Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): 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.CHRIS PENK: 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."