COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill

I present to the House a legislative statement on the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill.

Legislative statement published under the authority of the House.

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

I hope that this bill will be a relatively non-controversial bill. It is a simple bill that does two things, and at the end of my speech introducing this bill, I am going to seek leave for a slightly different process to facilitate it through the House, following discussion amongst the parties on both sides of the House.

The bill, basically, does two things, as I’ve indicated. The first thing it does is relatively simple: it changes references to the Minister of Health to the Minister responsible for the Act, and that’s quite simple. At the moment, the Minister of Health is the Minister who issues orders and issues exemptions from orders under the Act. That is a power that I have exercised for most of the time that the Act has been in existence, first as Minister of Health, and, secondly, more latterly, since the new Government was sworn in, under section 7 of the Constitution Act 1986, where I have been exercising the powers of Minister of Health. This will tidy that up and make sure that I’m not exercising powers on behalf of another Minister; that I am, in fact, exercising the powers as the Minister responsible for the Act—a relatively simple technical adjustment that reflects the fact that there is now a Minister for COVID-19 Response, which there was not when the legislation was first introduced, and that power was vested with the Minister of Health.

To be clear, the orders that we’re talking about are things like the air border order, the maritime border order, our isolation and quarantine order, the orders requiring people to be tested, and any orders that are issued relating to alert levels. They will now be issued, once this is passed, in my name, as the Minister for COVID-19 Response, rather than in the name of the Minister of Health. Similarly, exemptions to those orders will be granted by me as Minister for COVID-19 Response.

The second amendment that the bill makes—that, again, I hope will be relatively non-controversial—is it allows the Government to remove restrictions made under orders with less than 48 hours’ notice. At the moment, if we escalate up alert levels, in order to de-escalate, to move back down the alert levels, we have to give 48 hours’ notice of that. In some instances where we’re simply removing restrictions, it makes sense to be able to move more quickly. For example, if at the moment I was to remove the requirement for people to wear masks on public transport, I would have to give 48 hours’ notice of that. In reality, once we get to the point where we’re satisfied that there is no longer a risk that would justify the wearing of masks, it should be possible for us to remove that restriction much more quickly than having to provide 48 hours’ notice. So this bill would allow us to remove restrictions faster.

I think there is good reason to say where we’re imposing new restrictions, where it is not a genuine emergency, then we should give 48 hours’ notice of introducing a new requirement, but we shouldn’t necessarily need to give 48 hours’ notice to remove one. So the bill allows us to move more quickly with regard to that.

So that’s the conclusion of my first reading contribution, and I seek leave, Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Chris Hipkins, seeking leave.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave that there be no debate on the second reading of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill and that there be no committee stage on the bill.

Is there any objection to that process? There appears to be none.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The National Opposition will be supporting the passage of this bill through its particularly truncated passage through the House. We think it’s a, to the extent that it does anything, sensible piece of legislation. I do have to wonder at the utility of the change—essentially, the name change—from transferring the powers from the Minister of Health to the Minister for COVID-19 Response, as the bill statement, under the new Standing Orders, that has been issued by the Minister makes clear. Section 7 of the Constitution Act 1986 allows for any member of the Executive Council to exercise powers conferred on another Minister under legislation. So, yeah, for tidiness, I suppose, it’s useful to have the Minister for COVID19 Response in the legislation rather than the Minister of Health, but I’m not really sure it was absolutely required. The explanatory note says it shouldn’t be relied on in the long term and an amendment for flexibility and accuracy is appropriate. I suppose that’s true. So, if you’re legislating anyway, I suppose you may as well chuck it in the legislation as a minor amendment. But there’s only one other item in the legislation.

I should say also, sir, that we have a supplementary amendment to make the Minister of Health be added alongside the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to the people who must be consulted mandatorily during the development of the orders under the Act, and that flows from the change I’ve just talked about. That makes sense, but the only other thing is the 48 hours’ notice requirement, and that’s, really, the sort of heart—to the extent this bill has a heart—of the bill and we support that. And I suspect, without knowing for sure, it was a drafting error at the time the initial COVID legislation was drafted, and no one’s going to be particularly hard on the Parliamentary Counsel Office, who do a very good job, for possibly a technical error because it was drafted in haste, I suspect, and again the exigencies of the situation demanded that and, of course, you’d expect perhaps an error or two. So we think it does make sense to allow the flexibility for when you’re going down the alert levels, if the Government decides—or the Minister, in this case, decides—to promulgate a change to the alert levels, for example, or a particular element of the alert level changes. The Minister has talked about mask wearing on public transport, for example, but people could think about other examples as well. Not having to give 48 hours’ notice when going down an alert level, we think, makes sense.

So, look, we don’t wish to hold up the House. There’s a tax bill after this, and I know that members on this side of the House are far more interested in talking about the taxation response from the Government than this very minor but useful bill. Thanks.

I rise to take a brief call on the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the previous speaker for his enthusiastic and full-throated support for it. The issue that I just want to briefly focus on is the 48-hour stand-down changes. Just before I do that, the thing I do want to note is that this piece of legislation is an important part of the overall legislative infrastructure for how we have managed our way through an extraordinary year. I think the way in which the Parliament and the Government have been able to come together to ensure that we have legislation that’s fit for purpose, that enables quick decisions to be made in the public health interest, while also making sure that there is parliamentary oversight, has actually been a bit of a standout success story of our democracy this year. I acknowledge all parties and all members for that.

In terms of this particular bill, the removal of the requirement for there to be 48 hours’ notice when there is a movement down in alert levels I think is one that everyone would acknowledge is a sensible and pragmatic one. Of course, we all understand why there needs to be notice before alert levels are lifted. They do, by their nature, require an imposition on people, on businesses, and organisations, and it is only reasonable that there is a period before which people are required to comply with what are sometimes some quite major restrictions. But when it goes in the other direction and we’re shifting back towards a more normal mode for people, for businesses, and other organisations, there is no particular need on an ongoing basis for there to be a 48-hour period. Obviously, sometimes the changes in going down alert levels will still take organisations some time to implement, but there is no need for there to be a requirement around that.

So that change and the others reflected in this bill are all pretty sensible, all pretty pragmatic, and contribute to us having an ongoing piece of legislation that helps us to keep New Zealanders safe in these challenging times. I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading