Little AndrewThird ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Attorney-General: I move That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill be now read a third time. It has been a very instructive debate through all the stages of the House in the last day or so. I thank all members and particularly the members of the Opposition who were right to vigorously scrutinise and contest and challenge the legislation the way that they did. This is not the way that laws should be passed and I think we've acknowledged that. But these are extraordinary circumstances and they do call for both the Government and Parliament to be nimble and agile to be able to respond.In the contributions that have been made in the last day or so members opposite have quite correctly raised concerns about the threat to and the curtailing of the various freedoms that invariably orders of the nature contemplated by this legislation would create. They express concern about the threat to the freedom of worship although the bill does not talk about the freedom of worship and putting limitations on expressing particular religion and in fact it's interesting that even in the last six or seven weeks many adherents of many religions have been able to worship—differently to what they used to do. They haven't necessarily been able to go to their houses of worship but they have nevertheless participated in reasonably public services and expressions of their faith.Members opposite raised concerns about as they characterised it New Zealanders not being trusted. I'm going to come back to that. [Audio failure]DEPUTY SPEAKER: Keep going until we stop you.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: [Audio failure] issues and I know the honourable member Mr Macindoe would like me to talk at length and I would like to respond to many of the things that he raised but of course that won't be possible. I know that some members have claimed that this bill is somehow covering for a lack of authority from the period from the original lockdown and that is not correct. We've had a debate about the legal professional privilege and whether that can be waived by the Opposition and I'll just make this point: it is not for members of the Opposition nor any member of this House to claim the authority of the members of our judiciary. They are the ones who once this House has passed a law determine what the law means and how it applies. That is their job. Our job is to pass law and no member should be acting in a way that contravenes that relationship of comity between these two branches of Government.Members have claimed that there should be greater consultation with them or at least with the Leader of the Opposition. So I've noted all those sorts of aspects. I note also the leader of the ACT Party David Seymour who's expressed great concern about the fact that the powers in this bill will allow an undue curtailment of rights particularly those rights that are adumbrated in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and I draw that member's attention and indeed the House's attention to clause 4 of the bill which sets out the purpose. This bill is about a response to COVID-19 that vicious and incredibly virulent and contagious virus that has afflicted the world. The thing about that virus is we don't fully know all the characteristics of it. We know that it is very contagious. We know that it can take up to 14 days to incubate in an individual and there's some scientific suggestion now that that may in fact be longer. If you look at the people the new cases that are emerging now in New Zealand some of those recent cases have returned negative tests and in fact I understand at least in one case two negative tests have been returned and yet subsequently the person was diagnosed with the virus. We're seeing stories out of the United States now that children who have contracted COVID-19 are now experiencing the symptoms of toxic shock. This is a virus that can have an extraordinary impact very quickly on the community and particularly on vulnerable members of the community. So it is right that we clarify that we have the power to deal with it as we move down the levels and give ourselves the power to respond in a more nuanced sort of way and a more agile sort of way where it might crop up. The powers in the Health Act 1956 a piece of legislation promulgated at the time of Sid Holland as I reminded the House last night is very crude and very blunt and extraordinary powers are given to pretty much shut down anything. It is important—as we move out of the most contagious and high-risk period that we had from the end of March and as we move down the alert levels and are able to respond effectively to the risks as they are now—that we have a set of powers that reflects that that gives the Minister of Health and where necessary the Director-General of Health the ability to respond whether on a national level or at a local level. What we don't want to do is to repeat the experiences of those countries that only weeks ago were being lauded internationally for their response and performance in controlling and containing this virus but are now having to go back the other way—countries like Singapore and Taiwan and indeed some of the Nordic countries too who were held up as the example—because the reality is we still don't know the true characteristics of this virus and we must have the ability to respond.No one no member of this House at whatever time they're sitting on whatever side of the House ever wants this House to be passing legislation that wholesale curtails the freedom of citizens in this country and removes their basic civil rights—those contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. But also what New Zealanders expect this House to do when confronted with the emergency that we have had and will continue to have with COVID-19 is to take responsible and proportionate action to make sure that we're not putting lives at risk and public health at risk. That's what this bill does.I want to congratulate the Minister responsible the Attorney-General who has shepherded this bill through the House in his responsive approach to members opposite who have raised concerns and the changes that he has agreed to now reflected in the bill as it is before the House in this third reading to create a piece of legislation that I think is not only responsive but also proportionate and that is fair. It is a bill that gives powers in the special New Zealand context that we have: a police force that is more responsive and diverse than it ever has been that has a demonstrated track record of following its philosophy of educate encourage and the last thing they do is enforce but they take an approach that is about taking people with them. I think the House has acknowledged that the way we as a country have managed our response to COVID-19 has been in a way that has taken people with us. There is no such thing as an economy built on a status of public health where too many people find their health at risk and they just don't know with certainty what might happen. It's actually in the economic interests of New Zealand that we have a regime as represented in this bill that allows us to respond effectively efficaciously properly and proportionately so that we can continue the long arduous task along with the rest of the world of eliminating this virus and getting our lives back to normal. That is an objective we all have. Hopefully it's not a dream we have because hopefully with effective management and acquitting the powers that are contained in this bill properly in the weeks and months to follow we will get to that point. We all want to get to that point and the role of this House is to make sure and the role of the House will continue to be under this legislation of the ability to scrutinise what is happening bring the orders back—whether that's the Regulations Review Committee or the whole House—to look closely at what this Government is doing.I commend the bill to the House.