COVID-19 Public Health Response (Validation of Managed Isolation and Quarantine Charges) Amendment Bill

The question is that clause 2 stand part.

We are in a debate. We might not want to quibble too much about the title, but I am interested in the commencement of this, and I have some questions for the Minister, particularly around timing, so it may be appropriate to do that in this part of the bill.

If I interpret this correctly, because of the trans-Tasman bubble, the matter is, effectively, ended. No Australian citizen or resident coming from Australia would be required to spend time in managed isolation or quarantine at that time. So, effectively, we have closed the door on any future charging unless circumstances change. So I guess my question is: why the hurry? Why have we got a commencement date that is so immediate, two days after we even found out about the problem? Is he confident that he has sufficient information to retrospectively validate this in the manner in which he’s doing—and I’ll expand on that in clauses 3 and 4? Was consideration given to actually kicking this to a select committee for a week or, potentially, while the power might be given, having a back door out to say, “Well, we did get this wrong.”, and therefore not make the legislation effective quite so quickly?

Madam Chair, if I could comment very briefly on that. I’m happy to get into that in more detail when we talk about clause 4, which I think is the main clause that the member is referring to, and clause 5, of course, which is about the amendment of regulations. But just very briefly on timing, the ultimate issue here is that we want to provide certainty. Everybody who entered the country and paid these fees expected when they came to New Zealand that they were going to be paying them. They came to the country on that basis and they have paid those fees, in large part, or they may have a fee outstanding, depending on the timing of their invoicing. So I don’t think anyone is going to be feeling aggrieved by this legislation, because it simply aligns a technical legal distinction with the policy and practice that has already been in place.

I appreciate the response from the Minister, but I would remind him that the strong democratic principle of no taxation without representation is really, really important, including for our Australian friends, who on arrival are granted a residence class visa, and therefore they become, to all intents and purposes, Kiwis. So they’re not being represented. Nobody is actually having an opportunity to have their say on this—the immigration agents, the immigration lawyers, the people who have supported those through managed isolation and quarantine—and I think it’s unfortunate that we are not giving them an opportunity to have a say.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 Principal Act