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 5) 2022 (SL 2022/194)

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Self-isolation Requirements and Permitted Work) Amendment Order (No 4) 2022 (SL 2022/195)

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Self-isolation Requirements and Permitted Work) Amendment Order (No 5) 2022 (SL 2022/196)

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order (No 5) 2022 (SL 2022/207)

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Maritime Border and Other Matters) Amendment Order (No 2) 2022 (SL 2022/213).

Mr Speaker, may I congratulate you on your election to your role today. It is always a pleasure to see fellow former Ministers of Food Safety ascend to even higher ranks in this House. I’m asking the House today to approve COVID-19 orders to ensure that they are not revoked within certain time frames, and today’s motion approves five orders that came into force in June and July 2022. I’m grateful to the members of the Regulations Review Committee for their comments and observations, which will continue to influence how future orders are drafted. I thank them for their diligent work in examining orders made under the Act.

One of the orders, today, makes several amendments to the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order 2021, including removing the requirement for pre-departure testing for all travellers; expanding the category of people who are exempt from the requirement to be vaccinated; and allowing a person with COVID-19 symptoms to arrive in New Zealand if they have a certificate from a qualified person or a negative COVID-19 test. One of the orders, today, also sets out that, if specified participants under the principal order are required to self-isolate, they may leave their place of self-isolation to undertake permitted work in connection with these specified events. Another makes several amendments to the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Self-isolation Requirements and Permitted Work) Order 2022, which reduces the time period which a person would not have to re-isolate as a new case from three months to 28 days, based on increasing information about the risk of reinfection; amends the definition of permitted work travel; and adds new categories of entitled permitted movement. The COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment also refines the health and disability sector’s workers which are required to be vaccinated, and removes border and correction workers from the vaccination order.

It’s also worth remembering that we’re now—on Friday, it will be—almost a year since the Reconnecting New Zealand forum, where we started a deliberate and safe reopening with the world. The orders we are discussing today build on that with changes to the maritime border order, which welcomed tourists back to New Zealand. Amendments to the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Maritime Border and Other Matters) Amendment (No 2) 2022 include removing the prohibition on foreign ships arriving in New Zealand, and it allows only people sharing a cabin with a COVID-19 case to be subject to self-isolation provisions.

So I do not expect we’ll be bringing many more of these COVID approval motions to the House, but I would like to recognise the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act, which has underpinned our response to COVID-19. It has allowed us to respond quickly as COVID-19 has evolved. Our response will continue to be based on public health advice, and we’ll continue to adapt to the challenges the pandemic brings. New Zealanders have worked very hard to get through this pandemic and, as a result of those efforts, we continue to move forward and change the way we do things.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I thought for a moment that you were going to say “the honourable”, but I think we both know that that’s not true in any sense. So maybe your colleague, your recently elevated fellow Greg O’Connor, can be tricked into giving me more credit than I’m due.

I seek no greater credit than being the chair of the Regulations Review Committee. We have a few members of the team in the House tonight, all across the aisle, so I acknowledge them and I also acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall. As always, she and her predecessor, too, have taken this process very seriously in terms of the House scrutinising these orders and, also, the engagement throughout as between the committee and the Ministers—each in their turn—has been, I think, impressive and actually a very worthwhile exercise.

As is traditional in these kinds of discussions, the Minister’s given a good outline, I think, of the factual basis of what’s been decided and agreed and to some extent the way that things have been discussed in debate between that select committee and the House, or rather the Minister. I would probably emphasise more so the process from a Regulations Review Committee perspective, maybe with a bit of National Party policy thrown in, although, as has also become tradition recently, we are supporting the motion that confirms the orders for the reason that we say that these are moving in the right direction and that they have been a liberalising effect, and so we think the Government is to be encouraged in that and we support them, as I say.

The first of the orders, taking them chronologically, from mid-June, roughly speaking, is an interim report and, as we’ve all become pretty familiar—almost, actually, in the case of COVID orders bingo, that could be out in time for Christmas. That could be a game where “interim report” would certainly get your box ticked, “broad powers” would get one as well, “continuity of essential services”, and so forth. So it’s all pretty familiar. I was going to make a comment about déjà vu, but I’m not sure if I already did it or not. [Assistant Speaker shakes his head] No—OK.

Anyway, so basically we’ve got various orders. Obviously, we’ve got a revocation of an order relating to what are called CVCs, which is an acronym for the COVID-19 vaccination certificate, and the particular order that we were asked to look at was talking about these certificates no longer being needed to enter certain premises or receive certain services. So we thought that was—well, we didn’t comment on the policy side of things, of course, as is tradition, but we did think that it was suitable, that the way that this operated as part of the framework overall it actually made other amendments to remove references to CVCs within other orders. So consequential amendments and, likewise, when the required testing order required certain workers at the border, but no longer, actually to undergo regular testing—[Coughs] excuse me—I sound like I need some testing myself. So, likewise, there were consequential amendments as a result of that.

We did have some concerns with the order that was called—oh, I regret saying what it was called, because it’s a long title. Anyway, it’s an air border amendment order—aren’t they all?—and, anyway, it basically talked about voluntary isolation and there was a bit of internal inconsistency with the way that was framed. It talked about a particular part of a different order not applying and then it said the order didn’t apply at all. Anyway, suffice to say, we’ve sort of gone back and forth on reasonably technical points to do with the drafting, but we did get a bit more substantive or close to the policy space in that particular order. Again, I refer to the air border amendment order. This was, again, as I say, mid-June.

We talked in our report about limits on personal freedoms, and the reason we did that was not because we were approving or disapproving of where the Minister was drawing the line—those decisions are her purview. That’s the prerogative of Government to make these orders in a way that they think is suitable from a medical or an epidemiological perspective, and the Minister herself is better placed than most to make those decisions. But we were interested in the limits on personal freedoms, not to second-guess that, as I say, from a policy perspective, but because we said that if we’ve got a voluntary admittance regime whereby a person could actually apply—not being required, but could make the decision to apply—to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, to its chief executive, to be precise, to isolate at a managed isolation quarantine facility, and then if we say, well, if it’s a voluntary scheme, then, actually, there should be a pretty light touch in terms of what was then required.

We thought that aspects of that order might be seen to be overly restrictive and unsuitable, and so that was our question to the Minister. We wrote to the Minister accordingly, and we’ve concluded our report, as we so often do—another tick for the bingo card—“We look forward to the Minister’s response.” So that’s why it’s an interim report. We’re waiting to hear back, and no doubt that will come in due course.

Of course, we write to the Minister and we also write to the director-general from time to time. That role has changed hands and I do just want to place on record—and I’m sure I’ll be able to do this on behalf of the committee—that we were grateful for the interaction that we had with Dr Ashley Bloomfield throughout. He served the country diligently not only in terms of, obviously, the very visible work as Director-General of Health during the pandemic but also he was a diligent correspondent with the Regulations Review Committee, and we wrote him a letter, actually, thanking him for his service and noting he’d been, quote unquote, “extremely assiduous”, and I’m sure he got the joke. That was, of course, an iconic phrase of his own during the pandemic—you remember, sir, don’t you? Not an outbreak you’re a part of; I’m sure you would have been described as extremely assiduous, though. We know you’re an extremely assiduous guy.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon David Bennett): Don’t bring the Chair into the debate.

Oh, OK, I beg your pardon. So anyway, moving on, Mr Speaker—can I say that? Just testing here—oh, gosh!

OK, so 27 June. So there was an order—must have been on that one. No, two orders, in fact, on the same day. Someone was busy. Anyway, no concerns, but we did see that there were some amendments to a principal order, various definitions, a sort of narrowing down, for example, adding to the definition of a critical worker—so actually a broadening rather than a narrowing there—new categories of essential permitted movement, sensible stuff basically, exceptions to the requirement to wear a face covering. Again, we thought that was useful and the particular way that was being brought forward and accordingly we wrote—oh, actually, a sort of slightly different subject within the order. We did identify an issue. I say “we”, but, of course, it’s obligatory to note that the committee members themselves are as diligent as we’re able to be, but actually, as always, the legislative counsel provide excellent advice.

I suspect it was mostly just a case of us being smart enough to take the advice that they provided us, that it would be helpful for specific times and dates to be used for commencement orders, because we’d seen in clause 2 of the order that it was to come into force at 11.59 p.m. on the second day after the date of its notification in the Gazette. If one was reading that alone and didn’t have that cross-reference available, it mightn’t be clear when the whole thing was going to kick in, and we thought that it would be more helpful if it were to say 11.59 on—I don’t know—the first of whatever month of whatever year. So we said that that would be less ambiguous and clearer. The Minister agreed. She acknowledged that would be best practice, and going forward that would indeed be the practice adopted. So, again, useful and constructive engagement and we thank the Minister for it.

The final one in my remaining couple of minutes, if I may, is bringing us up to date really just about, first to 14 July of this year, of course. We had basically a number of different vaccination requirements where those requirements were removed for almost all workers, previously covering workers within the health and disability sector. We had no concerns about that order. Finally, we also noted the order that—in relation to the maritime border and other matters, as the Minister noted actually in her own contribution—said that if a person was travelling on a cruise ship and tested positive for COVID-19, then that person and their cabin mates would be subject to the self-isolation provisions rather than everyone on board. So that’s, you know, quite a change, a sea change even—if you’ll allow me in keeping with the tradition of the committee of having at least one appalling joke in a contribution or a meeting.

I think on that note that I’ll leave the contribution, except only to say, as I did before, that National supports these orders being confirmed by the House and there won’t be too many more of them. I think we’re all going to feel very sad about that, except I suppose to the extent that it implies and indicates that the pandemic itself is moving in the right direction, and long, long may that be so, he said—touching wood. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I join with other colleagues around the House to congratulate you on your recent ascension to the big Chair.

These COVID orders, they come to the House and it has been an expedient way over the course of the pandemic to actually get things done quickly—to get things put on notice here in the House as well. I want to also thank the work done by the Regulations Review Committee, getting into the weeds while the rest of us take a look at the garden in terms of what needs to be done in terms of how this House responds to the pandemic.

I guess, if I take a step back and look at these COVID orders—these ones and the ones that have gone before—we are shedding protections. We are shedding protections and moving away and normalising the situation that we’re in. But here’s the thing: COVID-19 hasn’t gone on holiday; the pandemic hasn’t ended. COVID-19 is here to stay, and so, for the Greens, it’s really important that the Government puts in place long-term protection measures including mandatory ventilation standards.

Just reflecting on the decision today to keep the country at orange: that was the right decision, but we need to do more than the occasional review of protection sheddings to make sure that we are protecting communities in the long term—and that’s important. I don’t know how reinfection is happening in other communities—it’s starting to happen in my community with a second round, and reinfection is also becoming more increasingly common and could be an ongoing feature of this pandemic.

There was a headline that jumped out to me over the last couple of days, and that was that experts have also pointed out that in July, COVID became the equal-leading cause of death in Aotearoa for the first time. If the current trajectory continues, annual COVID deaths could be about five times influenza deaths, but still the Government needs to have that long-term plan.

So now, we are sitting around about over 1,600 confirmed deaths as attributed to COVID-19. The ministry says these are deaths where COVID-19 is either the underlying cause of death or is a contributing factor. In the past seven days, there have been an average of 16 deaths confirmed each day as attributed to COVID-19.

The intention of these orders is about making sure that we do everything possible to protect whānau and reduce the risk of experiencing long COVID, particularly amongst Māori and Pasifika communities, and especially our immunocompromised and disabled whānau. So it is important, if we’re going to have fewer of these orders coming into the House, that there needs to be that plan to adopt mandatory ventilation standards for workplaces and schools, provide financial support for community organisations, install better monitoring filtration, and to improve support for Māori and Pacific health providers.

These orders are about reopening New Zealand to cruise ships, removing nearly all of the vaccine-mandated work groups other than some health or disability workers, allowing people to work at sporting events to be critical workers, and removing testing requirements for people travelling to New Zealand. Some of the loosening restrictions make sense and are reasonable, but they are not matched by corresponding public health measures around ventilation, air filtration, and mask use in schools. These orders will increase the incidence of COVID and other winter contagious illnesses.

The Greens want to see and centre this whole notion that we had in the first few years of the pandemic that we are a team of 5 million, and not gravitating towards the “team is business as usual”. We want to see the needs of Māori and Pacific peoples and disabled communities put at the heart of the ongoing pandemic response.

I reflect on the report that came out from the Ministry of Health on the Government’s response to the Delta outbreak, which says that these are lessons that we need to pick up. So we are happy to see some of these orders, but we need that long-term plan. The pandemic hasn’t ended; in fact, who knows where it is going to? Reinfection is starting to happen in communities—in my community and no doubt in other communities as well—so having those plans in place for schools, having those plans in place for communities is important.

We need to take the path of caution in the face of uncertainty. And I get it—we’re all tired of this pandemic; all of us are. It’s the first time any of us have been in a pandemic. But it’s no excuse to get lax and to get tired. In fact, we need to double down and we can do that by making sure that we put some protections and measures in place.

Most of us are just, you know, family members or parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters trying to make our way in the world. And what we need from the Government is that clear line of sight—that direction—an expert-led plan for schools, a long-term plan for our community so that we know what’s coming down the track and how all of those things connect and fit together. These are the things that we need to do. We must make sure that the response is equitable and keeps people safe. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the ACT Party tonight in opposition to these COVID-19 orders, and that’s not because we’re opposed to the liberalisation of some of the rules and restrictions that this Government has put in place through this COVID-19 pandemic; it’s because we don’t think it goes far enough.

In many cases, we actually need to just take the chance and say, “Let’s move on.” Let’s move on from all the rules and restrictions that this Government has imposed on New Zealanders’ lives and just acknowledge that it is time to finally move on. We should actually allow for these COVID-19 orders to lapse and get on with our lives. COVID is all around us; in many cases the restrictions that we still have on peoples’ lives do from nothing to little to actually stop the spread of COVID-19 in our communities.

I wanted to touch on, firstly, one of these orders here that’s been brought to the House tonight, and that is the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order (No 5) 2022. In this order, the Government is reducing the number of people that will be forced to have a vaccine because of the type of work that they do in our communities. I’ve had many, many people over the last few months emailing in, people that I’ve met on the street, people that I know personally, who have said that they feel as though the mandatory requirements that this Government has imposed for vaccination has impinged on their rights and freedoms and doesn’t actually stop COVID-19 in the community.

In this order, it’s saying that the vaccine order requires specified workers to have been vaccinated against COVID-19 and to have received a booster dose in order to be able to carry out certain work. This is amending it so that almost all of these workers no longer have the mandate. But it still sets out that there are specified people that do have to have the vaccine. These are people in our health and disabilities sector.

I suggest that when people are going to the supermarket, when they’re going out to the petrol station, when they’re meeting and greeting people at work, when they’re going to school; there are so many places where somebody could get COVID—so many places. Every single interaction, and in most cases, when I’ve talked to people and said, “How did you get COVID?”, nobody has any clue; nobody knows. But we are still restricting some people from being able to go to work because they don’t want to have a vaccine. I think that’s wrong.

We have always said, as the ACT Party, it should be up to these businesses and the entities to set their own rules and regulations for their own business practices whether or not people should have a vaccine in their facilities; I think that’s the right thing to do. But by saying to these particular people, this particular class of workers, “You still have to have a vaccine mandate”, I think that is impinging on their rights and freedoms, and we do need to move on. Even though this removes a lot of restriction, the ACT Party just simply goes further and says, “Let’s get over it and let’s move on.”

When it comes to the second one, which is the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Maritime Border and Other Matters) Amendment Order (No 2) 2022, this really goes to the heart of why the ACT Party is completely opposed to all of these orders going further into the future: because it’s saying to people, “Hey, now we’ve finally opened the border. We’re finally allowing cruise ships back”—thank goodness they’re allowed back, for all of those tourist operators who really have been struggling through COVID. Thank goodness the borders are open so we can have tourists come back through our borders on cruise ships. But they’re saying, “Oh, by the way, now they’re allowed back, let’s put another COVID order on top of them and say that they have restrictions and requirements for people who might want to travel here.” And one of these requirements is requiring a compulsory COVID-19 test on arrival of a Category 1 ship.

Does anyone really believe that that’s going to stop anything? We have COVID, thousands of cases in the community, and we’re once again putting another rule and restriction that’s not going to do anything to stop COVID in our community. And really, another part of it was about the self-isolation provisions, so that when a person is travelling on a cruise ship and they test positive for COVID-19, only that person and their cabin mates will be subject to self-isolation, rather than anyone on board the ship. Well, thank goodness for that! Can you imagine everyone on board the ship having to self-isolate? How ridiculous would that be! So yes, that is a good measure: that it’s only the people who happen to have COVID. But the restrictions for self-isolation are the strictest in the world.

We really do need to move on from these very restrictive COVID-19 isolation rules. There is no other jurisdiction that requires a seven-day mandatory isolation for cases and their contacts in the house. While the Minister is away getting more advice on whether or not they should change the self-isolation rules, we have been raising, for months and months, through our “Move on” and COVID papers, that we really should have more of a Singapore-style test that says, “72 hours and you’re out.” I think that is much better. If you can have 72 hours and get a negative test, then we should be allowing people back out into the community, rather than imposing such strict requirements on people in self-isolation; it’s so inflexible and it has a huge effect on our economy, and it’s going to have an effect on people in tourism, too.

The Minister really should be asking the question, “Are these rules worth it?” Are they self-defeating? Will they actually reduce COVID spreading in the community? Or does it just mean that a lot of people won’t test—or they won’t test properly—to get around the rules? Unfortunately, we’re still in August 2022, and the Government is still seeking advice about whether or not self-isolation is fit for purpose. The Minister really should get their act into gear and realise we should move closer towards the Singapore model, stop creating more and more orders that are a bit redundant in our current climate, and allow New Zealanders to move on and get on with their lives.

Businesses are hurting with these self-isolation rules. I was talking to an early childhood educator who said that, at any given time, they have so many of their staff that are needing to isolate that they’re having to tell kids that they can’t come in to the early childhood education (ECE); telling parents who need their kids to be dropped somewhere so that they can go to work, “You can’t drop your kid off at our clinic or place today because we don’t have enough staff to keep this to be a safe ECE for the day.” This has an ongoing flow-on effect, and we really do need to limit the restrictions that we’re putting on peoples’ lives, because it really does have an effect on our livelihood and the economy.

So the ACT Party cannot support these COVID orders. Even though some of them are better than what we’ve seen in the past, we don’t believe that they go far enough. We should simply allow for the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act to lapse and get on with our lives.