COVID-19 Orders — Approval

on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move, That the House approve the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order 2020 in accordance with section 16 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020.

The order that is the subject of this motion was made under section 11 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. It came into effect on 22 June this year. Under section 16 of that Act, it has to be approved by the House within 60 days of the order being made, so that has to be done before the House rises.

The order is critical to New Zealand’s defence against COVID-19. It underpins the managed isolation and quarantine regime that has been successful in containing COVID-9 at our borders. It sets out the obligations for people arriving in New Zealand by air, and this includes requirements around medical examinations, testing, isolation, and quarantining. It covers the required period and place of isolation and quarantine, and it sets out the circumstances under which people are allowed to leave that place.

The managed isolation and quarantine system established in part by this order has proved an effective defence against COVID-19 at the border. It enabled us to live our lives in a way that is very near to normal—something that has made us admired and envied across the world.

It is right that the executive has to seek parliamentary approval for these powers, which are unusual and far-reaching in a parliamentary democracy like New Zealand. I ask the House to support the motion.

Firstly, I think, in terms of process, this is actually a very good process. I like the idea that secondary and tertiary legislation does get referred back to the House for debate and consideration. There is an opportunity, I think, for the Government to do a lot more of this. We have the Regulations Review Committee, but things like confirmable instruments or disallowable instruments, I think, are things that should be used a lot more.

I must say, I am confused by the fact that this order was first passed, I think the Minister said, in June. What date in June was it?

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: 22 June.

22 June. So we were actually quarantining and isolating people from 8 April. We had self-isolation up until then for returning people into New Zealand. Self-isolation simply did not work because police admitted that they weren’t able to monitor it. There was no tracing system, no movement management system, and no technologies that were being used by other countries around the world here in New Zealand—they weren’t being used here—so we actually went into a situation where the Government required people returning to New Zealand to go into managed isolation or quarantine from about 8 April. I remember that date well, because from 8 April to about 9 June, there was absolutely no testing going on, and the Director-General of Health announced very proudly that they were going to test, and then they didn’t test, and that was the subject of a criticism by the Minister that he was severely criticised for.

The issue, and my question, is: if it were necessary to pass a piece of legislation on 13 May and give effect to an air border order in June, and if the Government was so sure that this legislation and the order is necessary, by what legal power were they requiring people to be in managed isolation or quarantine prior to that? Were they just asking them nicely, because people who went into managed isolation from 8 April until this order came into force didn’t believe they had a choice, and if there was a legal power to be able to do that, why do we need this?

So this further underscores for me the pig’s ear that’s been made, actually, of a legal authority to be able to do certain things. On the one hand, we’re told, “We’ve acted lawfully all the way along.” and on the other hand, we hear that section 70 of the Health Act isn’t fit for purpose.

We have an order now that confirms a process that was in place for about six weeks before the order was actually made. So this is, once again, I think an example of, yes, the Government is doing the right thing, but is it doing it in the right way and at the right time and in the right order? It doesn’t appear to me to be the case.

On the other hand, and despite the fact that the order itself is made under the powers provided by an Act that we strongly disagree with, we do support the concept of managed isolation and quarantine. As a consequence, the National Party will be supporting this motion.

Motion agreed to.

on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move, That the House approve the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Maritime Border) Order 2020, in accordance with section 16 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020.

This motion mirrors that to which the House has just agreed and puts in place an isolation and quarantine regime that applies to people who arrive in New Zealand by sea. The order came into effect a week or so later than that applying to air travellers, but must also be confirmed before the election is held if it is to remain in effect.

It is vital for the economy that some ships continue to arrive in New Zealand while COVID-19 restrictions are in force, and the order allows, among others, cargo ships and fishing boats to continue to operate in and from our ports, but it is essential that COVID-19 does not find its way back into New Zealand by this route. The order sets out isolation and quarantine requirements that are the equivalent of those that apply to air travellers, taking into account that ships are by their nature subject to a degree of quarantine as they travel between countries, and may themselves serve adequately as quarantine facilities.

The number of people affected by this order is considerably lower than those arriving by air, but it is essential that the maritime border is as tight as the air border. I ask that the House support this motion.

I really wish the Minister had gone on just a little longer in his very informative speech. We have a short time before the adjournment, and I’ll just reflect on a couple of points, but I say at the outset that the National Party will be supporting this motion as well.

The Minister is quite correct that ships are, in themselves, bubbles. We know from the quite concerning revelations around cruise ships that very large passenger ships can be harbours for viruses—coronaviruses, in particular, and COVID-19 specifically. We’ve seen some pretty dramatic examples of where ships have been kept in harbours in, say, Tokyo and Sydney, where there was widespread outbreak, and that has caused particular problems.

But on the other hand, as the Minister points out, they are indeed their own bubble. If there is no COVID on them, then, generally speaking, the risk is much, much lower for international arrivals transiting through that place.

I do think there is a need to be very cautious around ship-to-shore movement, and there have been concerns around the country. But this is an appropriate order in the circumstances, and we will support it.

Motion agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.