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 (Air Border) Amendment Order (No 3) 2022

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order (No 3) 2022

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework) Amendment Order (No 5) 2022

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework and Vaccinations) Amendment Order 2022

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Amendment Order (No 4) 2022

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Self-Isolation Requirements and Permitted Work) Amendment Order (No 3) 2022

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework) Amendment Order (No 6) 2022.

I think the Parliament is now well acquainted with the process of approving orders made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. As the Minister responsible for that Act, I sign orders that implement the Government’s decisions when it comes to COVID-19 restrictions and policies or the removal thereof. They then come into immediate effect, or almost immediate effect, and then the Parliament has to approve those by motion in the House within 90 days. Today’s motion approves seven orders that come into force on various dates or that came into force on various dates between 23 March and 14 April.

As normal, I want to, as I have been, congratulate and thank the Regulations Review Committee for their thorough and diligent scrutiny of them. I’m pleased to say that this particular block of orders did not raise any concerns from the Regulations Review Committee, and I actually think that that is a marker of success in the sense that we have worked very collaboratively with the Regulations Review Committee to take on board the feedback they’ve given us throughout the process of putting these orders in place, to try and make the law as easy as possible to follow and to try and iron out inconsistencies or any issues of technicality that the committee has raised. So I thank them for their ongoing work. I think that that process has worked very well, and should a future Government find itself in a position where a similar legislative provision is required, I’d encourage them, whenever that may be, to continue to follow this approach.

Some of these orders that we are confirming today have helped us to take pretty big strides in reconnecting New Zealand with the rest of the world. We’ve removed many of the restrictions that have been in place over the last two years. One of the orders that we’re confirming today moved New Zealand from the red to the orange sittings in the COVID-19 Protection Framework. Another helped us to introduce the new traveller declaration system that requires people travelling to New Zealand to make a declaration and to have a traveller pass before they arrive here. The order also removed vaccination requirements for arrivals from the Ukraine to be vaccinated and have a pre-departure test, recognising that those coming to New Zealand from the Ukraine at the moment would possibly find it very difficult to comply with that requirement.

Another one of the orders removed the requirement for certain persons to be vaccinated, something that has been the subject of a lot of discussion. It removed vaccination certificate rules, it removed outdoor capacity limits, but it did retain the requirement for a number of workers to wear medical-grade face coverings and it extended the face covering requirements to workers at indoor events, requiring certain workers to wear medical-grade masks. Those are the ones that we typically call the medical-grade masks—they’re the paper ones that have a blue outer, which people should also be familiar with. It requires people to wear those at an orange setting.

Other orders before the House today made minor changes to rules for managed isolation and quarantine, vaccination combinations, vaccination requirements for travellers from some Pacific countries, and changes to the red setting which no longer apply. The Health Committee is currently considering another notice of motion which is relevant to this one, which would extend the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 for a further six months.

I’ll be appearing before the Health Committee tomorrow in order to answer questions on that and other aspects of the COVID-19 response. I note that this will be my 10th appearance before the Health Committee on COVID-19 measures, and, in passing, I do note that so far over the last year, Ministers have made 126 appearances before select committees to discuss whatever matters those committees have wished to raise with them. A lot of those appearances have, of course, canvassed COVID-19 measures. I do note that that is somewhat of a contrast to the 39 appearances made by National Ministers in the last full year that they were in Government in 2016.

It is my intention, or my hope, that I won’t have to bring many more of these motions to the House for approval. We do need to recognise, however, that the global pandemic still continues and that things continue to be unpredictable. The COVID-19 Public Health Response Act has underpinned our ability to respond quickly as new events have emerged and as the situation has required that. It has allowed us to emerge from the early stages of the pandemic with a strong economy, record low rates of unemployment, and a number of businesses still operating that might not otherwise had they not been able to be supported in the way that we have.

We still don’t know what’s around the corner, so we’ve still got a little bit of water to flow under the bridge yet, but I am feeling relatively confident that we won’t see the speed of change and the rapid nature of the orders process that we saw in earlier phases of the pandemic, and that things should be a little more predictable from here forward. And so I commend this particular motion to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I start where the Minister for COVID-19 Response ended, which is echoing what he said in relation to fewer orders, hopefully, coming to the Regulations Review Committee and then, ultimately, to the House. I haven’t spent much time on the Regulations Review Committee recently, but I think I’m right in saying—on behalf of Chris Penk, the very erstwhile chair of the committee and the very hard working member—that fewer orders would be a good thing, so they can get back to the extremely tricky task of examining the vires-ness of all the various complaints that they get. It’s a very important committee, and I know from my brief spell on the committee last year—and the start of this year, actually—that they have been doing a very good job and working very hard. Some of the meetings have gone on for a very long time because there’s so many of these orders, so I agree with Mr Hipkins that it would be good to see fewer orders. I also want to say thank you to him for his appearances before the Health Committee.

He noted in his contribution that he’s appeared before the committee 10 times in the last two years, which sounds good, but, when you think about the billions of dollars we’ve spent, the extraordinary powers that the Parliament has given to the Government—wartime-esque powers, the power to compel vaccination for people to participate in everyday life—frankly, I think, 10 appearances is on the small side and it would have been helpful to see more appearances.

The other point I’d make, given he raised it in his speech, is that—

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: There was another committee.

What’s that?

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: There was another committee, remember?

Oh yeah, there’s been other committees, but the problem—and this is the point I was going to go on to make—is that of course it’s not just the Minister who has to account, it’s also the officials. And there have been repeated occasions when committees—plural—have tried to get senior officials in who have been stymied by the Labour majority. So given he raises that point, I do just note, in rebuttal, that it has been deeply and immensely frustrating to be stymied at examining senior officials responsible for vast swathes of public expenditure and who have enormous power in the system—to not be able to ask basic questions of the officials. The fact that the last National Government wasn’t crash hot at this either is not rebuttal to why the Government should not be better. It’s just a point.

Thirdly, we do welcome many of the orders made that we are approving today, because they represent the liberalisation of our response to COVID. The Minister noted the various amendments that have a liberalising effect, that have a freeing-up effect—so vaccination requirements, the removal of vaccine passes. I think most New Zealanders welcome these moves. Just a note, or just a comment, in relation to vaccination requirements to enter New Zealand: I am a person who has been quite vexed by the slowness with which the Government has moved, particularly when it comes to unvaccinated, permanent residents. We had this peculiar incident a few weeks or so ago, when the Government kind of randomly put up online, on a Friday night, that unvaccinated New Zealand citizens would no longer have to go into managed isolation and quarantine. It seemed to take everyone by surprise—there was no ministerial press release, there was no announcement even on social media channels. It just kind of appeared on the website. It’s a pretty significant change, nothing really to come of that, so that was pretty strange.

Then, of course, that raised the issue of, well, what about permanent residents? What about other visa category holders? And, actually, there was quite a degree of confusion out there amongst Kiwis, amongst those people offshore and here in New Zealand. I was contacted by a number of people, including one person who got all the way to the airport who thought they were going to be allowed on a plane back to New Zealand—she was unvaccinated—only to be told that she couldn’t come, because the rules were just so unclear. One person said one thing and health officials said another thing, the immigration official said another thing and the website said another thing altogether. So it was a pretty, to be honest, pretty awful experience for a few people. We now have clarity in that unvaccinated permanent residents are allowed to enter New Zealand, which is a good thing, but it has taken a long time to get to that point. I, for one, will be investigating exactly how long it took and whether or not the restrictions on those people was proportionate to the risk that they provided to the New Zealand people here who are vaccinated. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that they were such a risk that we couldn’t liberalise the rules in relation to unvaccinated permanent residents earlier than we did.

In relation to travel declarations that the orders we’re approving introduce, the travel declaration system, I’ve had a lot of email correspondence about it—I don’t know if other members have—particularly from seniors. It is quite a cumbersome process to go through. I’ve passed this on to the Minister, so he’s aware of what I’m saying. I think it could be possible to design an easier system. The other thing is that the spreading of the information out into the public domain, as to what the exact rules are, I think could be better as well. To share a personal story, I rocked up at Brisbane Airport last Thursday to come back to New Zealand, to be told by a Qantas staff member that I needed to show that I was vaccinated—which of course I am, but of course that’s not the law. I’m a New Zealand citizen; I can enter New Zealand without showing an international vaccination pass. I was duly told by the staff member that unless I showed it, I was not going to be allowed on the plane. You know, I’m not one to argue in those circumstances. I didn’t want to, you know. I did say to her, “That’s not the rules.” And she said, “Well, you need to take that up with the Government.” So at that point I didn’t say anything further, although I was tempted. I duly showed my pass. But, anyway, I just tell that point in passing. It has nothing to do with me. But there was a gentleman behind me who had a similar experience, who was very confused about life. So we need greater dissemination of exactly how the rules work.

The other thing I would say is the time has come, in our view, in the National Party, to get rid of pre-departure testing to New Zealand, all of which is given effect to by these orders as well. The benefits of pre-departure testing to New Zealand now are so nugatory as to be pointless, in our view. I would be very interested, and I’m intending to take this up with the Minister tomorrow when he appears before the committee—I would be very interested in as to what the public health advice is in relation to a pre-departure test.

Now, it’s quite interesting, because when the National Party proposed pre-departure testing—members with medium-long memories will remember—the Labour Party told us in 2020 that they were pointless; that they didn’t work; that, you know, they didn’t add any protective mechanisms to New Zealand’s elimination approach; and that they were a dumb idea. Then they sort of had an about-face and introduced them, which was great. And so they made sense at the start of the pandemic, because we had an elimination strategy—so, clearly, trying to minimise the number of people who have COVID and get on a plane is a good thing. That’s all fine. But we don’t have an elimination strategy anymore. We have a suppression strategy—for want of any other phrase—and COVID is running through the community and it’s running through the community in Australia as well. So this idea that you have to go and get a negative rapid antigen test or a PCR within 24 or 48 hours before getting on a plane and coming to New Zealand—our view, in the National Party, is that the benefits do not justify the enormous cost and hassle that they provide. It does have a real impact on people. You sort of say, “Oh well, you just have to go and get a test.” But, of course, that does have a real impact on people. It does inhibit people’s desire to travel, and it does inhibit people’s desire to travel to New Zealand as well.

You just think about it in realistic terms: a family of four wants to come to New Zealand for a holiday, they’ve got to go and get negative rapid antigen tests. I think the last—well, I had to get one the other day, it was A$60. You know, it’s A$250 just before you even get on a plane. So it does have a real cost. And, of course, then there’s the hassle of actually having to go and get the test in the first place. Again, made sense at the start of the pandemic. It made sense up until very recently that we want to minimise the number of people with COVID entering New Zealand. But Australia has abolished pre-departure tests for New Zealanders—well, for everyone—entering Australia. You no longer have to have a negative pre-departure test to enter Australia. Our view is we should do the same. I know the Government has signalled they’re looking at it, but they should really get on with it. The costs vastly outweigh the benefits of pre-departure testing. Time to get rid of it.

But I’ve made my contribution. We will be supporting these motions, and thanks to the Regulations Review Committee for their hard work.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Nine hundred and eighty-six—986—that’s the number of COVID deaths that we have now registered in Aotearoa New Zealand. That’s a lot of people. The seven-day rolling average of reported deaths is 16, so we could be heading towards the thousand mark this week. Each of those people were mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunties, uncles, and, in some cases, children—children.

When we hear this talk about getting back to normal, I honestly don’t know what that looks like. What does that even mean? I think normal left the building years ago. I am becoming more and more concerned with this House becoming desensitised to the deaths of people in Aotearoa New Zealand from COVID. You go to the news sites and it barely registers—it barely registers. I was just reflecting on that with the revelation of a senior data analyst at the Ministry of Education—an email got leaked, and that senior data analyst at the Ministry of Education said that the Government is asleep at the wheel—the Government is asleep at the wheel with COVID. And it feels like, to me, the National Party are singing them lullabies to make sure they continue to sleep.

There were a lot of positive gains within the first 18 months of the pandemic, and I do want to acknowledge the work of the Government in keeping us safe and all of that work that was put together and the team of 5 million and, you know, together but apart—and all that kind of stuff, as well. But where has it gone? Where is the team of 5 million? Where is that strategy which put at the centre of it our immunocompromised whānau, our disabled whānau, and learnt the lessons that needed to be learnt about engaging with Māori and Pasifika leadership and how to best access them to help support them to do the best things for their health needs?

This first Omicron wave has brought close to 900-plus deaths, and we are getting right up there. And, unfortunately, there is no end in sight, and we have continued to loosen protections. For our unvaccinated tamariki, for our immunocompromised, for our elderly, this means that they either face significant danger or have to remove themselves from large parts of society. I don’t know how it is for other members, but people who have immunocompromised whānau or disabled whānau will have real concerns about the approach, or non-approach, that the Government is taking, and the types of reflections that that places on them, and they have been getting in contact with me.

I also want to reflect on the health experts who have been calling for stronger protections to give us that line of sight in terms of what we can do. And I look at this also as a parent, as someone that has to take their kids to schools. The school my kids are at has been open and closed because of COVID. Just think of that as a parent who might possibly have a child in the primary school setting, another kid in a secondary school setting, possibly another one in the early childhood education setting—you’ve got three different settings. So what does that mean? And the burden that we place on teachers and school community leaders as well—being a teacher and being an educator is really tough, particularly in the middle of a pandemic, but now we’re expecting them to be healthcare workers as well—healthcare workers.

It’s important to also acknowledge our healthcare workers. We did have some strong questioning from Jan Logie around the support for our allied health workers—support they deserved, funding they deserved, pay and conditions that they deserve—because at the forefront of all of this, at that front line, are our healthcare workers, who have been doing everything that they can to keep us safe. When I meet with them, some of them are tired, tired and unappreciated, and so it is really important that we, as a House, really rethink and refocus on what we’re doing with our response to COVID and this pandemic.

Some of those experts have been calling for better ventilation. I mean, if we can’t have these other things, these other protections, which seem to be falling by the wayside as we get back to normal—whatever that is—then at least we can get ventilation sorted. Some of the things that we have been calling for are to improve air quality in schools and ensure this is properly monitored, because relying on open windows in the middle of winter is just not good enough. It makes our tamariki more vulnerable to things like the flu, and other winter-related illnesses as well. It’s also important that we ensure that there are ventilation standards in the building code, making sure that they’re fit for purpose. When we look at the building code, if we don’t think that it is strong enough, let’s strengthen it. Let’s strengthen it and make sure that we get those air standards and that ventilation sorted, not only for our schools but all the buildings that we gather at.

We should also continue to make sure, and to do what we can to make sure, that there are free N95 masks, or equivalent masks, for all schools as well. The schools are really at the forefront of all of this. And, of course, making sure that we work alongside Māori and Pasifika leadership in everything that we’re doing with COVID. There were some lessons learnt through the pandemic. We must continue to double-down and support those efforts, as with people, moving forward. Also, we need to have that deeper work and that support around what does it mean to have long COVID. What does that mean for people going back to work? What does that mean for families? What does that mean for communities?

I would like to end by saying that we do need to get back to that focus. We need to focus back on the collective, back on the team of 5 million, and to ensure that we keep at the centre of our attention our immunocompromised whānau, our disabled whānau, listening to the leadership of Māori and Pasifika health leaders as well, and not getting distracted by the noise. Because one of the things that I’ve noticed, as we’ve talked about this in more controversial time periods, is there’s often a lot of noise: we have the lemmings on the Parliament lawn with their conspiracy theories, we’ve had businesses banging the drum, and while all of that noise was happening we were incredibly distracted. This House was distracted from who we should have been focusing on, who we should now rethink about and continue to put our focus on, to make sure that when we move together, we move together as communities, that we move together as a society, that we move together as a people, as a part of that team of 5 million.

So, unfortunately, the Greens will not be supporting this motion. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’ll make my contribution a brief one; I was going to say “a small one”—it might be small, as well as brief. I do want to acknowledge various other speakers on this bill. We’ve had Mr Hipkins and Mr Bishop, and now we’ve got Mr Penk, so it does beg the question of what a collective noun of Chris-es might be—almost a “parliament”; not fully, but we’re working on it on this side of the House and the other one! But, actually, I do want to reiterate, only briefly, the points made around the National Party policy position on these, which is to support the motion to the extent that it reflects the Government liberalising rules around COVID-19 restrictions. I won’t rehearse all those arguments.

But just by way of further illustration of the point that Mr Bishop had made, I understand from another member of this side of the House that he and his family, recently, some five packs between them, incurred $750, no less. I didn’t actually ask him if it was Australian or New Zealand, but, in any case, a fair price to pay for obtaining the necessary test to be certain of being able to board a flight back to New Zealand. I note that for many that would be prohibitive. So that’s a disappointment. It sounds as though there was some element of price gouging on behalf of the—

💬 Todd Muller: Hear, hear!

—provider of the tests—Mr Muller, behind me, says, “Hear, hear!” He has personal knowledge in the matter, perhaps. I didn’t actually ask his permission to associate his name with the story, but, in any case, all the same, I think it does illustrate that regulations that are unworkable will have unintended consequences such as that.

Mr Hipkins spoke already about the process. I think it was gracious of the Minister to acknowledge the interplay between the legislature and executive—namely, the Regulations Review Committee making recommendations—

💬 Rachel Brooking: Great committee.

—as the relevant Minister. I hear “great committee” from my colleague on that committee—deputy chair, no less—Rachel Brooking. I was actually minded to acknowledge the whole committee for the extremely hard work that they’ve undertaken over this period of time. I see also Toni Severin in the House, and various others who have graced us with their presence as substitutes. Actually, I do want to take the slightly unusual step—and I hope that I’m not out of order, Mr Speaker—of acknowledging the excellent advice that we’ve had from everyone associated with the committee. The legislative counsel have been magnificent. The slightly unusual bit, I suppose, is that I acknowledge by name Linda McIver, who is no longer working with the committee. Others who have also served and remain on board indeed also provide excellent advice.

But I think that the point the Minister made about the fact that there are fewer occasions for the Regulations Review Committee to write to the Government about concerns that we have with the order reflects the excellence of the advice that we’ve received, because that, in turn, has allowed us not only to rely on that advice in itself but also to trust, very much, the providers of that advice. So we’ve leaned on that very heavily, and I have no hesitation in acknowledging that.

Of course—it feels a bit like the foreward to a book—the responsibility of any errors, omissions, anomalies, and so on, of course belongs to the committee, not the advisers. That’s the nature of the lines of responsibility, I suppose. But to the extent that we’ve been able to provide a useful service to the House and, perhaps, if I may, to New Zealand more generally, that reflects the support we’ve enjoyed.

Of course, the other point further to that made by Mr Hipkins around the fact that there have been fewer occasions for our recommendation of possible changes does indeed reflect that he has listened, the Government has listened, as well as we have spoken—but also, of course, the iterative nature of what we’ve been doing.

So some months into this process—indeed, some years, I suppose I can say, after at least a couple of them—and a number of amendments to the various orders, we’ve all gotten a bit more used to it and the trajectory is good, I think: just sort of straying back into that policy side of things that the committee doesn’t dwell on but, from the National Party perspective, as I say, is our view. So I join with Mr Bishop, on this side, and say that we support the Government’s motion in this space to confirm these orders today.

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to actually oppose these amendments, even though they are freeing us up a bit. But we’ve been calling for this for some time now. All these orders are a catch-up with what’s already been put into our society, and still most people are catching up with them as well and understanding these lovely orders. There is still much confusion out there.

Also, we were calling way, way early for the Government to stop putting all these orders out when it wasn’t needed, for a long time now, and we still have some orders that are still very confusing and unfair. Like if a nurse now—if she has got COVID but is unable to have her booster for three months, she is unable to work. However, she has had COVID but she has her other vaccinations. So there’s still some irregularities around certain orders that are still floating out there, which need to be looked at, because we need our nurses, we need our hospital staff. And I also assume that that would also go for many teachers, because some people were unable to get their vaccinations until a little bit later on.

Now that COVID and Omicron is in the community, many of us have caught it, many of our family and loved ones have caught it. No one wants to see deaths from any viruses. We have many viruses out there; this is just one of a few. It is new; however, we have to make aware that we cannot just look at COVID. We are going into the flu season. There will be viruses coming in. So most people, as we all have, have what we call personal protective equipment, which is what our masks are. So if people feel unsafe, then please make sure you are wearing them a lot more.

In, actually, I think, nine orders that the Regulations Review Committee, which I’m on, has put through to be motioned on, one of them was around—here we go—an exception to face-covering rules in events and gatherings held outside. Again, though, that is optional. I was at an event on the weekend where people could choose or not choose to wear a mask. The majority did not. However, those that feel unsafe, they wear the masks. And I think that’s what we have to start to get used to within this community. If you feel at risk, if you are uncertain, wear a mask.

Also, we have other orders here that, yes, it is freeing us up, but some of them have been very confusing. And I would like to thank, like my fellow colleague Chris Penk, who is the chair of the Regulations Review Committee, our lovely legislative counsel, who have been going through these orders and assisting us with the understanding on some of them, and also writing to the Hon Christopher Hipkins on areas where there were things that were not quite clear. I am a layman; I am not a lawyer. So if I found that hard to understand, I would hate to think how many other people out there understand some basic rules and regulations, and how confusing that could get for a lot of people that have to live by these COVID orders that are constantly coming out at us. I assume that we have more to go over this coming Wednesday, when I sit in a Regulations Review Committee this Wednesday.

But it’s great that we are getting fewer coming through. That means there’s less rules and regulations that this Government is putting up on us. Yes, we are freeing up. The biggest thing of all is also still these isolation rules. You can be in a family household, and one will come down with COVID. You are perfectly fine until about six days later, and then you come down with COVID. That means you’re in isolation for two weeks. However, if I had known three days earlier, and I still was negative, I would have loved to have been able to get out of isolation. So, yes, as many other people that are occurring this—that productivity might actually be better when you’re stuck at home. However, it does not.

So, on behalf of the ACT Party, we oppose these motions once again, and we have been doing so, I think, for quite a few months now. And we will continue to, until we can get things under control. Thank you, Mr Speaker.