881. I can tell you this now; we’ll keep repeating it into the present and then into the future. That’s the point of the debate that I put forward.

I want to finish off with my final remarks that come as this—and this comes, again, from the words that have been spoken here by the advisers, by Māori that were given an exposure draft that came prior to the bill being introduced into the House. The bill states that the Minister must have regard to advice but there is no legal compulsion to seek or take that advice. There, again, seems to be no regard to culturally informed, evidence-based decision-making. It is of great concern that the interests of Māori are not referred to at all in this section, given that all manner of enforcement powers and associated sanctions have historically and contemporaneously been used disproportionately against Māori. This absence raises alarm—this absence raises alarm. And if we can’t in this nation get right, after 160 years of Westminster governance, the roles and responsibility between a covenant relationship, what we are doing today in this House by passing this bill is a breach of every other relationship, of every civil liberty, of every other citizen in this nation. If you get this one right, you get the others right. We haven’t today in this House, and I own this as a “we”. But, for you in power and with influence, you have the ability to decide this.

So, today, you will now own the responsibility of this bill, the consequences of it: the removal of the ability of trust and confidence in our nation, at the heart and core of the people that are critically important today. We oppose this bill on the grounds of the fact that it does not give trust and confidence. Fear is a powerful stimulant. Used in the wrong hands, it is a coercion, but used rightly it will bring protection and power to the people of this land. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

This is a split call. I call Kiritapu Allan.

I want to acknowledge the remarks that have just been shared in this House by my colleague across the aisle, the Hon Alfred Ngaro, and in particular the significance of that sacred covenant which is the Treaty partnership, and I want to acknowledge those in particular, a number of incidents which give rise to some very poignant considerations for this House this afternoon. My colleague raised the 1881 invasion of Parihaka. We’ve heard today and we’ve not long ago had those descendants of Rua Kēnana, who endured the invasion in 1916 up in Maungapōhatu, and more recently in our modern history, in 2008, with Rūātoki. There are significant and real concerns that have been expressed about the use of coercive force by the State against our people, and I want to thank the honourable member for raising those considerations in this House.

I too, though, want to put things in context for right now. There have been two significant issues that have been raised by Māori over the last 36 hours in particular, as the passage of this bill has been considered in this House. One has been the inclusion of marae in particular to clause 20—which was the original—subclause (3), and I want to acknowledge the Attorney-General in particular for his considerations about where marae rightly sat. I want to acknowledge that, in particular, when that was included into this bill, the intention was to do the least harm possible and ensure the most protections that could be afforded under this piece of legislation, which, as the section 7, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act advice rightly acknowledged, is the most significant Act that passes powers to the State. So I want to acknowledge the intentions and the work done by my good friend the Attorney-General.

I also want to acknowledge that, in turn, this side of the House heard the concerns expressed loudly and up and down the country by Māori that there was a real fear about the inclusion of marae, our sacred places, into this legislation. Accordingly, after the original Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) was tabled in this House by the Attorney-General last night, he introduced an additional SOP to address that specific point this morning and extracted that term “marae” from clause 20(3), and that has been left to the side and reverted back to the original state of play, the status quo of where marae currently sit right now.

I also want to acknowledge the particular grief that has been shared in this House by our whānau up and down the country, who have expressed the desire to mourn for our people in the way that our tikanga would permit or suggest we need to convene to mourn the loss of loved ones. There have been concerns raised with me that there is a targeted provision that excludes or precludes Māori from being able to exercise our tikanga. That is not what I read in this bill, and that is not what I understand the intention to be, but I do acknowledge that there have been significant amendments, just announced today, to enable the balance of striking the correct public health considerations with people’s ability to grieve—that that has been amended today. Whilst that isn’t specifically needed to be addressed in this bill, I think it’s important to note here, because these issues have been condensed together.

Over the last seven or so weeks, I know that our executive, on this side of the House, have worked tirelessly to ensure that at every single juncture, the decisions that they are exercising as an executive are done with the best intentions of our people at the forefront, that the public health considerations have been at the forefront, and that as we transition to level 2 this evening at 11.59, the bespoke legal framework that will be put in place at the conclusion of this debate will be ready to go by tomorrow.

I want to particularly acknowledge a raft of amendments, significantly the reduction in time from two years to three months that this bill now applies, and acknowledge the Attorney-General and all of his team, who have been working tirelessly to make sure that the settings for this bespoke piece of legislation are in place. And, without further ado, I commend this legislation to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. All New Zealanders played their part in flattening the COVID curve. We all stayed home. We took care of our neighbours: we shopped for them, we picked up groceries, we delivered prescriptions. We cared for our community, and it was hard, but this hard action was required, and, credit where credit’s due, it was well led by our Prime Minister. But that hard action was necessary because we didn’t go early. Despite the Prime Minister telling us at every possible opportunity, trying to rewrite history, that we went hard and early, the fact is that our borders remained far too porous for far too long, and anyone coming back in or seeing those tourists wandering around knows that very well.

We went hard despite some of the terrible consequences that we knew would happen: the massive loss of civil liberties, tens of thousands of jobs lost, businesses collapsing, livelihoods lost, our elective surgeries cancelled, cancer diagnoses not happening, people dying alone, horrific sexual and domestic abuse, suicides, and the inability to say goodbye to our loved ones. But thanks to our efforts, we’re almost at level 2. We did what was asked of us despite some of those horrible consequences. We trusted our Prime Minister, and, credit where credit’s due, as I said, she led us deftly through those times, but surely, as an acknowledgment of our combined effort, that she continually thanks us for day after day, she would now treat us with some respect and give us some of the same trust that we instilled in her to keep this virus at bay at level 2?

But this bill suggests this is not the case—quite the opposite, in fact. This is, quite frankly, a “Thanks very much, but we don’t trust you one iota” bill. They’ve introduced a piece of quite Draconian legislation that curtails our freedoms at the whim of the Prime Minister and descends us into what has been described as a police State, all rushed through under urgency, without the public scrutiny that is usually afforded to bills like this. The Government are basking in the glow of what they believe is public adoration. They’re acting in the mistaken belief that their powers are limitless, that they can do what they like without question, and in that belief they have made a misstep. This bill is a giant leap too far. This is a bill that allows our Prime Minister—not the Director-General of Health, that we are so used to making decisions, but the Prime Minister waking up one day and deciding what we can and can’t do, where we can and can’t go, which roads we can and can’t travel on, and so on.

But the real kicker is in the enforcement powers. Clause 20(3) allows a police officer to enter a private dwelling without a warrant if they have reasonable grounds to believe that people have gathered in contravention of the Prime Minister’s order. I’ll say that again: without a warrant. We’ve had fear instilled in us, and that has done something unusual. Don’t get me wrong; we’ve done all that kind stuff I talked about earlier, but there’s been a fair amount of behaviour of a different kind. Barry Soper pointed out that we’ve turned into a nation of “grumpy narks”, sounding off at each other on Facebook, dobbing in our neighbours on the hotline, and I’m not surprised, because fear does that to people. So, when the police get a call from your terrified neighbour, believing that thousands of people will die and that everyone’s to be treated as if they have the virus, telling them that you’ve got a gathering of potentially too many people, the police can enter your private dwelling and shut down your kid’s birthday party because there may be 11 kids there.

But let’s delve into that just a little bit further. We all know about drug houses. We all know about gang houses. Even in the East Coast Bays, we’re not immune to these things.

💬 David Seymour: Surely not!

Even in the East Coast Bays—peddling drugs and misery and targeting vulnerable people. All of these drug houses, gang pads, and dodgy premises continue to operate despite the police’s best intentions and best efforts to close them down. They don’t have the power to go in and enter those places without a warrant; yet here we are. Never mind that—never mind that. We’re not even in level 4, we’re not in level 3, but we’re about to go into level 2, and here we are, setting aside the requirement of a police officer to gain a warrant before going into a private dwelling because your neighbour might think you’ve got too many kids at your kid’s birthday party. The Government had the numbers to pass this law today to allow police to enter your home without a warrant—not because of legal firearms, not because of methamphetamine, but because the Prime Minister has decided that your kid’s birthday party is too big and the cops can go in and close it down.

We did what was asked of us—99.9 percent of us followed the rules. We can be trusted. We can be treated like adults. We do not need to impose such Draconian measures and descend into some kind of police State for level 2, and for that reason, I cannot support this bill.

💬 David Seymour: Madam Speaker.

Is this a split call?

💬 David Seymour: Doesn’t have to be.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Yes.

It is a split call? This is a split call.

I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the third reading of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. It’s been quite a journey. I voted for the first two readings of this bill for a couple of reasons. It’s better to have a law passed by Parliament that’s been debated, even if urgently, that people can look to and know their rights. There was a chance, as this legislation progressed through the stages, that it could be made of sufficient quality that people really could rely on it to protect their rights. That was the hope. Unfortunately, as the debate on this bill has progressed, more and more dark downsides of the legislation have been revealed, and the Government has, by and large, failed to make the amendments that might have been helpful for protecting New Zealanders’ rights and freedoms. That is a great shame.

Let us put on the record what some of those problems are. The range of restrictions that can be placed on New Zealanders—how they can move, where they can be, who they can see, and what sort of things can be moved in and out of a space or kept in a place—is almost limitless. The only restriction on that, as the Attorney-General has said, is, if you’ve got enough money, you can go to court for a judicial review. If anyone’s wondering, the going rate on the street for a judicial review is about 60 grand. Not every New Zealander has a spare 60 grand to stand up for their legal rights.

Then we come to how this law is put in place—or how these orders are put in place. It’s partly the director-general and partly the Minister of Health. As we debated earlier, the powers of the unelected director-general almost completely overlap the powers of the elected Minister of Health. Well, there should be accountability.

Then we come to the enforcement. The most extraordinary thing is that the bill as introduced allows the Director-General of Health to raise a rabble of enforcement officers. Originally, it was anybody can be appointed with the power to go around telling their fellow citizens what to do, issuing fines, and, potentially, landing you in jail if you disobey them. Then they said, “OK, that is outrageous. We’ll just make it people that work for the Government.” The ACT Party said, “Well, if you’re going to do that, at the very least there should be an accountability mechanism for the people that are the victims of misconduct by these enforcement officers.” The Attorney-General said, “Don’t worry. All State employees are accountable.” But there remains no complaint process and no accountability for the director-general who unleashes these people. And, by the way, it says “employees or those engaged by the State”; so who knows what that will mean in reality.

And then, in the case of enforcement officers and constables, they can come into any building or property, in the former case, and, in the case of constables, into a private house. I thought Erica Stanford, the MP for East Coast Bays, put it very well when she pointed out that, under this law, the protections against entry and search by the police will now be stronger for the Hell’s Angels on their pad than they will be for a suspected birthday party of 11 kids. How crazy is that?

So I can’t support this legislation, but I can say I’ve spoken on it more than any member of this House other than the member in charge. We’ve engaged properly. We’ve tried to make it better, and we can’t get there.

Then we come to the politics. Where have the Green Party been? Nowhere. Nothing. Marama Davidson got up and said there have been improvements to the bill. What she forgot to say is they were proposed by the Opposition. What about New Zealand First? They’ve got to be one of the most politically lazy parties in this Parliament. They have done nothing. Stood by. Nada. They haven’t intervened; haven’t done a thing to stand up for civil liberties when it’s really counted. I hope that New Zealanders reward them for that as they deserve on 19 September. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I’m not one given to superlatives, but it really does give me pleasure to stand and speak on this bill, because, being a Wellington MP, I’ve been lucky enough to be able to come into the House as we’ve passed and debated various legislation. This is a very key piece of legislation that, when we look back in history—just look at the name of it: the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. It sums it up. And every speaker and every commentator understands that this is a crucial time in our history. Whatever else happens, I don’t think the country will ever be quite the same. Many of the things that happen in future—whether it’s our children, who have had a new-found understanding of our Government systems, of our civil systems through daily watching at 1 o’clock our medical director of health and the Prime Minister working out; whether it’s our children understanding what’s happening around the world, comparing numbers in Germany, in Belarus, in Taiwan—it’s a stage in history that we’ll look back and say it was an excellent time; it was excellently handled.

I’ve heard the speakers in the Opposition today. I liken it: the Prime Minister has led this fantastic ship of State. There’s a saying I’m fond of using is which is “No one ever learned to sail on a still lake.” Well, we have had a storm come through on our lake, and we all, as a nation, have become better sailors. I liken the Opposition, and even the previous speaker, to those little fizz boats that come around—maybe the odd canoe—that is really having no effect on what’s happening but, boy, they make a lot of noise. But what they do is highlight just how steady the ship of State has been—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would be preferable if we could get off the boat and on to the bill.

This bill, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill, is the very bill that could almost be the tiller of this boat, because this actually shows us right now what we need to do to keep New Zealanders safe, to keep New Zealanders in the future. And this extremely dangerous virus—you would listen to those speakers opposite and think we’re talking about the common cold, we’re talking about things that don’t matter. Can they just be reminded, can they just watch what’s happening around the world and just temper their accusations, temper their speeches accordingly? This is very serious.

I’d just like to go to the enforcement part of it. This looks terrible. We’ve had someone in East Coast Bays talking about, apparently, she has got a tinnie house or a drug house—no doubt full of cocaine in that part of the world—but somehow this is comparable with a children’s birthday party. Just have a look at what the enforcement powers are. It just allows the police, where they believe people have gathered in contravention of an order—an existing order, an order which already exists—to ensure we remain safe for the purpose of giving people a direction to comply with the order; that’s what it does. It’s means that police officers—I mean, I’ve been a police officer for 40 years. This is a very pragmatic, workable piece. It is not going to be used to stomp on the civil rights of New Zealanders at all; it is pragmatic, because the opposite is that so called children’s birthday party. For the police to have to go and get a search warrant to actually go in there to prevent this virus being moved around—just the share practicalities of that, because that’s what the Opposition are asking for.

This is pragmatic. It means that where police—and I’ll tell you what, every one of us here as electorate MPs will be getting calls over the weekend where there are such gatherings. And there’ll be people who are obeying the law who will be very annoyed about what’s happening three doors down, because they will know it will not be a group of school children there; it will be a group that probably, through intoxication, will be putting us all at risk. And it will be we as MPs who will be getting complaints that the cops didn’t do anything or that the cops took five hours to go away and get a search warrant before they were actually able to enter the premises, and then next week we’ll have the same people whinging and whining here because the cops didn’t do anything about it on the weekend.

I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House. It is a very pragmatic piece of legislation. It is one that will enable our ship of State—this Government—to ensure that we continue the business of looking after New Zealanders today and into future. This is a good bill.

I’d like to torpedo that boat. I want to bookend this speech with words from someone else who’s far more eloquent than myself. He says, “when human societies lose their freedom, it’s not necessarily because tyrants have taken it away. It’s usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And … That’s what I fear we are seeing now.” That’s been said by Lord Sumption, the English supreme court justice and judge, discussing COVID-19 only a few days ago. I agree with Lord Sumption that this is the most anti-democratic piece of legislation being put before this Parliament. I repeat it again: it is anti-democratic. It is against the values of this democracy, this Parliament, our constitutional sovereignty. It is against the principles of law and ethics.

I am pleased to stand on this side of the House as a member of the only political party that has opposed this bill from the very start. I want the public to understand that very clearly: National alone has opposed this bill from the very beginning, and we are here now only because every other political party has supported it so far. Why do I oppose this bill so aggressively? Let me, as I phrased in a video earlier today, come to what I term the “terrible highlights”. This is a bill which, effectively, gives one person enormous powers—one person. I don’t actually particularly care who it is. In this case, it could be the Minister of Health or the Prime Minister; I suspect, primarily, the latter. I don’t particularly care who it is. This is not a personal issue of who that person happens to be. But any constitutional democracy which puts enormous powers into the hands of one person is by definition not democratic at all.

These powers will impact on New Zealanders’ daily lives in ways I suspect they can barely comprehend. Why? Because it’s being rushed through Parliament; but I’ll come back to that. These decisions outlined in section 11 give one person the power to say to ordinary New Zealanders where they can stay, who they can see, how they can physically distance, where they can travel, how they can carry out specialist activities. One person alone will be able to dictate to Kiwis how they’ll be isolated and quarantined. They will have the power to dictate to you your place, premises, craft, vehicles, even your animals—how you, or we as Kiwis, can operate. These powers are enormous and they have been concentrated in one hand. That is wrong ethically, morally, and legally.

This bill enables the police to enter a home without a warrant. The police have never held that power at all. They have never held that power. And this bill enables police, just on reasonable cause, to enter into your home. I would suggest, even worse than that, that this bill creates a provision for enforcement officers. I prefer to think of them as State-sanctioned vigilantes. These are people who will be authorised through this bill—not police—to enforce the purposes of this Act. They are people who will be able to, effectively, be reporting on us as citizens or business owners or people who wish to go to, I don’t know, church or to play sport. They will have the power not only to watch and report on what you do but to shut you down. Once again, this bill, this terrible highlight, is allowing State-sanctioned vigilantes. And I see it very similar to what was attempted to happen—well, it wasn’t attempted; it was happening with those checkpoints, of which the Government seem to be completely confused about. Completely wrong, completely illegal.

Also, we are seeing, through this bill, what I have often spoken to as the Draconian and heartless rules that are being put in place around funerals and tangi, weddings, and other religious services. It is inconsistent, and one of the things that annoy myself as a student of philosophy and as a parliamentarian is inconsistency. Why it’s important is that, any time the public can see inconsistency, they know something wrong is happening. As of today, we’ve had a slight change from the Government: that you can have up to 50 people now at a funeral. That is a good step forward—I do want to acknowledge that—but it also shows the incredible muddle which has been created here. Up to 50 people can attend a funeral. Fewer than 10 are allowed to attend any other religious ceremony—act of worship in their temple, their mosque, their church, wherever—but up to 100 people, as I pointed out in question time today, can attend the cinema. They can play rugby together—30 people can roll around in the mud. That’s all perfectly legal, but less than 10 people—less than 10 people—are allowed to go and practise their faith safely. It is absolutely inconsistent, it’s Draconian, and it’s heartless.

As I said, I do want to acknowledge I think, particularly and exclusively around tangi, that the Government’s announcement today that it’s going to 50 people is a good one, and I want to say thank you to the thousands of New Zealanders who have replied to my petition in the last 24 hours. Thank you for the pressure that you’ve put on. New Zealanders, understand the voice you have, and we will continue to push against, as I say, these heartless, heartless rules, because as it stands now, with the changes, you literally have to be dying to go to church, to be allowed in.

I want to point out, too, that this law exists for two years—two years—and, even worse, and I’m not sure anyone’s touched on this, this bill gives Cabinet the power to repeal; Cabinet, not the Parliament. That is unconstitutional. Absolutely appalling. And it’s all being rushed through Parliament. No select committee. No select committee at all. They’ve had almost seven weeks to work on this. It’s been rushed through. It is, as I have said, contemptuous, effectively, of the basics of a democracy, and particularly when we begin to think around the notions of grieving, celebration, and faith, I think it’s been contemptible. Why do I say it’s been contemptible? The legal advice that was put out around this bill, this bill which has the power to limit people’s freedom of religion, is not mentioned at all. I would suggest that is deliberate. I think that reflects a left-wing Government’s view of religion and people of faith. It is the only logical explanation I can find other than absolute bloody incompetence on behalf of officials to miss out freedom of religion from the list. They’ve got everything else, but not freedom of religion. Why is that? An absolute shocker. As I say, we’ve got a real problem.

My final thoughts, though, because we have heard from the other side that this is absolutely necessary—“We have to pass this. Thousands will die.” That is blackmail. That is a bribe. That is using fear to control New Zealanders. No one in this House wants more people to die. What we’re asking for—and, as I’ve written about recently, it’s about proportionality. To come in with paternalistic moralising that somehow if we don’t give over these enormous powers to one person in Government, everything’s going to go wrong—that is not what we’re suggesting. I want to repeat again: to use fear, effectively, which is what’s being done, is a blackmail of a sort, a bribe. It’s emotionalism over reason, and this continues to be demonstrated when there is engagement and questions in this House. Questions are asked of Government. They are rational. They are reasonable. They don’t have to be agreed to. But all we get is emotional responses. That is not helpful.

And what are those responses? It’s the tired, old emotive “This is hurting me more than it hurts you.” And speeches throughout this day, as we’ve rushed it through Parliament—or, rather, the Government has—have been very much that moralising: “This bill, this enormous power we’re giving—this hurts us. We don’t really want it, but it hurts us to take it. But we know it’s hurting you, too. But, you know, just accept that.” That is wrong. New Zealanders need to be treated as adults. I want to put this warning out, because history is very clear about this: you treat adults in a democracy responsibly. You allow them proportionally to take back their lives. Because I put this warning there now: if we don’t give it to them, they’ll take it back.

I want to end as I began: “when human societies lose their freedom, it’s not necessarily because tyrants have taken it away. It’s usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. … That’s what I fear we are seeing now.” Wake up, New Zealand.

I do want to put some important points down in my speech in a formal way, which is important at a third reading, in respect of the future interpretation of this legislation. But, before that, I do want to respond to Erica Stanford’s suggestion that we could have closed the border earlier. As the Minister of Justice interjected at the time, until less than a week before we closed the border, there were about 5,000 New Zealanders—citizens and permanent residents—returning every day, and it was not possible to put them in quarantine, because you’d have quickly run out of hotel beds.

The COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill will create a bespoke and fit for purpose legal framework to support the Government’s efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19 for a maximum of two years, less if COVID-19 is brought under control sooner. This bill includes the necessary powers to enforce the alert 2 measures, and I thank the House for working together to pass this bill under urgency. We have adopted further protections suggested by the Opposition. Passing this bill now is prudent as we move to level 2 on Thursday and into the next phase of our response to COVID-19. The Government’s strategy for COVID-19 and the efforts of all New Zealanders have so far curbed the spread of the virus and the potential devastation it causes. It remains a precarious journey, but we have broken the chain of community transmission and reduced daily cases dramatically. There is as yet no vaccine and no cure for the virus, and our country must continue to act cautiously so that we maximise our prospect of avoiding or controlling its re-emergence to avoid the loss of life seen overseas, minimise economic damage, and prevent our health system being overwhelmed.

Unlike many other countries around the world, New Zealand is now in a position where it can restore many civil and economic freedoms—and we are. However, the current legal framework is not best suited for enforcing the necessary medium-term public health measures at level 2, where there is increased freedom of movement and more nuanced restrictions: for example, many more businesses can open, provided they take certain safety measures; and gatherings of people can be held, also provided certain precautions—limits on numbers and social distancing rules—are followed. On this side of the House, we also believe more parliamentary oversight of level 2 and future COVID-19 measures is appropriate, which this bill introduces. We consider it necessary to pass this bill under urgency to help New Zealand to alert level 2 on Thursday, as every additional day is costing New Zealanders greatly, with economic costs and current limits to liberties prolonged. Delay, in our view, also puts at risk the social consensus which underpins the voluntary compliance which epidemic prevention measures rely upon. Enforceable rules to require the minority who flout rules are still needed.

The bill is necessary to continue our response to the unprecedented challenges of COVID-19. It will allow the Minister of Health to issue orders to give effect to public health measures—for example, to require the maintenance of social distancing, prohibiting gatherings of a specified kind, and requiring people to be isolated or quarantined in specified ways. The bill creates a framework for COVID-19 orders, not the orders themselves. The Minister of Health must have regard to the advice of the Director-General of Health. The Minister of Health may have regard to decisions by Government on the level of public health measures appropriate, which may have taken into account social, economic, and other factors. The Minister of Health is required to consult with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, who will both be concerned with the correct balance of any order, including civil liberties.

Clause 9(2) of the bill makes it clear that the Minister must be satisfied that a proposed section 11 order is appropriate to achieve the purposes of the Act. That links back to the purpose clause, clause 4, which provides the purposes of the Act: “The purpose of [the] Act is to support a public health response to COVID-19”. Paragraph (c) says, amongst other things, that the response is to be proportionate. As David Seymour said in earlier stages of the debate, the structure of the decision-making is better and creates more accountability, not less. He is correct, as were the legal experts who also called for ministerial responsibility for these important decisions. The bill will give police and other authorised enforcement officials powers to enforce the orders and create a new enforcement regime for breaches of the orders. Those breaches don’t always warrant criminal prosecution. The police will still exercise their discretion. They will rely mainly on education. But we will have a remedy short of prosecution, which has more serious consequences.

We’ve received feedback from other political parties and legal academics, who had the admittedly time-limited opportunity to review an exposure draft of the bill overnight. At the committee stage, important changes were made to the bill, some of which were in response to that feedback; so I thank them. The most significant change during the committee stage was for the automatic repeal of the bill every 90 days or another period agreed by the House. Essentially, it needs to be refreshed every 90 days, with the ability for that period to be longer—for instance, if it was just prior to the election. This is in addition to requiring every section 11 order, the equivalent of the former orders under section 70 of the Health Act, to be approved by parliamentary motion normally within 10 sitting days. The existing Health Act, which currently applies, has neither of these two protections.

Other important changes include clarifying that orders made allowing for premises to open only if specified measures are complied with, or orders prohibiting gatherings of a certain kind, don’t apply to Parliament or the courts. We’re clarifying that orders made under the Health Act will continue in force as if made under the bill and can be enforced as if an order was made under this bill. We’re clarifying, in terms of the matters the Minister may have regard to, any decision of the Government on the level of public health measures appropriate to—those are new words—respond to those risks of COVID-19. We’re clarifying that for the purposes of the bill, the range of people who can be enforcement officers will only include those employed or engaged by the Crown. We’re removing any different treatment for marae in relation to powers of entry under the bill, noting, however, that we’ve added a requirement for the enforcement officer to report to the relevant marae committee if a power of entry was used. I note that marae were originally included to add greater protections, not take them away. However, we’ve listened to concerns from the Māori Council and others following our consultation with them and, accordingly, removed that reference to marae.

In terms of warrantless powers of entry under the bill, the last speaker was again wrong. I observe that broader warrantless powers already exist under section 71A of the Health Act. I don’t have time to read the full suite of those powers, but they are listed at section 71A(1) and are broad. Section 71A(2) of the Health Act makes it clear a constable can enter a building—any building, which includes a private dwellinghouse—for any of those full suite of powers. Clause 20 of this bill is narrower. A warrantless power of entry into a private dwellinghouse under COVID-19 is now limited to situations where the constable has reasonable grounds to believe the limits to gatherings have been breached. This power is, in effect, limited to breaking up parties flouting the rules on gathering size. The enforcement power is intended to limit contagion risks and to enable effective track and tracing if there’s an outbreak we need to get under control.

I note that the Human Rights Commissioner was mistaken in asserting there was no New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. There was, and it was published. It concluded the power is proportionate. I normally have conduct of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vets, but because I thought myself conflicted by my role here in having conduct of this bill, we requested the Governor-General to make the Minister of Justice the acting Attorney-General for this limited purpose of that New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. I also repeat: the powers in this bill are narrower than under the existing Health Act, and that the orders which trigger those powers will now be subject to more oversight mechanisms by this House, as I have already covered. I commend this bill to the House.