COVID-19 Orders — Approval

I move, That this House approve the following orders made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020:

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Amendment Order (No 2) 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 2) 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 3) 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 4) 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 5) 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 6) 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Amendment Order (No 3) 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 7) 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order (No 2) 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Amendment Order (No 4) 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 8) 2021.

This is certainly not the first time the House has had to do this. Under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, orders that the Government makes—or that I make as the Minister for COVID-19 Response—under the aforementioned Act, have to be endorsed by the Parliament. They only apply for 90 days if not endorsed by Parliament. In between me making an order and it coming to the floor of the House for a vote, it’s scrutinised by the Regulations Review Committee. And I can tell you, as the person who receives the correspondence from the Regulations Review Committee, that they do a very thorough and diligent job of scrutinising those orders, of ensuring that they are being made consistent with the Act, of ensuring that they are not being done in a way that unduly tramples on people’s rights and freedoms—although there is recognition in the Act itself that people’s rights and freedoms may be affected by the COVID-19 response.

So I want to run through, briefly, the orders—and there are 12 orders that are under consideration today. I’ll deal with them in groups.

Eight of the orders in question deal with alert level - type changes. So the purpose of the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) was to prevent and limit the risk of the outbreak or spread of COVID-19 by setting the level 3 conditions that are in place in Auckland, and the level 2 conditions in place around the rest of the country. Subsequent amendments have been made to that as the response has continued. The changes covered by those amendments include things like: the level 3 boundary that was put into effect in the Waikato; the level 3 period that Northland was placed at that alert level; the mandatory testing requirement for those crossing the border for work; amendments in relation to gatherings and physical distancing requirements in certain circumstances, like early childhood education; and the requirements for movement between Auckland, Waikato, and other parts of the country. I want to acknowledge that the Regulations Review Committee did make some useful comments around how we define the boundaries in the Northland region. And it recommended that the boundaries should be described by reference to roads, rivers, or other geographical markers—which the public would be more familiar with—rather than the cartographical references that are used in the current orders. I think that that is a reasonable suggestion.

The committee also expressed concern about amendment order No. 7 which imposed a new prohibition on people travelling to a secondary home or place of residence after a Government announcement of alert level change, and before those changes came into force. The committee was concerned that there was insufficient communication of the new rules, and if there was insufficient communication of the rules, it could lead to people unknowingly committing a criminal offence. I want to be clear here that that’s always the case when an alert level changes and a boundary is put in place. This particular change was to effectively stop the Coromandel exodus that has happened once or twice from Auckland when the alert level has escalated there. People knowingly, knowing that Auckland is about to go into a lockdown, abandoned Auckland and headed out to the Coromandel to their beach houses—that somewhat defeats the purpose of having a boundary in place in order to contain the risk. So while I acknowledge the committee’s concern in this particular case, I don’t necessarily agree with it.

Two of the orders amend the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Order that was put in place last year. That’s the order that establishes managed isolation and quarantine. Amendment Order (No 2) updated the definition of medical examination and testing to include the use of saliva testing. Amendment Order (No 3) prescribed the requirements for self-isolation by those taking part in the Government’s self-isolation project. There was one concern expressed by the Regulations Review Committee, which said that the order “assumes a link between a person’s participation in the programme and their employer.”, which would not necessarily be the case, but the rationale for creating a legal obligation on the employer for the behaviour of the participant is to ensure that the employer only puts forward employees who the employer trusts to participate in that pilot programme.

The COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order (No 2) updated the principal order to extend the meaning of “vaccinated”, to recognise some of the people who may have been vaccinated with vaccines other than Pfizer abroad. So it includes vaccines like Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, etc. The COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Order 2020 was designed to protect and limit the risk of an outbreak by requiring testing and medical examination of affected people for COVID-19, and it put in place—for staff at various education locations and facilities—the requirement to provide a negative test before they physically enter the site. It puts in place a weekly testing requirement for unvaccinated workers at an affected education service until mandatory vaccination requirements come into force on 1 January. The committee raised some concerns about the clarity of that order, as they often do about orders, and we’ll have a look at those as a package—though these orders have been pretty central to our COVID-19 response, and they’ve helped to play a very significant role in limiting the spread of COVID-19 cases across New Zealand. Often, they are put in place in a hurry. Often, the Regulations Review Committee—and in fact the work that officials do after orders are put in place—identify further changes, refinements, clarifications that can be put in place. That’s one of the reasons why these are often regularly amended.

Some weeks I seem to be up until midnight most nights awaiting the day’s order coming through so that it can be signed and gazetted that night, because, inevitably, given the pressure that the drafters work under here, there will be points of clarification that need to be made, and I want to thank those who do that. I do really just want to underscore that point: that when decisions are made, the process of putting the legal instruments for those in place is a very compressed one. The people who do this work do so under enormous pressure and often right into the night and into the early morning in order to make sure that the law is clear and that it can be complied with, and I certainly thank them for their efforts. They have been integral to our COVID-19 response, they have been diligent and conscientious, and they deserve our acknowledgment and our thanks.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the Minister for COVID-19 for that long, or reasonably long, explanation as to the various orders that the House is approving. For those listening who perhaps are not so au fait with the procedure here, what the House is doing now is actually a very important constitutional role. Pursuant to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act, the House has given the Government quite extraordinary powers to promulgate various orders and restrictions on people’s movements, and make people do a variety of things—for example, if you work at the border, you have to get a test regularly, and other things.

So Parliament has given the Government extraordinary powers, and now Parliament is exercising its constitutional duty to make sure that the Government is exercising those powers responsibly. As is its wont, Parliament has given the Regulations Review Committee the heavy burden of doing that work, and the Regulations Review Committee, as the Minister has indicated, does a very good job in doing that. We take that job seriously, we do it conscientiously, and we do it diligently, and I want to extend my thanks to the very hard-working team who support the Regulations Review Committee. Basically, what we are trying to do is to make sure that the powers exercised by the Government in the orders, in the legal parlance, vires—so, in other words, they are legal and they follow consistently with what the powers that Parliament has given to the Government are.

So, in that regard, I want to indicate that we’ll be supporting the motion moved by the Government to approve these orders, but I do want to make four particular points around four of the orders.

The first is in relation to the variety of orders to do with saliva testing, and I want to put on the record, from the National Party point of view, the great concern we have, still, with the way in which saliva testing is dealt with by the Government. So COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Amendment Order (No 5)—and you’ll forgive me, sir, if sometimes we get the exact number wrong, there’s so many of these orders—that relates to saliva testing and amends the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Order 2020. We believe that saliva testing is not being utilised to the extent that it should be in our managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities, and I want to place on the record our great concern at the Auditor-General’s report released last week—well, not report, I should say; it’s more of a letter to the House, or I think it was actually to the Rt Hon Winston Peters and others—in relation to the procurement process for saliva testing, generally, this year. That report is of grave concern, and, at some point, we are going to have to have a reckoning as to what has happened with saliva testing in New Zealand.

We are concerned that, still, if you are in MIQ, you cannot take a saliva test as part of the mandatory testing in MIQ as a returnee. The trial that was meant to be under way already has been suspended by the MIQ operators, for reasons that are not fully understood, and so we are concerned about that.

The second order I want to deal with relates to the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 6). This was the one that was presented on 12 October 2021 in relation to the alert level decision by adding Northland as a new separate part of the alert level 3 area. The concern here, and this was recognised by the Regulations Review Committee, was clause 15 inserted a new Part 3 in Schedule 3 of the principal order, and it described the Northland part of the alert level 3 area as “the area within the boundaries of Northland Region, as shown on LG-01-2019-Con-1.”, which is a text-based numerical description, I think, of—it’s essentially a map reference. But the point that the Regulations Review Committee made was that that is not readily accessible to most people. I didn’t really know what it meant—it’s a rule of law issue, which is that people should be able to work out what the boundaries are of the travel restrictions, and simply saying “LG-01-2019-Con-1” is essentially hieroglyphics, basically, for most people, in fact, 99.9 percent of people, unless you’re familiar with how to read maps; most people would have no idea what that even means.

So that goes to a rule of law issue, and that has now been fixed and the Regulations Review Committee has done a good job in highlighting that, but that is not the way these things should be done, and the Regulations Review Committee wrote to the Minister saying that there needs to be a reference to things that people know about—so roads, rivers, geographical markers that ordinary, reasonable people can identify so they know what they can and can’t do. That’s perfectly reasonable, and that is an example, actually, of the committee doing its job to improve the order.

The other issue I want to pick up is in relation to the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 7), which is the issue to do with the prohibition on people travelling to a secondary home or place of residence after a Government announcement of the alert level change, and the Minister made reference to this. So it’s after there’s an announcement of an alert level change, but before the changes come into force. The committee’s noted that this is an unusual provision. It imposes an obligation that relies on a subsequent oral announcement. Now, the Minister didn’t have a lot of concern with that—or I think he indicated that he didn’t really agree with the concern—but that is unusual. So for the Government to impose an obligation on someone that relies on a subsequent oral announcement—and the committee’s noted: “Although the main part of the obligation is in this order, elements of the obligation only exist when an oral announcement is made.”—that places a reasonably heavy burden on people to actually listen to the oral announcement and, again, from a rule of law point of view, that is, I would say, suboptimal. Things should be as clear as possible in writing so that people can follow the law and follow the rules. So I respectfully disagree with the Minister in his disagreement with the problems with that order.

Finally, I want to deal with the issue of the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12). This is the one that was presented on 23 September that moved Auckland and the Upper Hauraki to alert level 3, and kept New Zealand at alert level 2. This is in relation to the rules regarding the obligation to carry evidence of a COVID-19 test. So the existing obligation at the time was to carry evidence for a COVID-19 test taken no more than seven days before a journey. It then introduced an obligation of no more than 72 hours before a person’s journey. The point I want to make is that with Delta, 72 hours is actually, arguably, still too long a time—that for the imposition of these requirements on people, we really should be moving to rapid antigen testing, as I think David Seymour said.

So members will be aware of the truck driver—this is a while ago now, but we’re dealing with things from a while ago—who left Auckland, went to Palmerston North, and tested COVID positive. He was only on a weekly testing cycle, and, yep, 72 hours is better, but how good would it have been if we had rapid antigen testing in the country and he could have taken a daily test before he started work? Now, it’s likely—we don’t know, obviously, but it’s likely—that that test would have picked up the fact that the truck driver had COVID on the day he took the trip. As it was, he went four more days without testing positive for COVID, and, as I’m sure the Minister and other people would agree, how quickly you pick up COVID, particularly with Delta, is critical. You’ve got to pick it up as fast as you can, and, unfortunately, the Government’s failure to move fast enough on rapid antigen testing has meant that this order—we’ll approve it, but it could be so much more, and it could be that if we made use of the technology that we have available, we could have imposed an order that said evidence of a negative COVID test, or rapid antigen test, on the day of, or for people working through the night in the 24 hours before.

That would have been a better order, I think, more consistent with public health, and, actually, I would say, more consistent with the science, because as Professor Jackson’s report makes clear from the COVID-19 Testing Technical Advisory Group—in his words—we’ve been too slow on rapid antigen testing. I know the Government’s got an aversion to it, but we really should be using it more, and that’s what this order should have contained. But we will approve them, and thank you to the Minister for the explanation.

Kia ora. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of these 12 orders, which, of course, are already in effect. We note the work of the Regulations Review Committee in preparing this report. I suspect you’ll be doing many, many more of them. Ngā mihi to the Minister for this introduction.

So we note these orders were first presented in the House between 21 September and 18 October; this is our first opportunity to actually debate them. They were made in that period when Auckland was first put into level 3 and other areas such as Northland, Waikato, and Upper Hauraki were moved to higher alert levels. So much has changed since then, but I think it’s important to always come back and check on these things. So, as the Minister noted, these cover isolation and quarantine, alert level requirements, required testing, and vaccinations. So—[Clears throat] aroha mai—I’m going to briefly comment on some of those.

I agree with the previous member, how important it is that saliva testing is much, much more prevalent in the work that we’re doing. So we’re looking to see much greater clarity around how that will be used and the prevalence of its use.

Many of the requests I receive are about clarifying the restrictions. People are getting very, very confused. So even sensible and very intelligent people are coming to me to say, “What about this, what about this, what about this?”, and it’s getting very, very tricky. So I realise that’s a significant comms issue, but if people can’t understand the rules it’s really hard for them to keep coming to them—so requirements about where to use face coverings or the numbers for gatherings.

Although I suspect incentives work better, from what we have seen in raising vaccinations, we note that it does create another infringement offence for people who are not displaying a quick response (QR) code. So just a shout-out to all those thousands and thousands of businesses who do have all their QR codes up there, that are following the rules, have their little stations, and are doing all the things. I suspect it’s only a very small number of people who are still not meeting that. So, if need be, if we must do infringement fees, that is in place.

But as COVID moves around the country, for those of us in Tai Rāwhiti and other areas where vaccination numbers are so low—and that’s for everybody, not just for Māori, and that’s despite the really hard work of our local providers and our community people getting that push out there—we’re watching very, very, closely what happens with the Auckland border and how people can move across alert levels.

So the Greens want to see an increase in the compassionate reasons for people to move across the border: being able to see whānau, being able to attend tangi—those things are really, really important. Family connection, especially, is critical—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to draw the member back to the orders.

Ka pai. I was just coming back, too. So we support more access to businesses and services, work and education, funerals and tangi, which is one of the things of this order. So we’re saying that we absolutely support those. Increasing permissions to allow children moving between caregivers and people going to or relocating their principal places of residence; we see this as particularly important for students who are all going to be leaving the main cities where their—which institutions they were in, and those who are going to be moving to them to take up study.

We support relaxing the border restrictions when it is safe to do so. So we do support people being required to carry evidence of a test or a negative result, and we do welcome the prohibition of people moving to a second place of residence. In particular, that Auckland people should not be—or anybody, really—able to go and do holiday on nearby places like Waiheke or Aotea. What we’re not clear on, though, is what this means in terms of transitioning to a traffic light area and how those prohibitions work. So we still would look forward to greater clarity on that.

The last part I want to address is around self-isolation and the pilot. So we note that this particular order is around the requirements for work-related trips, which, of course, also includes all of us. So we support increased guidelines on this, because, now that we’ve had a few deaths with people who are self-isolating outside of managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities or hospitals, we’re concerned about the capacity for people. So I certainly am hoping that that pilot has got clarity on how they’re looking after all these people—hundreds at the moment, but probably thousands eventually—who is testing them and who is checking whether they actually should be in hospital, and at what point that happens. So we said that anymore self-isolation needs to prioritise those who need it instead of putting people in overcrowded situations, or who are mainly in hardship. An opportunity, perhaps, to reunite split migrant families by including them in these trials and ensuring MIQ is available for community cases unable to self-isolate safely.

And, finally, we note our overall concern that the obligations and permissions made through these orders prioritise those who are most vulnerable, and lead to the safest outcomes. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of this motion to approve these 12 orders that the Government has made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. We think that it’s been a good system, such as things go, to be able to give the Government the power to act quickly but also have the laws clearly written down, so people know what their rights are, and have ultimate parliamentary oversight and have those laws eventually debated, even if they couldn’t be debated at the time they were introduced. It’s a good compromise for an emergency situation but not the way that we’d want to have lawmaking done in the long term. I hear the Minister talking of sitting up late, signing papers well into the night, and I think about other historical figures who have done that, and it’s never a good company to keep.

This particular set of orders has, for example, rescinded the alert level 3 requirement that was briefly in place for the very tip of Northland. It’s an alert level change that never made any sense from a public health point of view. That particular alert level requirement meant that an area at the very tip of Northland, where there were a couple of cases—the line went through the centre of the Hokianga Harbour and then across to Kaeō and blocked off Kaitāia and the rest of the northern tip of Northland. Interestingly, the same day that that line was drawn, the Prime Minister of New Zealand had been visiting Rāwene, on the south coast of the Hokianga Harbour, and Kawakawa, just south of Kaeō. How convenient that the Prime Minister was never quite north of the line that went to alert level 3, and yet there’s so many reasons why that line might have been drawn further south. There were suspected cases all the way down to Wellsford and even Warkworth, but isn’t that interesting that the line was drawn just north of where the Prime Minister had been that day? [Interruption] I’m sure people will draw their own conclusions about that. Members at home might be able to hear Willow-Jean Prime, the member for Northland, chirping up there. I think she knows there’s something in that, and that’s why she’s a little agitated by hearing it said.

This legislation also puts in place the vaccination mandate for the health and disability sector. It required people be vaccinated with at least one dose by, actually, today, or as of last night. I’ll make a couple of comments about that. One is that it would be better if it was a vaccine or test mandate. That’s what they’ve done in Denmark. They have allowed people to demonstrate on their app. They’ve got their app rolled out already, which is helpful, and it says either you’re vaccinated, you’ve recently had a negative test, or perhaps you’ve recently recovered from COVID. In any case, you’re not a danger to people around you in so far as passing COVID on to them. I think it would have been helpful if it was a vax or test mandate. That’s what Air New Zealand will be using from mid-December to fly domestically on their aeroplanes. I hope that the Government will consider making it vax or test, because vaccine-only is rather blunt. It’s creating disruption and division in New Zealand. We need to think about our social cohesion in the long term, as well as our immediate battle with COVID-19.

The other thing about that particular order that brought in place a health and disability mandate is the way that it was introduced. It was two weeks. There were three weeks from when it was announced that health and disability sector workers would have to be vaccinated to the day, just yesterday or today—last night—that they had to be. In those three weeks, it actually took two of the weeks from the time the announcement was made to the time that the order was actually put in place, and that’s something people need to understand about how the Government is using these powers under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. It’s getting up and making announcements, and then it’s taking two weeks to issue the paperwork. I can tell the House that the implications of that for people in the health and disability sector were immense. They found themselves in a situation where they didn’t know exactly who was covered, exactly who was liable for enforcing it, exactly who was in a position where they would be punished if they didn’t comply. It led to chaos in the health and disability sector for a fortnight, and I just wish the Government, having been given these powers, would actually get a bit more organised itself so that it didn’t impose disorganisation on the very people being regulated.

It allows for more frequent saliva testing, and I think that’s a very welcome thing, but I just echo what Chris Bishop has said: every 72 hours in a Delta environment—arguably even that is not regular enough. There’s certainly under-utilisation of saliva testing. It was interesting in question time today that the Prime Minister really gave some quite lively answers, actually. Uncharacteristically, she really let rip in a couple of instances. One of the things she said is we are no longer in an Alpha environment: we have Delta now. I think the Prime Minister is right to observe that. It’s very true. But, you know, the funny thing is our testing is still Alpha. We still have nasopharyngeal testing, and sometimes only once a week or once every three days. We should be moving to much more frequent saliva testing and even rapid antigen testing. But three days is certainly what Air New Zealand will be using as a standard, and it’s an improvement on once every week.

There’s something here about Waiheke Island. You’ll only be able to go there if you live there, and I know from people I know on Waiheke that they’ll be very pleased, because they don’t like Aucklanders visiting their island. I also just beg the Minister: can he make it symmetrical? Because while they’ll certainly enjoy not having us Aucklanders over there, if he made it both ways, then potentially we could enjoy them not coming over to see us either. There’s the potential for a real win-win, and I know Aucklanders and Waiheke residents alike will be really pleased not to see each other for as long as possible. So thank you for getting half the job done, Minister. Please complete it.

There’s also an amendment here that allows people—an amendment to a prior order, that is—to travel back to their boarding school. Now, I had several constituents—we have a number of boarding schools in the Epsom electorate—who had to, basically, miss out on sitting their exams if they weren’t able to get in from the Waikato or from Auckland. Thankfully, the Minister actually changed the law, apparently and coincidentally, just after myself and a local principal had written to him, and we’re very grateful for that change, because it meant that those kids were able to sit their exams. But it also showed how illogical some of these laws were. If you were the cook at the hostel, then you would have been able to travel, because you’re doing food and accommodation. If you’re the kid trying to sit the exam, going to the school, you weren’t allowed. I’m glad they changed it.

There’s also vaccine tests for schools. Now, that’s, in a way, expired, but for a while there, unvaccinated teachers could get tested instead. This, again, is why I think if there’s going to be a mandate, it should be vax or a frequent negative test. It will be a lot more inclusive of people who really, frankly, need a way back into inclusion, who are feeling very alienated from society right now, and it would also help us achieve our goals without the disruption and division that we have. The fact that the Government policy was vax or test up until yesterday, I think, is why they should bring it back.

Recognition of overseas vaccines—again, very sensible. A lot of constituents I’ve had—people that like to travel. Kiwis can fly. They get vaccinated overseas and then they find that their vaccine is not recognised. I even had someone who participated in a French trial in New Zealand of a French vaccine—only recently been able to have their vaccine recognised. So they’ll be very happy that now it can be. There’s an MIQ trial there that allows people—150 business travellers. Look, this is something ACT floated and, actually, really, we borrowed from Singapore in March, in our COVID 2.0 paper. We should have a business travel network. Very good that 150 business people can travel, but it’s not soon enough.

And just finally, I appeal to the Minister: there’s a number of orders here about movement across the Auckland and Waikato boundaries. I’ve got a constituent right now who has a $200 million residential and shopping centre being developed in Tauranga, and they cannot open it up. It should have been finished three weeks ago. They can’t open it up, because it’s not disability friendly, because they can’t get the people from Schindler Lifts to go down from Auckland to Tauranga and sign off the lifts. This is totally insane. So, Minister, I hope you’ll actually grant an exemption to them, because they’ve tried every other way to get through to you, and right now you’ve got $200 million, people trying to move into their apartments, people trying to open their shops, and they can’t because a few lift engineers can’t go down. The same lift engineers have just been installing lifts in a retirement village. Apparently that counts; shops and apartments don’t. So I really hope that the Minister will listen and make an exemption so that shopping centre in Tauranga can open up and those people can move into their apartments. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That this House approve the following orders made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020: COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Amendment Order (No 2) 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 2) 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 3) 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 4) 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 5) 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 6) 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Amendment Order (No 3) 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 7) 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order (No 2) 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Amendment Order (No 4) 2021, and COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 8) 2021.