Epidemic Response Committee — Disestablishment

I move, That the Epidemic Response Committee be disestablished.

When Parliament met just before we began the COVID-19 lockdown, it would be fair to say that not many members of the House had any idea at that point how events were going to unfold over the next eight weeks or so. We knew what the worst-case scenario might be—or we feared what the worst-case scenario might be—having looked around the world and seen how COVID-19 had taken off in other jurisdictions, overwhelming their health systems and leading to pretty drastic and Draconian measures being taken in those countries to bring it under control.

New Zealand made the decision as a country, and led by the Government, to go hard and go early, and it worked. We did not know that it was going to work eight weeks ago—or more than eight weeks ago now—when we met here in this Parliament. We made the decision at the time that Parliament would also not meet during the period of the lockdown, and that was a big call to make. It was a big call to make because many of us, myself included, believe that Parliament has a vital role to fulfil in scrutinising the actions of the executive, and that becomes all the more important in a time of national emergency when the Government is exercising the extraordinary powers that the Government has been exercising during the COVID-19 response.

It was important that parliamentary scrutiny was able to continue during that time, even if Parliament itself did not meet. After some quite interesting negotiations, we formed the view collectively as a Parliament that the way to do that would be to establish a special select committee, that that select committee would be chaired by the Leader of the Opposition, and that it would include an Opposition majority. The committee would meet remotely using Zoom or other technology, whether it’s teleconference or otherwise. Where possible, those meetings would be broadcast—and they were broadcast—and they would be able to call witnesses, or whoever they wanted, to scrutinise the actions of the Government. Ministers who played critical roles in the COVID-19 response appeared before the committee and answered questions, I think, in good faith and were subject to quite rigorous scrutiny of the actions that they had taken. Some Ministers appeared multiple times before the committee, and some of the key officials involved in leading that process also appeared before the committee.

I would like to thank the Hon Simon Bridges, the then Leader of the Opposition, for his work in chairing the committee, but also, in particular—returning back to the circumstances under which we created the committee—for the goodwill that was shown in supporting the Government’s decision to stop Parliament meeting during the period of the lockdown. I do appreciate that for the Opposition, that’s a bigger sacrifice than for the Government, in the sense that they lose their opportunity to scrutinise the Government, and I think that between Simon Bridges, Gerry Brownlee, myself, and the others involved in the Business Committee discussion, we were able to come up with a solution—a pragmatic solution—that I think served the New Zealand people well. It was well attended and well watched by those both livestreaming and also using the Parliament TV channel, and I think the committee has served a very useful purpose.

When we moved to level 3, the role of the committee changed. As we resumed question time, as more regular parliamentary scrutiny resumed, the committee still had a role in scrutinising COVID-19 - specific legislation that was referred to it by the Government and that was to be passed by the House—

💬 SPEAKER: By the Parliament.

By the Parliament. I said “by the Parliament”, I thought. Did I say by the Government?

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. Refer to it by “the Parliament”.

It was introduced by the Government and referred to it by the Parliament, and that was to be passed in a very, very short time frame. So the committee did have an opportunity to scrutinise that legislation as thoroughly as they could, given the time constraints. Again, I think they did a very good job of that, and I’ve already acknowledged Michael Woodhouse, who played the role of facilitating and chairing those particular sessions. I thank him again for the work that he did there.

Parliament is now back, more or less, as normal. Members are able to attend the House. The legislative programme has been resumed. Question time is happening every day. Select committees can meet again, and Ministers will all be appearing before select committee in the coming weeks to discuss the Budget Estimates. So the regular function of parliamentary scrutiny that is so vital has now resumed, and, therefore, the Epidemic Response Committee has concluded the job that it was set up to do, which was to fill the void created when Parliament was no longer meeting.

I do again want to say to all members involved, on both sides of the House, that I believe that this was an incredibly important thing for the New Zealand Parliament to do. I believe that it differs from other jurisdictions, other Parliaments, around the world, where the Parliament has been shut down and there is no parliamentary scrutiny of the actions of their Governments. I think that at a time of national emergency, there does need to be scrutiny. It’s more important than ever, and the New Zealand Parliament was able to come up with a mechanism to do that, and I think that that’s something that we should all be proud of.

I move, That the words “be disestablished” be replaced with the words “remains for as long as the alert level remains at or above level 2, with consequent restrictions on the operations of Parliament, and the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act has not been repealed, and that the committee convene weekly.”

I shall be tabling, for the Clerk, a written copy of that. There are two main reasons for this proposed amendment. The first is simply this: this House, this motion, is not the place to disestablish this committee. The committee was established by agreement between the parties at the Business Committee, as I understand it—I’m not a member of that—with the agreement of the Business Committee.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: No, it was an agreement with a phone call between Gerry Brownlee and I.

Well, the member may be right but the reality is—[Interruption] hang on; I think this is important—these are important matters that are discussed between the parties, and usually at the Business Committee, a committee that runs on consensus. There is no consensus that the committee be disestablished, and, therefore, the Government is going to do exactly the opposite of what the committee was set up to do, and that is use its majority to crush it.

But here is the second reason why I propose this amendment, which, effectively, continues this committee: the work has not concluded. Normal transmission, in terms of our parliamentary democracy, has not been resumed. We have had—I’ll start with the positives. This committee has worked extremely well. I’m sure colleagues on all sides of the House have had positive feedback about the manner in which that business has been conducted, and, indeed, I think it was Derek Cheng of the New Zealand Herald who wrote an op-ed piece quite early in the committee’s time saying, effectively, if oral question time is the measure of our parliamentary democracy, then we should be very, very worried, but if the Epidemic Response Committee is a measure of our parliamentary democracy and the way in which MPs interact with each other, then we should be greatly encouraged by what is going on.

Now, that, I have to say, was very early on in the committee’s process, and I remind members where we were at when that committee was established. We were, obviously, in lockdown. This place was closed, and I have to tell you I was one of those members that opposed that course of action—that if we were going to ask our supermarkets, our hospitals, our police, our ambulance, other essential workers to continue through that lockdown, why should we not?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Back to the motion and the amendment.

Well, this is very important in laying out the reasons why this committee is so important, Mr Speaker. We have heard from experts that this place wouldn’t otherwise hear from. At a time when the Government didn’t even have all the questions, much less all of the answers, the committee called on experts. Professor David Skegg, Peter Gluckman, the economic experts, Cameron Bagrie, Phil O’Reilly came and provided information—the submissions that we got so that we could understand exactly what was going on in corners of the country that were, essentially, locked down by executive fiat. Indeed, there remain questions about the legality of that lockdown that have not been adequately answered by an Attorney-General that came to the committee and said, “Trust us. We know what we’re doing.” Fine, that’s good; show us the advice you got—“Nope, can’t do that.”

So that is the contest that needed to go on. But then, of course, we had, I think, the two most extraordinary contrasting speeches I gave within an hour and a half of each other on about 13 May: one commending the Government; the other condemning it for the use of the Epidemic Response Committee to scrutinise, in very short order, two important pieces of legislation that, thanks to that scrutiny, came out of the committee in better shape and are now in law, and then another piece of legislation that was outrageously pushed through this Parliament in a matter of 18 hours, without any public input or parliamentary consideration through a committee.

Now, then came, actually, the biggest slap to the Epidemic Response Committee. Often Acts have reviews in them, and it’s usually between two and five years after the Act is passed. Twenty-four hours after the Act is passed, the Attorney-General comes to this House, at the death of urgency, and moves a motion to have the scrutiny of the very bill that didn’t have scrutiny before it was passed. But which committee does that go to? A committee with a majority of Government members on it, that is already busy enough and that has nothing to do with the bill that had been passed, bypassing this committee that was set up to do exactly that. That was the start of the snub that included the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Tourism, and the Associate Minister of Health thumbing their noses at the most important oversight committee this Parliament has ever established. Why? Because things were getting a bit hot for them. There were some questions—[Interruption] Well, OK, here’s the alternative—they scoff at that. So that means they’re just too busy and important carrying out executive decisions without stopping and being subject to the scrutiny that a strong democracy requires of it.

I have spoken—and I do intend still to write; it’s on my list of things to do—about my experience at the World Bank Parliamentary Forum on 25 April, where the chatrooms were full of descriptions of the executive fiat that was being exercised around the world in the lockdown, and the description of those countries as having weak democracies. They’re not just developing nations, they’re not just former autocracies; they were countries like Italy, like other Western European countries, and I’m sitting there, watching that, thinking “We could be one of those weak democracies, but at least we have the Epidemic Response Committee.” Only the same executive fiat, the same Government muscle that was being used to ignore the source of scrutiny that would be appropriate, is now being used to shut down the only committee that this Parliament has specifically designed to scrutinise the actions of the Government during the worst pandemic in 100 years, the worst economic crisis in generations.

Democracy works not for the good times. Our Standing Orders, the rule of law, the constitutional separation between the executive and the legislature and the judiciary is important not in the good times but when things go bad and we are on a war footing. That’s when it matters the most. I understand the need for the Government to act quickly and decisively—frankly, we’ve been there, through things like earthquakes, and it’s hard to get that balance right, but balance it we must. We must ensure that this place continues to scrutinise executive decisions. And, yes, we’re back—we’re back and it feels like we’re doing what we used to do—and yet we’ve got that sort of legislation last week going through under urgency. Tomorrow, we go back into urgency to pass more laws without public scrutiny on COVID, and, by the way, we’re going to throw in a few other things—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! For the last 30 seconds, can the member get back to the motion.

This is why this committee matters, Mr Speaker. It should be scrutinising these legislative changes. It should be scrutinising the sorts of decisions that the Government continues to make on behalf of New Zealanders, who, frankly, are in some kind of political Stockholm syndrome at the moment. That will change, and when it does, the Epidemic Response Committee will be as important as it has been in the last 10 weeks. I strongly support, and ask colleagues to support, this amendment.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the motion and yet in support of the amendment. I’d like to reflect a little bit on the events that led to the establishment of the Epidemic Response Committee and the contribution that it made.

The first thing I would do is reiterate comments that I made in the House on the 23rd—or 25th, if I remember rightly, certainly the last day before Parliament adjourned for lockdown, which was that it was a mistake for our Parliament to shut. Examples were given at the time that other countries had shut their Parliaments actually for longer than us, and that made it good enough. I’ve always taken the view that my ancestors moved here to the edge of the known world for a better tomorrow. Our objective when we make policy in New Zealand is not to be the median, but to be the best, so we should never use other countries’ poor policy as a justification for our own.

I think it was unfortunate, the contrast, that in the initial days of the lockdown, west Auckland liquor stores remained open but this Parliament was shut.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m now going to interrupt the member, ask him to resume his seat, and ask him to now speak to the motion before the House. It is not a general debate; it is a very narrow motion with an amendment.

Well, of course, Mr Speaker, and I think it’s reasonable to give some context in which the Epidemic Response Committee was established, and that is the context: Parliament was shut, so it was necessary. I have to say that the Epidemic Response Committee performed exceptionally well, but it’s important to preface that statement with the fact that it will never be a substitute for democracy and this Parliament. It’s important in a democracy that people are able to send a representative from their community or from their preferred party to represent and speak for them—that is almost the definition of a democracy. So we had to improvise and do it in the form of the Epidemic Response Committee.

I think it’s fair to say that the committee had an outsize and positive impact on the way that our country navigated—what many people say, and it’s hackneyed, but it is true—an unprecedented crisis. The committee had the help of some expert witnesses and some very brave members of the public who told their story. The telling of stories and the injection of alternative perspectives on what was going on was very much needed as this country sought to navigate the crisis. Let me just give two examples of that. Professor Sir David Skegg put on notice to the whole country that we were not doing well enough with testing. He introduced us to the concept of planned epidemiological studies. As a result of his testimony, we saw a massive shift in the operation and attitude of the Government towards testing. That was an example of a great contribution made by the Epidemic Response Committee.

But also there was Bjorn and Lucy Reymer, who bravely told the story of Lucy having a miscarriage, left with a box of tissues alone in a room in hospital while her husband Bjorn was pacing in the car park outside, unable to comfort her—the most natural thing, to comfort one’s partner in one of the most traumatic times—because of rules that were ridiculous, that required scrutiny, that actually would not have got the kind of attention they received had it not been for the bravery of them and many others testifying before the committee. We had people from business—I might mention Eve Lawrence, who came and gave compelling testimony that the response of the Government was affecting the tourism industry and small to medium sized enterprises in general in a way that needed to be brought to light. So I think we should commend the responses—or the role, at least, played by the Epidemic Response Committee in contributing to our democracy.

I reflect also on the composition of the committee, because I think it actually is an opportunity to learn something about the role of select committees in our democracy, and this is why I think it should continue. It’s interesting that usually any select committee that has really important legislation you can guarantee has a majority of members of Parliament who are also members of the governing party—take firearms legislation, sent to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. One of the results of that is that the outcome is very easy to predict. All one needs to know is what the Government’s policy preferences are. The fact that this committee had a majority of Opposition members gave it a completely different tone and purpose from most important select committee deliberations. When I look at our country and its anaemic constitutional arrangements—no written constitution, no Upper House, no subnational Governments, no states or provinces—I think, actually, we can learn a lot from the benefit of having a select committee that has the power to actually change legislation and drive the outcome from a perspective other than the Government majority. I’d put it to you, Mr Speaker, and I suspect you’d be sympathetic with this view, that perhaps future Parliaments should actually learn from this experience and consider making select committee membership proportional to the non-executive members.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! This will be a very good speech on the report back of the Standing Orders Committee, but we’re not having a general discussion about the shape of the Parliament. That’s the second warning.

Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. Again, I would put it to you that, actually, this does help build the case for why the committee should continue. Thank you, though, for your acknowledgment. The fact of the matter is that we can learn from this—New Zealand can learn from this wider experience.

But I’d also put it to you and to the House that this crisis is far from over and that a Government will continue to attempt to manage the crisis with a clear eye on 19 September, and that is the reason why—just as the Epidemic Response Committee was able to bring so many useful perspectives to national attention, which drove the questions that journalists asked members of the Government in the early afternoon and, ultimately, drove the stories that New Zealanders were watching at 6 p.m.—we need to continue this committee throughout the remainder of this crisis so that we can have democracy, so people can see their representatives putting forward alternative suggestions and solutions and questioning the responses that the Government puts in place. If it was important before, in a way it’s even more important now.

It’s particularly important while Parliament still remains under restricted operating circumstances. You see, if the reason for having the Epidemic Response Committee was that Parliament was shut, then that justification still partially remains. It still partially remains because we have a situation where we still do not have our Parliament fully seated and giving every member an opportunity to participate on an equal basis.

In conclusion, the Epidemic Response Committee has been a good example of this Parliament innovating through a crisis, just as so many New Zealanders and their households and their businesses and their schools have had to innovate every single day of the last two months to survive. For that, I commend the committee. But it’s no substitute for this House to be sitting in full as it has in this country for 170 years. I’d put it to you that until the House can resume sitting fully and until the Government has finished operating in almost a wartime footing, then the Epidemic Response Committee with an Opposition majority is essential and should remain. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I speak in favour of the amendment from Michael Woodhouse that the words “be disestablished.” be replaced with “remains for as long as the alert level remains at above level 2 with consequent restrictions on the operations of the [Government]”.

So what we’re talking about here is the Epidemic Response Committee, which was formed when Parliament was shut. I have spent a lot of time on that committee, and obviously it is a reaction to a 100-year crisis such as we haven’t seen, obviously, for a very long time, where, as we’ve seen, $62 billion of money has been spent. Decisions have been taken to control people’s lives and that have had a real impact on their ability to be with their loved ones at critical times and engage in their business, employ themselves, and do basic things. A big decision’s been made, and so it was absolutely right, and I commend the Government for its initial decision and willingness to have this committee set up, with an Opposition majority, so that Ministers could be called and held to account to a degree, and experts could be brought before the committee.

I remember many, many striking conversations that were had. I particularly remember the police commissioner coming in. We’d just heard from the Prime Minister that people coming in from overseas were going into self-quarantine but that New Zealanders shouldn’t be worried because the police would check up on them within three days. Then it was useful to have the police commissioner come in and tell us, “Actually, that’s not the case. We’re not doing that.”, and it was a great shock for many people. But if the committee hadn’t been in place, that stark reality wouldn’t have been brought to mind and the Government wouldn’t have been, frankly, embarrassed into doing something about it. That helped us with our response to the crisis and made a difference, and on many occasions, such as with Sir David Skegg and many other people making their comments about the quality of the testing and tracing regimes, it made a real difference.

So the question now is—now that Parliament has resumed and we do have the opportunity to have Ministers back before the Parliament at question time and we have the opportunity to have select committees meeting—is it still required? The Government seems to think no, but they should be conscious of the fact that they are developing a bit of a reputation for dismissive attitudes towards criticism and transparency, and we’re all aware of the infamous message from the Prime Minister’s office—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

—and reluctance to turn up to the committee. I would have thought it would have been good politic from the Government to be responsive to that and not to be seen as dismissive of attempts to hold a candle or a light to the decisions that are being made.

However, they have pressed on with wanting to close down this committee, and the only point I’d make is that this is—as we keep on hearing—a 100-year crisis, and it is occasion to do things slightly differently. The full mechanisms of Parliament are not yet working. We don’t have written questions answered in normal timespans and there’s not the same ability to get answers to a whole lot of things as quickly as normal. It’s not possible for all members of Parliament to be in the Chamber and it’s not as easy to have all the select committee functions operating the same as normal, but, more importantly, we’re in a situation where the Government has granted itself the ability to spend more than $20 billion at its choosing over the next couple of months—extraordinary things, which in the normal course of events just wouldn’t occur.

On that basis, I think there is a very strong case for keeping the committee going—not three times a week, as we have in the past, but, I would have thought, on a weekly basis—so that that different, extra layer of transparency is retained at a time when Parliament is not operating as normal and these momentous decisions are being made, which will affect the lives of New Zealanders not only now but for many years to come as we pay off the debt. So my plea to the Government is that they reconsider this and that they do act magnanimously and allow themselves to be exposed to extra scrutiny at a critical time in our history, and I would think they would do well to reflect on that.

The final point, of course, is that it’s by no means guaranteed—we all hope and pray that we don’t go back into a higher form of lockdown, but it’s not impossible that we might. So it would certainly make sense to keep this committee on the books, at least, and able to be swiftly brought back to life.

So, on that basis, I support this amendment to this motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to stand and speak in support of the amendment to the motion that was tabled by the Hon Michael Woodhouse. So instead of disestablishing the Epidemic Response Committee, it would be to have the Epidemic Response Committee remain for as long as the alert level remains at or above level 2, with consequent restrictions on the operations of Parliament and the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act has not been repealed, and that the select committee convene weekly.

At the start of this crisis, and, as my colleagues have said, clearly it’s been a crisis—a one-in-100-year occurrence—the then Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Simon Bridges, committed us as the Opposition to be constructive. If I look at the number of issues that have been raised in a very respectful way by experts—and some of those have been mentioned here today—whether it was Professor Skegg, the former Chief Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman, whether it was economists, or, actually, whether it was industry organisations that wouldn’t otherwise have had a voice, I firmly believe that the ability for those to be represented actually enabled a stronger response from the Government, which is what all of us wanted as a country.

So, you know, at the time it was really interesting, because lots of constituents said “Why is there not a war Cabinet? Why are there not daily briefings by members of the Opposition, by their counterparts?” And the answer was “Well, no. Parliament has created the Epidemic Response Committee, which allows for three days a week in an open and transparent way for the New Zealand public to participate in the dialogue as well.”, which I actually think was, and has been, really significant.

As my colleague said, Parliament still is operating under restrictions, and to not have every member of Parliament able to sit in this Chamber and to take their place and participate in our democracy is a significant challenge. My colleagues have mentioned written questions, which is the normal vehicle, and Official Information Act requests. Legislation that the Government has been considering around the COVID-19 response hasn’t required regulatory impact assessment. So a lot of the mechanisms of a normal scrutiny of Parliament haven’t been in place and are still not in place, as well as the fact that Parliament also isn’t operating in its normal manner. Back in the electorates, electorate offices aren’t all able to open, to be staffed, to serve the constituents. Even simple functions like recruitment by the Parliamentary Service can’t operate in the normal manner. So it is really important in dealing with this one-in-100-year event that the public have the confidence in the Parliament operating in a way that’s clearly different because it is restricted. But Parliament needs to be able to have an alternative mechanism while these restrictions are in place to enable and to ensure that there is some scrutiny, and, actually, as my colleagues have given examples, that scrutiny has meant changes—the Government moving, shifting, and those decisions have been in the long-term interests of New Zealand.

So whether it’s on providing more data and evidence—and at first we didn’t see anything in terms of Ministry of Social Development data. We hadn’t seen anything from Treasury. That came, which was really helpful, and I think it’s been fantastic to see that data on a weekly basis, and it should continue, because it’s important not just as a Parliament but as a public that we are informed about what’s happening as a result of this crisis. Things like personal protective equipment (PPE)—there wouldn’t be a member of Parliament, in this place, who wasn’t bombarded by very, very concerned members of the public who were working as essential services, essential workers on the front line who didn’t have access to PPE. We were able collectively to raise these issues and ensure that people who were at the front line doing critical work had PPE, which was important for them. It was important for their families when they saw their mum, dad, sister, auntie, or whoever go off to work each day, and it was really critical for the people that were being served, whether it was an older worker, whether it was a midwife—numerous examples that were shared. So it is really important.

Yes, some of us are standing here. Yes, Parliament is operating in a limited way and also in terms of functioning democracy. I’m pleased the limit was lifted, but we are still only allowed gatherings of up to 100 people. So if you think that democracy is operating and there is the ability for members of Parliament to do their roles, we can’t. We can’t function in the same way that we used to. Michael Wood is looking surprised. Well, I’m sorry, but, actually, to have 100 people at a public meeting, at a gathering at a time of a one-in-100-year crisis, you expect that the public would have the ability to engage with you as their member of Parliament, whichever party you are in this House. Whichever party it is in the House, the public don’t get the ability for the Parliament to function and the MPs to function in the same way they did before COVID. So the Epidemic Response Committee should remain while those restrictions are in place.

Michael Wood, I’m surprised that you’re shaking your head, because the number of people who came to the Epidemic Response Committee, and they’ll be small businesses, large, industries that weren’t represented otherwise that fell between the cracks—I think of the event industry. That’s a critical one in my electorate. Do they go to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment? Do they go to the tourism Minister? Do they go to the Minister for Sport and Recreation? Do they go to the Minister of Health? Oh no, because, actually, a letter I wrote to the Minister of Health six weeks ago, I still haven’t even had an acknowledgment for. Right? So as a member of the public or an industry association, having a voice and having a platform in the Epidemic Response Committee was critical.

We want to make sure, on this side of the House, that they still have that voice. There are still restrictions in place. There are still restrictions in terms of funerals. There are still restrictions in terms of the number of people who can visit a loved one in hospital. There are still restrictions on gatherings. There are still restrictions on Parliament. That’s why, as the Opposition, we want to make sure that the Epidemic Response Committee still has a role. It’s played a really important role, and for that I acknowledge every member of Parliament who’s been on it.

I’m really quite disappointed that the Government doesn’t think that we are still in a crisis and that we should still have a mechanism for this Parliament to scrutinise the decisions and to enable more voices to appear when legislation, even tomorrow, is being put on the Table, rammed through all stages. Actually, it could have gone to the Epidemic Response Committee even for a week. That would be a sensible, responsible, logical thing for the most open and transparent Government of our times to do. So I’m supporting the amendment.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of the motion and against the amendment that has been put forward by the Hon Michael Woodhouse, and I will address the latter first.

The amendment has no basis. As I understand it, from the text of the amendment, it is put forward on the basis of the apparent restrictions on Parliament, yet not one member who has spoken in favour of the amendment so far has actually clearly identified the restrictions on the operations of Parliament that are actually relevant to this debate, because as far as I’m aware, this Parliament—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! There have been a number of irrelevant arguments made. I have asked people sometimes to stop, and I probably should have asked them to stop more often. I’m not going to have irrelevant arguments made relevant by their reply.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m simply responding to the amendment itself, not the arguments that have been put forward, and I struggle to understand how that is not in order.

💬 SPEAKER: Fair enough—keep going, but make sure that you stay relevant and factual and within the tight confines of this debate, not responding to irrelevancies.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. So I’m referring to the text of the amendment, which refers to the restrictions on Parliament as being the reason for why the Epidemic Response Committee should continue through the level 2 period. The argument that I’m putting forward to the House is that we have not actually heard in any coherent way what the restrictions on Parliament are that give a basis to the amendment, because the Parliament is meeting fully at the moment. All of its functions are intact and being carried out. Select committees are meeting. Question time is occurring every day. Legislation is being considered. All of the scrutiny functions of the Parliament are happening now.

This is a very important point, and I come to an argument raised by the Hon Michael Woodhouse in his comments initially, when he referred to the discussions that had occurred at Business Committee and I think somewhat confused the role of the Business Committee and the role of the House. It’s important to be aware that it was the House which established the Epidemic Response Committee. I’ve checked the minutes of the Business Committee, which did discuss this matter on 25 March, in fact.

What occurred at the Business Committee is that—and I’m quoting directly from the minutes here—“the parties indicated they would grant leave to move a notice of motion on this matter”. So it is appropriate for the House to address this matter because it was the House that established the Epidemic Response Committee. But I do wish to be clear that when parties used the forum of the Business Committee to discuss this matter, it was on the basis that the Epidemic Response Committee had an important job to do while the House could not meet, and while the normal scrutiny functions of the House—notably question time, which holds the executive to account directly and publicly—could not happen. We have clearly passed that Rubicon and the House, as I have described and as Chris Hipkins described earlier, is meeting and is fully alive again.

I don’t come here to belittle or criticise the work of the Epidemic Response Committee in any way. It’s met 24 times since it was established; I think that I’ve sat on it for 23 of those meetings. I agree with members around the House that its work has been important and that it’s been something of a parliamentary and constitutional innovation that I think basically did work well. I acknowledge, very genuinely, the chair of the committee across those meetings, the Hon Simon Bridges. Members on this side sometimes had disagreements around the process of meetings and sometimes around the way that they were run, but, basically, it was a committee that worked. It had members from across the House engaging in good faith, engaging with Ministers, engaging with officials, and engaging with members of the public. But as David Seymour said in the course of this debate, it’s not a substitute for Parliament. We have Parliament back now. That’s the reason that this motion has been put forward in the House.

I would say to members of the Opposition who have crafted sort of would-be Gettysburg addresses about the downfall of Westminster democracy in the course of this debate just to back yourselves. Those members have access to all of the scrutiny functions of the Parliament. They can ask good questions. They can engage on select committees. I note that there is a select committee that is currently set up that is engaging in a significant inquiry into some of the more important powers that the Government is assuming during this period. They have a full capacity to engage in that inquiry as well. So the mechanisms are there for members across the House to be engaging in the issues that are created by COVID-19 and the Government response already. There simply have been no firm arguments put forward that really describe why it is that the Parliament is unable to fulfil the function and the powers that it has at ordinary times now, because the Parliament is meeting fully.

I’ll finish off just with a thought about the creation of this committee and the way in which it was done well. It was done well, I think, all round. Let’s remember that it was set up by a Government motion. So this was the Government of the day saying that the Government would agree to a committee being set up that had an Opposition majority and an Opposition chair, and it was agreed, I think, unanimously across the House. I return to the fact that it was agreed on the basis that that committee would function while Parliament was not meeting. So we had an important parliamentary consensus that allowed for the creation of this committee and significant goodwill between parties around that. I think that the Opposition does stretch that consensus and that goodwill when they go beyond the reason for the establishment of the committee in arguing that it should have an extended life.

I just ask Opposition members to consider that, because I think this committee has done its job well. It has most of the time shown this Parliament at its best, and I think that the House would do well to honour, effectively, the consensus agreement that was reached between parties at the time of establishment, which was that this committee would exist while Parliament was not meeting. Parliament is meeting now. It is doing its job. This committee has done well, but it has come to the end of its time. I commend the motion to the House, but not the amendment put forward by Michael Woodhouse.

Thank you, sir. I agree with Michael Wood that the Epidemic Response Committee showed Parliament and members of this House at its and our best, but there is a fundamental flaw in the argument that we have just heard from Michael Wood, and that is in the assertion—or, at least, the inference—that Parliament is now functioning typically and as we usually would. Well, that is absolute nonsense, and it’s why tonight I stand to endorse the amendment moved by the Hon Michael Woodhouse and to oppose the Government motion seeking to disestablish the Economic Response Committee.

We’ve just heard from Mr Wood that the amendment moved by my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse has no foundation—no basis. Well, let me point out why that assertion is utterly wrong. This Parliament is still heavily restricted. I’m speaking tonight from near the back of the House not because I’m occupying my seat but because I can’t go and occupy my seat. Because of the physical distancing requirements, four of my very fine colleagues are in the area where I would normally sit and I need to remain away from them. That’s not a trivial point—that is not a trivial point—

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: You can blame your new boss. That’s why you’re that far back!

—because—ha, ha! Well, clearly Mr Damien O’Connor wishes to trivialise it, but it’s not a trivial point, because those who are watching—and there will be many people at home watching tonight—will have noticed that all members are sitting apart from one another. Today at question time, half of my caucus could not take their rightful place in this House. They could not enter the debating chamber to which they were elected; they were told they had to go and sit up in the gallery.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: It was all right—we didn’t miss them.

Yet again, the Hon Damien O’Connor wishes to trivialise that point. We understand the reason for it, but it doesn’t make it something we should be relaxed about or happy to accept as being the new normal; it is not.

So not only can I not sit in my seat tonight—and that’s only of minor relevance—observers cannot enter the select committee room that I will be working in tomorrow morning. That is significantly more disturbing. We understand it, again, but this is a democracy. We have a very long, proud democratic tradition in this country, which includes the right of every member of the public to enter the precinct of Parliament and to scrutinise our actions, and at the moment, they cannot do that. Even if they wanted to, the chances are that if they were coming from other parts of the country, they wouldn’t be able to do so, because their public transport options are severely limited, and if they were to get on a plane, again, they’d have to be occupying the physical distancing room.

More importantly, there is nobody in the public gallery tonight, just as there has not been now since Parliament resumed in our limited way a couple of weeks before the Budget was delivered. Now, again, that is something of which we should be very concerned. The public should have the right to enter this building, to scrutinise and observe the actions of their elected representatives. Again, we understand the reason why that can’t happen at the moment. None of us wants to undermine the public health response to the COVID pandemic; all of us are proud of what we have achieved collectively. All of us want to—as what has become a cliché has been mentioned many times—lock in the gains that we, the team of 5 million, have achieved. But while members of the public cannot enter this House, cannot attend our select committees, cannot freely participate as observers in the democratic process of this country, we must champion their interests.

At any other stage, members of the public would be able to gather out on the forecourt and on the lawn in front of Parliament and protest or demonstrate against a matter that is of concern to them, or stand up for important principles—and every week when Parliament is sitting normally, we see that happen. Most recently, I think of the protest against the Concert FM proposals. Now, that is such an important part of functioning in a democracy. Members of the Government should not trivialise that; they should recognise that that is a reason why the Epidemic Response Committee has such an important function.

I had the privilege of participating as a member of the National Party’s representation on the Epidemic Response Committee twice in my capacity as our seniors spokesperson. I was hugely impressed by the way it operated. I was hugely impressed by the chairmanship of the Hon Simon Bridges and the way in which members listened respectfully not only to one another but, in particular, to those who came to put their views before the committee—and, of course, in almost every case, they were doing so by Zoom because they couldn’t enter this building.

So when the Leader of the House, in moving this motion earlier, said that the Epidemic Response Committee served a useful purpose, he greatly understated it. The Epidemic Response Committee served a vital purpose: the only truly democratic option for scrutiny of the actions of a Government during a state of emergency when Parliament was adjourned and we as members of Parliament were, effectively, forced away from this House of Representatives to which we were elected. We still aren’t functioning in the way that we would expect to be able to, in the way that the public expected us to be able to when they made their decisions at the 2017 general election. Until such time as they have their rights restored as members of the public, can be sure that their voices are being heard, that their concerns are being listened to and responded to, we should not be disestablishing the one committee that protected their interests.

I led the charge for the National Party, as the shadow Attorney-General, against the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill just a fortnight ago. Never in my 12 years as a member of this House have I received so many messages and emails from people who are not supporters of my party but who were saying thank you to the National Party for standing up for their interests, for defending their concerns, and, in particular, for defending our democratic rights, as I did on that occasion. Now, without the Epidemic Response Committee, that opportunity to represent the concerns of members of the public will be greatly diluted.

Yes, belatedly, after that travesty of an abuse of Parliament, frankly, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill went through under urgency, with no select committee process, with no opportunity for the public to make submissions. After the event, the Government said, “Well, OK, let’s send it to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.”, but as the Hon Michael Woodhouse pointed out earlier, that is a committee with a Government majority. At a time when Parliament is severely curtailed, when our ability to function fully as members of this House is not respected or, at least, not possible, now the Government wants to use its majority on a committee, effectively to minimise the concerns and the views that will be brought to it.

Well, the very nature of the Epidemic Response Committee going across all aspects of public policy was its great strength. I want to pay huge tribute to the many commentators and advisers, business and industry leaders, health and social and community sector leaders who advised that committee and whose advice is still needed, because we have the Director-General of Health telling us that we cannot ease up; so too is Professor Michael Baker. We know that every day across the world, hundreds of deaths are still occurring as a result of COVID, and thousands of new cases are being detected in other parts of the world. Therefore, the very real risk continues to exist of a further flare up in New Zealand. That’s why I support the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s amendment to ensure that the committee remains established so that it can quickly convene once more should it be required. I strongly oppose the Government’s motion.

I move, That the question be now put.

💬 Chris Penk: Mr Speaker.

No, I’ve been listening to this for nearly an hour now, and I think it’s probably half an hour since I heard an original and relevant argument.

💬 Chris Penk: It’ll be grammatical.

Well, the member guarantees he’s going to give us new and relevant material?

💬 Chris Penk: Yes, sir.

If he doesn’t, I’ll stop him mid-turn.

I’m sure you will, Mr Speaker. Sir, I was hoping to encourage you with the prospect of some scintillating syntax. Sir, I presume you have in front of you a copy of the amendment to the motion in the name of my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse, so you probably would agree with me that the word “remains” should, in fact, be “remain”, because it’s the subjunctive. But moving from that to, I think, a more important point—an even more important point. I think that the construction of the amendment, should it pass, is such that there are two elements of time. One is that rather than the committee being disestablished, it remain for as long as two things are true: one, as long as the alert level remains at or above level 2, with consequent restrictions on the operations of Parliament, and—meaning that both must be satisfied—the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act has not been repealed.

The significance of that in my submission is that it is a relevant consideration for the House that both these things must be in place. The significance is that the member Michael Wood suggests that because the House does not, in his opinion, currently have restrictions consequent on alert level 2, the motion is meaningless. However, because that’s one of the conditions that would need to be satisfied, in fact, we could go back to an alert level that is higher than 2, as, indeed, the motion points out. So there could be consequent restrictions, such as we have already seen, come back into play.

The Prime Minister and others have made it clear that there’s no “reverse ratchet”—that’s my phrase, but, essentially, that we are not to expect as a nation that we’ll necessarily remain at level 2, only to go to 1 and then 0, if such a thing exists. But, in fact, we might. If a second wave were to hit these shores, then we could go up to alert level 3 or 4 and, therefore, it might become necessary, once again, even if it were not necessary now, for the Epidemic Response Committee to remain relevant, and hence it should not be disestablished.

The clue in the title is that this is the Epidemic Response Committee. It was set up in response to an epidemic. Unless the Government is arguing that (a) the epidemic no longer exists, or (b) that it should no longer be responded to, then it makes sense that the committee—the body that was sent in response to the epidemic—should remain in force.

It’s possible, I suppose—I’ve turned my mind to the possibility that the Government is looking to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, but I have searched my mind and my heart for these reasons, and I think others on this side have canvassed the possibility that it might be inconvenient politically. I won’t traverse that ground. I promise you that there’ll be no repetition of that nature, sir. Others have made arguments along the lines that—well, effectively, the arguments have been made that it’s logistically difficult for the Government members, because we have seen in the past week or so, effectively, Ministers who would otherwise have been appearing in front of the committee deeming themselves to be too busy—the ministerial diary equivalent of washing their hair on the relevant day, such that they were unable or perhaps unwilling to appear.

Then, of course, we’ve got the possible arguments about the committee being extraneous from a constitutional point of view. Here is Parliament, goes the argument, so why would we need a parliamentary committee to continue to examine these? In the absence of that, again, so goes the argument from the Government side, should we not disestablish it? Well, while the Epidemic Response Committee is indeed a creature of Parliament and, as others have pointed out, it has a majority of Opposition MPs—almost uniquely among the current other select committees—the fact is for other select committees there must be an item of business on the agenda; a piece of work, as it’s sometimes known. It’s an interesting phrase, isn’t it—piece of work. It had a different meaning when I was first aware of it. But anyway, if there’s not something that’s the subject of a petition or a particular bill or an annual review or an inquiry already before the select committee, then issues can’t come before it.

So it is that that’s the value of the Epidemic Response Committee—that it can bring forward these things in a way that is not otherwise able to be contemplated in a timely fashion by select committees. Of course, this Chamber is primarily a legislative body, we’re making laws, and yet the purpose of the Epidemic Response Committee, mainly, is actually to scrutinise the operation of laws that have already been passed, and that’s the value of it. Of course, it has been until now, it is currently, and should remain into the future.

My final point, sir—and I’m conscious I won’t take my full 10 minutes, but I did promise you content that was relevant and non-repetitive. I hope the fact that I’m still talking—

💬 Hon Jacqui Dean: Scintillating.

In fact, the Hon Jacqui Dean reminds me I promised you scintillating comments, sir.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m checking I’m not as asleep as Matt King was earlier in the gallery.

Oh, right. OK. Well, I suppose if he’s gone to sleep, I should wake him up, seeing as it was my doing in the first place. I suppose there’s other explanations why Matt King might have that look about him, but I’m not responsible for all of those.

The final argument is—and I guess it’s by way of summarising the ones that I’ve already been making, and others too on this side of the House—if it’s not the case that the epidemic has gone away, such that we no longer need to respond to it, and if it’s not the case that there are issues that continue to rise in relation to the response, not the epidemic itself but also the Government response to that, however impressive or otherwise that might have been—well, I think we can say, rightly, that the people of New Zealand will continue to be affected not only by the epidemic but also the Government response to it, and so it’s appropriate for that committee to remain in force, not be disestablished. So I too add my weight and support to the motion as amended in the name of Michael Woodhouse, namely that it not be disestablished but remain in force for as long as those two things that we spoke about earlier remain true.

I move, That the question be now put.