COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill

I move, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

New Zealand’s fight against COVID-19 continues. We have successfully eliminated the disease from our community, but we can never be complacent. Our border is our first line of defence against COVID-19. Managed isolation and quarantine has proven to be a highly effective way of preventing COVID-19 from entering the community. There is no known domestic transmission of COVID-19 at present, and there have been no locally acquired cases for over 90 days. All confirmed cases in June and July were linked to international travel and stayed in managed isolation and quarantine.

Since 26 March, over 34,000 people have entered the country and completed their stay in Government-managed isolation or quarantine facilities. We expect many more people to return home as the global situation worsens. I want to take this opportunity to thank all of those working in our managed isolation and quarantine facilities—the New Zealand Defence Force staff, the police, the Aviation Security Service, security staff, the health workers, hotel workers, the cleaners, the cooks, and all of those that are making this isolation and quarantine facility that we never expected to have to stand up in our country. It is the largest quarantine operation we have ever run in our history—the people that are working tirelessly to make this work.

New Zealanders have strong international connections. People will also want to resume overseas travel for work or personal reasons. We also know that COVID-19 is growing, not slowing. Because of this, the managed isolation and quarantine system must be sustainable. Although financial sustainability is part of this, it is also critical that the system is sustainable in terms of capacity to allow New Zealanders to return home safely. I want to make it clear that this legislation is about the sustainability of the managed isolation and quarantine system in the broader sense, managing the flow of incoming people over the border so that we can manage capacity as well as recouping part of the cost of running the system.

This legislation recognises the important public health function that managed isolation and quarantine facilities play in our collective fight against COVID. The Government has been very clear that people should avoid, wherever possible, leaving New Zealand or coming to New Zealand for short-term visits. There are ongoing travel advisories that warn against travelling and leaving New Zealand. Returning raises the risk of bringing COVID-19.

In the past weeks, we have increased capacity in our managed isolation and quarantine system to ensure that more New Zealanders can enter the country, but we are now close to exhausting our nationwide available safe capacity. Even if there were large numbers of fit for purpose facilities, there is a limit to how many facilities we can safely and responsibly manage at any one time. We need to ensure that our managed isolation and quarantine facilities are just that—managed. We also want to ensure that spaces in the managed isolation and quarantine system are available for New Zealanders and their partners and dependants to return home.

Currently, taxpayers bear all the costs of managed isolation and quarantine. These costs are substantial and growing. This is not sustainable. Managed isolation and quarantine facilities will be needed for a sustained period as part of our longer-term public health response to COVID-19. In recent weeks there has been a lot of discussion about when the Government would start charging for managed isolation and quarantine. It is important that this legislation is passed before the House rises in order to provide certainty to people planning to come to New Zealand and for New Zealanders who have to travel out of the country. The bill currently before the House provides the Government with the legal authority to charge people entering managed isolation and quarantine facilities. If this bill is passed, I intend to seek approval of the regulations soon. I intend for the charging system to come into force at 12.01 a.m. on the day the regulations come into force.

The COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill does two things. It’s main change is to introduce the legal framework to allow charging for managed isolation and quarantine. It also makes minor improvements to the existing provisions about orders that can be made under section 11 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. The bill allows the Government to charge people entering managed isolation and quarantine. It allows for certain people to be required to pay charges for managed isolation and quarantine, unless they are exempt or the charges are waived. Under the bill, certain classes of people will be exempted from the requirement to pay charges. The bill allows regulations to set the level of charges and the manner and timing of payment. It also allows for regulations to provide for exemptions, waivers, and refunds.

Much of the details of the charging system will be in the regulations. This provides flexibility to respond to a rapidly changing environment and ensure our settings are properly balanced and calibrated based on what is happening here and overseas. I’d like to thank the stakeholders who provided me with feedback on the content proposed in the regulations. I have considered this feedback carefully when making recommendations to Cabinet on those regulations.

The Government has carefully weighed up the impact of charging on New Zealanders wanting to return home. I intend for the regulations to provide that New Zealand citizens and residents currently overseas will not be liable for charges if they are returning home permanently. Temporary visa holders who were ordinarily resident in New Zealand before our border closed on 19 March will not be liable for a charge on their return if they were out of the country on 19 March, unless they are returning as a critical worker, in which case I expect their employers or sponsoring agency will meet their managed isolation costs. I am proposing that New Zealanders who are currently overseas and come home temporarily and those New Zealanders who go overseas after regulations come into force will be charged for managed isolation and quarantine on their return, unless they are exempt or qualify for a waiver.

Under the bill, charges must relate to the cost of managed isolation and quarantine facilities, and they must not be more than the estimated actual and reasonable costs for that class of person. I intend to seek Cabinet agreement to a charging structure in regulations that is less than half of the average total costs. For a single person in a room, the proposed charge is $3,100. Additional adults or children over three years old sharing that room will be charged $950 and $475 respectively.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act affirms every New Zealander’s right to leave New Zealand and to come home. The introduction of charges for managed isolation and quarantine may impact people’s ability to exercise that right, as it makes coming home more expensive. I also recognise that Māori may be disproportionately affected by charges for managed isolation and quarantine. It is important that Māori can travel to and from New Zealand for whānau reasons such as tangihanga, and to be able to exercise tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga rights and responsibilities. The charge for managed isolation and quarantine may make this more difficult for some individuals and whānau. This is an important consideration of part of the Crown’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations.

Any limitations on people’s rights need to be proportionate to the risks posed by COVID-19. Therefore, the Government will put in place mechanisms to lessen the impact of charging on these rights. Charges will not have to be paid before someone comes to New Zealand. There will be adequate time for people to pay the charges, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment may agree to accept payments in instalments. People could apply for a full or partial waiver if they are experiencing undue financial hardship or in other special circumstances.

As mentioned earlier, the bill is also amending section 11 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. Under the principal Act, the Minister of Health and the Director-General of Health can issue orders to give effect to measures to manage the spread of COVID-19. The bill will clarify that orders made under section 11 can require a person to undergo as well as report for medical examination or testing. It will also allow for orders to impose conditions on people before they enter the country to support and coordinate an orderly public health response to COVID-19. This could include requiring people to be registered to enter a managed isolation facility before they come here. COVID-19 will be with us for a while. All aspects of the managed isolation and quarantine system will be kept under regular review to ensure it is proportionate and necessary. We need a managed isolation and quarantine system that fairly represents the benefits to both the New Zealand public and those that enter the country.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I appreciate your indulgence in allowing the Minister to finish her speech, notwithstanding that she had gone over time. I think it was important to hear that last bit, but I would encourage her speechwriters to perhaps time it a little better in the future, because that last comment that was being made about section 11 I think is quite relevant, and I will touch on it later.

I just want to join with the Minister in acknowledging the work of those people who are working in our managed isolation and quarantine facilities, whether they are hotel staff, nursing staff, Ministry of Health, Defence Force, police now. I have been critical—critiquing, rather—the managed isolation process since 8 April - odd, when it was first put into place, and there’s no doubt that the processes were too porous. The testing regime was insufficient. But there has been a response by the Government that has served to tighten that up, and I think that’s entirely appropriate.

Can I also just segue into the issue that the Leader of the House raised in respect of the urgency motion, because he quite rightly pointed out that the urgency that has been taken has recovered all but probably one sitting week of this year in order for the Government to get through its legislative programme. What he didn’t say, and what I think is important to acknowledge, is that the consequence of urgency is that the public, through the select committee process, does not have the same level of input into the lawmaking that we are doing, and I think that has to be borne in mind when we think about the catch-up that we’re doing.

Now, when the Epidemic Response Committee was in place, there were two bills that did get referred to it, and the committee and that marvellous group of officials right across Government departments did an excellent job in scrutinising it, making improvements, bringing it back to the House within a week, and passing it through. We don’t have that luxury here, and I do think it’s important to acknowledge that while urgency is appropriate, the select committee process is being compromised.

I also acknowledge the need for Government to act in regard to emergencies to pass legislation from time to time. Previous Governments have needed to do that, and including the Government I was in, around earthquakes and other natural disasters. But I think it’s really important that we exercise caution in the manner in which primary legislation is used to create a regulation-making power, the details of which are not well articulated through the bill or understood by this House before it passes legislation, and particularly when there isn’t a select committee process. I acknowledge the need for haste, but in that haste there is often error, and it does behove us to scrutinise this bill in so far as we can, because, actually, there’s quite a lack of detail around what those regulations will look like.

The Minister of Housing has provided a reasonably good summary of what the regulations might look like and what the charging regime might look like, but I would point out that there remains, I think, a lack of detail about that regulation, and the Regulations Review Committee, frankly, is not a very good control but is not actually the right place to be scrutinising the sorts of charging regime—effectively, the Government reaching into the pockets of New Zealanders, albeit returning New Zealanders, and taxing them in a way that doesn’t have the same level of scrutiny. I contrast that with, for example, the appropriations bill, where we’ve spent 13 hours in a committee stage and three hours in a third reading analysing that bill, because it is about the amount of money that the Crown is taking out of the pockets of New Zealanders. This is a smaller example of that, but there is no scrutiny by the public on that point, and that worries me.

So I want to go to the regime as it has been described by the Minister both before and now in her first reading. It’s fair to say that although the Minister is quite a few years younger than me, she may be familiar with the term “a Clayton’s charge”. Clayton’s was a drink that you had when you weren’t having a drink, and this is kind of like a charge you’re having when you’re not having a charge. We are now getting to the point where we could be between $500 million and $1 billion, depending on the measurement and the charging regime, of costs incurred for managed isolation and quarantine, and this is going to raise about $10 million. It’s a drop in the ocean, and it shows that this Government has actually been aware of the fact that there is an overwhelming support by the taxpayer in New Zealand to say, “Look, managed isolation is important, but it cannot continue in the way that it is, for as long as it is, without there being some kind of charging regime.”

I don’t think this Government actually has its heart in that charging regime, and they’re doing as little as they can, the least that they can do this side of 19 September, to look like they are responding to that public opinion, which is growing. They are the bill payers, ultimately, up to the thick end of a billion dollars, and they’re saying, “You know what? For those people who haven’t been in New Zealand for a long time, who haven’t made that contribution through their earnings and taxes, it’s only fair that they should be charged when they choose to come home.” And the National Party has been very clear about this—that it would charge at a greater level for those people, albeit that there would need to be some exceptions. I’ll be interested as we go through this bill, because the Minister talked about Māori and tangi, whether or not there will also be an exceptions regime for all New Zealanders returning for bereavement or whether somebody whose loved one passes away while they’re overseas and they want to get back to be with their whānau—if they are non-Māori, would they be required to pay? I think that will be an interesting point of clarification.

I also point out that we are currently in the situation where the Minister talks about $3,100 of reimbursement, but we now know that the costs of managed isolation in the facilities that we are using is now exceeding $5,000 per person. So if you’re a family unit, a nuclear family with a couple of adults and a couple of children, that could be going into the area of five figures. You know, that’s talking about $700, $800, $900 per day in a five-star hotel. Even in a five-star hotel, that seems to be an eye-watering amount of money to be reimbursing—at least to be expending; the reimbursement is going to be something less than that, because it’s part of the Clayton’s charge the Government wants to do.

But when we are imposing these sorts of charges, I think it also behoves the Government to have a look at the nature of the accommodation and whether or not there could be other facilities that could be used that aren’t the Pullman, the Crowne Plaza, the Novotel—these very fancy hotels in Auckland. The Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre is there. It’s empty at the moment. The Whangaparāoa defence facility that we used for the Wuhan returnees—we must have hundreds of campervans around the place. I mean, we seem to be fixated on the only way to be doing this is in five-star hotels. No wonder it’s costing a lot. No wonder the Government is having to slow down the return of New Zealanders as a consequence of that. But it does need, I think, to think a little more imaginatively than it has.

I want to touch on those section 11 changes, because it strikes me as very interesting that, almost as a “by the way”, the Minister is slipping in a couple of belts and braces amendments to section 11 of the COVID response Act—for example, to confirm the fact that the Ministry of Health can require somebody to submit themselves for testing, or that they are required, even, to go into managed isolation on their return, which suggests that they’re not absolutely sure whether or not the legal framework has been in place to require people to go into managed isolation since they implemented it on 8 April. Now, in terms of testing, I’m quite clear that section 70 of the Health Act, even at level 1, perfectly entitles the ministry to require people to submit for testing if there is either a pandemic or the risk of one. So I’m not quite sure what legal advice they have received in order to require those amendments.

There’s a lot more to be said about this bill. It does, on the face of it, look quite straightforward, but it is, I think, important that this House scrutinises this bill as much as we can in urgency, because it’s important to get it right. Nevertheless, and despite those caveats, the National Party will be supporting this bill at this point, and unless we see any material impediments to that support continuing, we’ll support it right through. But I am concerned about the manner in which it is being introduced and passed.

I rise briefly in support of the bill, and I do so for a couple of important reasons. As the Minister of Housing pointed out in her speech, this is a bill, the primary object of which is to set up a legal structure within which it is possible to establish a charging regime. The details of the charging themselves actually occur through regulation. This is a fair and reasonable thing to do, in my view, and, as the Minister has outlined in terms of her intentions with the regulations, a careful balance is being struck here. It’s a balance which accepts the important right of New Zealand citizens to return to their country, but does also ensure that those who exercise some discretion about their travel arrangements after the lockdown occurred and those who perhaps planned to come back to New Zealand only on a temporary basis do make some contribution towards the significant cost of managed isolation, which we know is incredibly important.

I do note briefly, in response to some of the comments opposite that were just expressed now, that the proposed charge is not a tax in the way that we think about a tax; it is a specific levy which is levied to meet very particular costs related to the quarantine requirements created by the person who is engaging in the travel. Levy costs are, in general, set by regulation, so I don’t quite think that some of the arguments put forward there do hold too much water.

As I say, this is a balanced piece of legislation. It appears to have wide support in the House and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak tonight on this bill, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill, which has the primary purpose of setting up a regime for testing in managed isolation and in quarantine. Clearly, hurried legislation—again, we’re here doing this under urgency, and, furthermore, if we look at the documents that support it, we can see how hurried this is.

It’s kind of interesting to see several ways through the document that people can elect to go into quarantine. I’d be interested to know quite how that works—how you would elect rather than be required to go into quarantine—oh, I’ll call it isolation, actually, and mean managed isolation and quarantine. There must be some purpose for that to be there. I’d be interested to here that. No regulatory impact statement, which is commented on in the departmental disclosure as well. And, if we look at all the other absent evaluations through the departmental disclosure, again, that very clearly confirms how hurriedly this was put together.

Maybe as an extension of what my colleague was saying, testing the legality of all of this, I’d be interested to see the background work, because it’s noted in the departmental disclosure statement that there is a risk that charging short-term travellers for isolation may not be consistent with the World Health Organization (WHO) International Health Regulations. The argument here being made is that if other countries are doing it, we should be OK too, but there must be a body of material behind that, and I note that without the regulatory impact statement, that’s absent. So I’d be interested, maybe in the committee of the whole House, to hear the response to that. How big is the risk of us breaching our WHO regulations?

The parts of the bill that alter the primary Act are quite clear. I want to turn to an interesting proposition here. Fundamentally, the Government is delivering a service—yeah?—and it’s a service that you’re paying for. Now, any other service, including Government services that you’re paying for, comes under the Consumer Guarantees Act. If I’m unhappy with it, I have recourse. So what is the recourse in this bill? What is my ability to complain for the service I am paying for—be it delivered by Government or anyone else? What is the ability for me to get recourse if I’m not getting the sort of service that I’m looking for—that I’m paying for?

I thought I’d jot down what I thought that service was. That service is to be in isolation to keep you personally safe from infection, to keep others safe from infection, to test for confirmation of infection or otherwise, and for the basic essentials of life that would support you while you’re in isolation. That’s the service that you’re buying. What if that service is not suitable? What if that accommodation does not provide you with those guarantees? What if I’m put at risk in the accommodation and isolation facility? What are my rights for the service I am paying for to say I’ve received a poor service? Where does the Consumer Guarantees Act sit over the top of this legislation?

What if I’m not happy that I’m being told the policy is that you’ll be tested on day three and day 12, and we know day three testing is optional? In fact, if we look back at all the positive coronavirus tests over the past month, 50 percent or more of them were day three tests that tested positive, thus showing how critical that day three test is. I’ve paid for that; I didn’t receive it. How does that work? What is my recourse for a poor service?

What is my recourse for a poor service which I have paid for, where I might legitimately expect the isolation staff to wear personal protective equipment (PPE)? What is my recourse? I am paying for a service, and I’m happy to pay for it, but I want a decent service that protects me and guarantees, for the initial services I said I was purchasing, that they’re delivered appropriately, which is what the Consumer Guarantees Act said. Now, you could contest: no, staff in isolation facilities are wearing PPE. No, they’re not. How this works is, if you’re a returnee, you’re required to wear a mask outside of your room; if you’re staff, you’re required to wear a mask unless you’ll have more than 2 metres distancing from the returnees. I would contend, from what constituents have said to me and, indeed, what I’ve sent to the Minister in the past few weeks, that that is not happening—that staff members at a number of isolation facilities are well coming inside that 2 metre distance and very clearly not using PPE. I’m getting a poor service that I’m paying for; what is my recourse? I’d ask the Minister to consider whether that is something that needs attention.

Look, I think the bill in itself is relatively simple. We can see the purchase. My colleague explained the issue of: is the funding, is the costing, enough, is it accurate, and is it appropriate? He’s also raised the question of: what about the exemptions? Do they apply to everyone equally and fairly? I think that’s a discussion we can have across the House. But I would commend the Minister to have a think about—and think about whether there’s something in the committee of the whole House that she needs to address—the service I am purchasing and, if that service is not adequate, if that service is not up to standard, what is my recourse, first, just to complain anyway—it’s not clear to me there’s a complaints procedure—and, secondly, what is the remedy if it truly is found to be unsatisfactory.

So I look forward to the rest of the discussions as this bill progresses through the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a short call supporting the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill. Just to make some comments with regard to the contribution of the member who just resumed his seat, Dr Shane Reti, I do hope he’s spoken to Gerry Brownlee, because this piece of legislation, just to be clear, sets the capacity for a framework for a Government to put in place regulations that set the charging regime. So the legislation is very clear: it gives a Government the capacity to set regulations around a charging regime. That is why the Opposition is supporting it, even though, from the contribution from the member that just resumed his seat, that wasn’t necessarily clear.

I would caution the member around the articulation of these concerns with regard to the consumers Act and so on and so forth that, if Mr Brownlee finds himself in a position post the election that he will use this piece of legislation to put in place regulations that he and the National Party have articulated they want to do, the member may find himself trying to actually counter the concerns that he is addressing today, and with the attitude of the National Party if they end up in Government and what they say to the New Zealand public they are prepared to implement. At this stage, all this piece of legislation does is give a Government—this one has set some regulations; the next one could set some others, and if New Zealand First is part of any future Government, we will renew, we will review the regulations that have been put into place here. This is literally the minimum that can be put into place on the spectrum around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and some bill of rights advice that we have had as a Government, but it has the capacity.

What this piece of legislation does is give any future Government the capacity to build on top of those, and the National Government—sorry, you’re not the National Government anymore—[Interruption] Well, it’s late and, you know, it’s fantasy rules, but if, if, if, if, for example—and, on current polling it’s way out, but anyway—if, for example, they were in a position to make any decisions after the election, this would give them the capacity to do it. But that member has just now highlighted for the rest of New Zealand that he’s not necessarily concerned about the ability of taxpayers to gain back from people who are coming into the country, who should contribute—and it is a contribution at this stage—to the costs of their quarantine and isolation. That is not what his concern is; it is not for the taxpayer of New Zealand, which is different to what Mr Woodhouse articulated when he was on his feet, but his concern is actually around the ability of people to complain, which I find fascinating. In a global pandemic, when you look at what is beyond our gate and what this Government has done to protect the team of 5 million, the member who has just resumed his seat is more concerned around people’s ability to complain about what we need to do to keep other New Zealanders safe than he is around the piece of legislation that we’re putting into the House today.

So New Zealand First will support the legislation. If we had our way, we would be going a little bit further than what we have got here, or the regulations that are in play, but the reality is that this is a circumstance we haven’t had since 1918—since 1918—and I think the Opposition forgets that when they decide to be flippant with any piece of legislation that is dealing with COVID-19, and perhaps they just need to continue to look beyond our borders, at what is happening in other nations, and see how paramount it is that, whatever we need to do to make sure that we can stop community transmission inside New Zealand, that is what a responsible Government does. And that is what this responsible Government is doing tonight.

It’s a pleasure to take a call in this debate in what has been—no doubt we’ve all received correspondence from New Zealanders abroad and in New Zealand concerned about this issue, so really happy to take a call in this debate. I certainly want to start out by acknowledging all of those in our quarantine and managed isolation facilities who are serving, whether it’s police officers, military personnel, the raft of staff that are involved. Thank you on behalf of all of us here in our Parliament for the work that you’re doing.

But I do want to just raise a story that I had from a constituent who I spoke to the other day. This constituent had just come back from overseas and was put in the quarantine isolation, and I asked her, “How was it?” and she said, “Oh, it was pretty good, actually. They flew me down to Christchurch. They put me up at a four-star hotel. I had three meals a day. I had gluten-free options and nice bed sheet changes and all the facilities I could ever dream of.” I thought to myself, “Well, that’s pretty good—a pretty good experience for most.” Then it was made clear the other day just how much that bill costs the New Zealand taxpayer: as we know, $5,700 per person per stay. Right now, the bill is running just over the $200 million mark.

So I think this is an important aspect to set the framework to help recover some of that cost. I mean, I think going out there to the average punter on the streets in New Zealand and saying, “Well, do you think that New Zealanders coming home should bear some of the burden of their managed isolation?”, most New Zealanders would say yes. That’s what the public polls say, and certainly that’s what the mood is on the street of Northcote, where I am a member of Parliament, certainly is. So I think that the idea of this to set the framework to enable that cost burden to be reduced for the taxpayer is something that, ultimately, we’re here to look at today, because unfortunately, it’s not any time soon that the borders are going to be open.

We were talking to some major airlines recently and, you know, it’s going to be another year or two before international routes open up. So we’re going to be dealing with managed isolation and quarantining for some time, and in that time, the cost is going to mount up. So whatever we can do to help recover that cost, and on this side of the House, we’re actually fine with that. If you have the ability to pay and the willingness to pay and you receive a service, as my colleague down here was talking about service, then you should pay. That’s what our position has always been about in the National Party, and that’s why we’ve fought very hard to get ideas like this brought to the House. I certainly acknowledge the work that Judith Collins and Simon Bridges and Todd Muller have done over the last few months to raise this in the public debate, because it has been important, and this is why we’re actually here talking about this today.

But what has been announced in this bill we certainly have some issues with, and we do think that we can strengthen it. We hope that the member that was just speaking before will consider our Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that we’ve got lined up later on this evening. These SOPs would do the following: would enable high-income people who possibly could get exemptions to actually not get those exemptions and pay some of the cost and burden of that managed isolation. Another SOP seeks to make sure that if you escape managed isolation, you actually bear the cost of that isolation and the costs involved with escaping as well. I think that that is fair and equitable. That side of the House always talks about fair and equitable policies. I think—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m going to let the member know that he’s mentioned the SOPs—they can’t be debated until the committee stage, so we’ll just move on.

OK, excellent—thank you, Mr Speaker. So as I said, we’ve got some changes that we want to make to this legislation. Of course, we would’ve liked to see more uniformity, less chances for exemption. As Michael Woodhouse, my colleague here, made very, very clear, the very small cost that is actually going to be recovered is minuscule compared to the costs for the taxpayer—$10 million versus the $200 million that taxpayers have already spent, and the other more than $250 million that will be spent by the end of this year. So we do hope that these will be debated and considered later on.

Certainly, the other thing to note is around the shortness of time that we’re here. I must say that this is at least the 10th or 11th time since I’ve been a member of Parliament in this House where we’ve debated stuff far too late. This Government has had a lot of time to consider this legislation, and here we are on the second or third to last day of Parliament having to rush this through in urgency, having no due process for a select committee to hear from various groups that may be impacted adversely from this legislation. I just think that it’s an affront to the democracy that we have in New Zealand that this House is considering such rushed and poorly drafted legislation in such a short time frame.

So we’ll certainly support this in the House. It’s been something that we have been pushing for some time. We hope to get some more discussion and debate later on around how to strengthen this bill, but National commends this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill. I just wanted to start by saying that the clue is in the title—that it is a public health response bill.

I’ll just start with a couple of points made by some members of the Opposition. Dr Reti asked the question about whether the Consumer Guarantees Act would apply to this, on the basis that this is a service that is being delivered to the individual. That’s actually an argument against this bill rather than for it, because people are being quarantined because they have to be quarantined. If they’re being quarantined in particular types of hotels it’s because they are the ones that enable us to actually manage the public health outcomes, not because we’re shouting everyone a two-week holiday in a four- or five-star hotel because we want to but because that is the level that is necessary in order to ensure that we can actually keep people safe.

Dan Bidois, who just sat down, was talking about, essentially, the cost of this and how we need to recover the costs from New Zealanders who are coming in. This is a complete reversal from everything that we’ve done up until this point, of course, because we’ve laid out tens of billions of dollars, actually, and we haven’t recovered the costs of those. It will come back via the tax system over time, and people who are moving home pay taxes. People who are returning from overseas will move here and will pay taxes and will contribute to the public health response, not just for their quarantine, but the tens of billions of dollars that we are outlaying to support all New Zealanders through this crisis. So the very premise of what they’re talking about—the question is: why are we seeking, as part of a massive public health programme affecting every part of the economy, why is it that we’re singling out one group of New Zealanders for cost recovery and not everybody?

I want to turn—Tracey Martin mentioned the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and I think it is worth just sort of mentioning a few things. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act guarantees to every New Zealand citizen the right to enter New Zealand—that’s section 18(2). It doesn’t say “the right to enter New Zealand if you pay a $3,000 fee.” It also says that New Zealanders have the right not to be subject to torture. It doesn’t say that “you have the right not to be subject to torture if you pay a $3,000 fee.” It says that we have the right to freedom of expression. It does not say “you have the right to freedom of expression if you pay a $3,000 fee.” It says “the right of peaceful assembly”, not “the right of peaceful assembly if you pay a $3,000 fee”.

So the New Zealand Bill of Rights, and I know that this House does pass legislation—unfortunately, fairly frequently—which contravenes or is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights. That doesn’t make it a good idea, right? Just because we do that, because we have that facility under our legislation doesn’t mean that we should. And I think that we should seek, where at all possible, to uphold the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Otherwise, it’s not worth the paper that it is written on.

Regardless of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, I think that this is a matter of fundamental fairness. New Zealanders who have left New Zealand prior to the outbreak of COVID-19, or prior to understanding that there would be compulsory quarantine with a cost attached to it, it’s fundamentally unfair to retrospectively—and remember, we do try and avoid law that is retrospective, to say to people, “That’s bad luck. You left New Zealand perhaps 10 years ago. You now find yourself in a situation where you’re returning to New Zealand and because there’s a global pandemic, we’re going to charge you. But we’re not going to charge other New Zealanders. In fact, other New Zealanders, we’re actually paying their wages for them.” It’s only this group of New Zealanders who live overseas at the moment who are forced to return home due to the pandemic that we’re saying, “Well we’re not going to support you the way that we’re supporting everybody else. We’re going to charge you instead.”

That’s fundamentally unfair. I mean, it creates two classes of New Zealanders: those who live in New Zealand and those who are currently outside the country. I have to say, that I think that the treatment of New Zealanders living overseas in relation to this debate has been appalling. The expat community has been the subject of abuse and denigration for daring to return to their homeland. The team of 5 million, I have to say, is all of us, not just those of us who live in New Zealand versus those of us who live overseas or are currently overseas. I would like us, as we go through this debate, to return to some of the fundamental principles—where we started as we were moving into the pandemic crisis, into the state of emergency—where we said, “Look out for each other, be kind, support each other. This is about all of us, not just some of us.” I will support this bill through the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on this bill in this short time. This bill is, essentially, about trying to recoup the cost of managed isolation and the quarantine facilities. As the speaker before me has said, it is not fair; it is not fair to the New Zealanders who are overseas but it is also not fair to all the New Zealanders who have been here during lockdown, who have sacrificed so much—their jobs, their businesses, the ability to connect with family, to attend funerals, to have weddings. Everybody has carried the burden of this. This is an extraordinary situation we would normally not—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member, but it’s come time for me to leave the Chair for the evening. The House is suspended. I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow. Kia ora mai tātou.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)