edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Tuiono Teanau; O'Connor DamienTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Minister for those clarifications. I was really interested in your comments around transparency and I wonder if you could dig a bit deeper on that about exactly what that might look like. Is that around what the process would be? Is it around other kinds of configurations? Because I agree if you've got that transparency that it does it take some of the heat out of heat out of the fire so to speak. So if you could dig a bit deeper into that I'd appreciate it.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you Madam Chair. Look the Commerce Commission ultimately will provide oversight if we're talking about the milk price setting process. And I think that's been at the core of a lot of the debates in these changes. And the Commerce Commission will have the ability to direct Fonterra—or the milk price panel—to use certain provisions and it will have to notify Fonterra that they have made that direction. But ultimately the milk price panel is independent and will be more independent because of the way that we're structuring it now to reach a final conclusion. But if Fonterra are withholding information then the milk price panel you know—or the Commerce Commission—can instruct them to provide that and ensure that the milk price panel has all of the information available to them.So it will be more open and transparent. There have been accusations in the past—and as you know he said she said" kind of claims made there. Look I'm sure there will be imperfections but it's a lot better than it was. We're trying to move on from the debate and there will still be independents who think that they're forced to pay too much for milk. Ultimately we have an industry that is quite unique—that with Fonterra it does maximise the return to farmers for what they get in the market through a process that is fairly open and transparent for those farmers. Elsewhere in the world where you have publicly listed companies or you have set-ups that are not cooperatives there's no guarantee that that value will come back to the farmer. As a country that will not subsidise or intervene on those prices it's really important that when we're encouraging and supporting farmers to do the right thing to do the best thing that that can transfer ultimately through into value in the marketplace and that value transfers back to them. We have a privilege with the dairy industry that we've had because of our ancestors and the way they've set that up. It's important that we don't blow it for ideology—it might be economic ideology that might have said you know competition will deliver everything. We've got to have the right balance between competitive pressure but ensuring that the structure can return to farmers and they can remain viable sustainable and support our economy as they have."
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. A couple of questions for the Minister just in relation to under Part 1 the commissioning of analysis and research. I'm just interested in that along with the Commerce Commission directors and the risk of adding extra bureaucracy into the process unnecessarily. This is something that we're seeing far too often in legislation coming before the House at the moment which is extra bureaucracy and there are questions around the additional value of that. In particular with regard to those research reports my concern is that now that we have added in these additional offences for the members of the milk price panel there is a risk that we could see additional cost being incurred through that reporting process effectively from their perspective to ensure that they are overcompensating for the risk of being liable for any offence by reporting over and above what they might otherwise have done and therefore incurring additional cost through the manner and mechanism of that reporting. That really goes beyond what is necessary in that regard. So is the Minister confident that the reporting requirements and the offences alongside that with those obligations on the members of the milk price panel are fit for purpose and are not going to result in additional bureaucracy and compliance through that part? Indeed then coming on to the other aspect of that risk around compliance under Part 2 around the directors of the Commerce Commission—and this is one that we did debate a wee bit through select committee as well. It was getting that balance between the milk price panel being able to determine what the milk price should be—and of course with the Commerce Commission now being given this new power to direct a change on that milk price panel if they find some particular omission or error or are dissatisfied and whether or not that's an appropriate balance again or whether we're going to then see further reporting or bureaucracy ultimately coming into the mix from the milk price panel to try and get around that. Then of course there is the risk of the Commerce Commission coming to the milk price panel for clarification because they may not necessarily have the same depth of experience or resourcing within the Commerce Commission to fully understand all matters pertaining to the setting of that milk price at any given time and therefore going back and forward. I mean is this adding more cost and are we confident that we're going to see significant benefit that will not ultimately end up with more bureaucracy coming through in this legislation?
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Minister for coming down to the House this evening. I just have a few questions that I think we all need some clarity on sir. As you would appreciate the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill is probably going to go through the House tonight fairly unhindered and I think the industry needs surety—operational surety—going forward. Minister if I may I seek clarity on the sharing-down process. I know that Fonterra has announced $300 million last year for the sharing-down process and a further $51 million as far as I'm aware. There were concerns around liquidity and those exiting the industry sharing out essentially and what it meant for farmer owner-operators leaving the industry in terms of as you would well appreciate the contractual obligations that they had with the banks and they are moving to other land-use changes—well other functions on farm potentially going to other industries. What did sharing down mean? How quickly would this $300 million and the subsequent $51 million be made available to your understanding of the legislation as written so farmers that were actually choosing to leave the industry or certainly Fonterra could have surety of operation?Can you please explain to the House tonight—and I'm playing devil's advocate here because fundamentally we can see that supporting this bill is ultimately where this will go—what the entry provisions are. Historically the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 had an open-entry reality; now that is being somewhat constrained. Fonterra as is the free market has historical obligations that no longer exist and I would be most interested in what the changes of the entry provisions are. Finally Minister if you'd be obliging can you give some clarity for the likes of Miraka Open Country Dairy Westland dairy and other producers about what the role will be for the Commerce Commission in terms of the base milk price setting and the governance structure therein. And there's a good place to start. Thank you sir.
Kuriger Barbara; Belich CamillaDAIRY INDUSTRY RESTRUCTURING (FONTERRA CAPITAL RESTRUCTURING) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeParts 1 and 2 the Schedule and Clauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members the House is in committee on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill. We first come to the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Bill. Members we now come to Part 1.CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. I seek leave for all parts to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is there any objection? Approved. Members what we've got here is we're taking it as one part. As long as you're succinct and you stay within the clauses of the bill we look forward to you taking calls. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.
Ngarewa-Packer DebbieDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Thank you. I'm standing to do a very short call. I won't need the whole five minutes. I will say in response to the third reading—it's the third—that I'm in a unique position. It's not often that Te Paati Māori is debating a bill where the Government is asking to reduce its powers. In this particular case it's a reduction of powers I guess to wipe the footprint of a public health response that clearly didn't work and failed not only to remember its Tiriti relationship but also our Pasifika whanaunga and our disabled community.It's a bill that has created so much division—and actually confusion—for the last three years whether it be the levels the traffic lights bills that would come in and create lockdowns and then lift lockdowns and mandate without mandates. I guess in this case we have been asked to reduce the powers for things like clause 16 where we have been able to remove the power of enforcement officers to enter marae without warrant—and yes other dwellings as well. Where we have been asked to remove clause 27 for vaccine certificates clauses 35 to 37 removing reference to infringements.So while we are extremely proud of all our iwi Whānau Ora provider ora and many kaupapa who stood up in spite of the fact that the public health response forgot all about us. We are left I guess at the conclusion of this and asking why during a pandemic did the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act fail our communities so dismally.I guess our hope is to the Government that asked for all the powers and asked to reduce their powers: have a valuable lesson from this experience that in fact if we have to confront anything else again—whether it be a pandemic climate change or anything of this nature—that actually they take an approach that is inclusive; an approach that remembers its communities; an approach that remembers its Tiriti obligations; and most importantly an approach that remembers the most vulnerable of the communities that indeed made this country look better to the world because it got in there and did what a one-stop shop public health response couldn't do.So we emphasise again in principle we would never support this bill. We haven't from the beginning and we continue to emphasise that fact that we oppose it. Thank you.
Leavasa Anae NeruDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Fa'afetai lava Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to rise as the MP for Takanini to take a brief call and also the last call on this side of the House on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill.I would like to firstly acknowledge and thank the Minister for her responses and contributions during the committee of the whole House stage and her contributions in the first and second reading because of our vulnerable communities that we're always thinking about when it comes to a change in the Act. I would like to say thank you for giving us that reassurance that with these measures being reduced—the ones that are contentious and are not needed during this time of COVID but also keeping in place the three other measures that will help keep our vulnerable communities safe and also being able to ramp up the measures if we need to if a subvariant is causing a lot of issues.I just wanted to also take this opportunity to thank the medical providers the health clinics that have done an awesome job during this time period and recently meeting up with some Pacific providers last week—my medical colleagues that always give me good feedback and challenging discussions on how we're going. I would like to thank them for the work they're doing because COVID-19 work the care in the community but also the work on their BAU—business as usual—because it is a lot of work to be doing in our general practices doctors nurses community workers and the work that they do and I want to acknowledge that mahi. This bill creates that balance in order to get things right during this time and that's why we support this bill to the House.
Kuriger BarbaraHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you. In this third and final reading of the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill the National Party supports this.A state of national emergency was declared due to COVID-19. It was enforced between 12.21 p.m. on 25 March 2020 and 12.21 p.m. on Wednesday 13 May 2020. It covered all of New Zealand including the Chatham Islands Stewart Island and other offshore islands. The COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 was enacted in May 2020 establishing a bespoke legal framework to manage the unprecedented circumstances of the COVID-19 epidemic in a coordinated and orderly way.This bill before the House the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill is a timely—perhaps not soon enough although in urgency—third reading about to be passed into law. Quite appropriately the bill removes limits reduces and repeals powers that were once available to the Director-General of Health removing those powers with limited select powers to the Minister for COVID-19 Response. My call is brief the House is about to go into dinner adjournment. The National Party commends this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): The time has come for the dinner break. The House is suspended until 7 p.m.Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Verrall Ayesha; Kuriger BarbaraCOVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE (EXTENSION OF ACT AND REDUCTION OF POWERS) AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Thank you Madam Speaker. I move That the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. We have always been clear that the measures used to contain COVID-19 need to be proportionate to the risk of the virus. Some of the tools that once were justified now need to be removed. This bill retains a limited number of powers to implement public health measures necessary to support the ongoing management. We will be retaining the ability to put in place case isolation periods and mask-wearing requirements and if necessary requirements on travellers that can be called on if things change and we need to step up our response. But most other measures including lockdowns and managed isolation and quarantine are now removed. To reflect the changes in the risk profile presented by COVID-19 within the domestic context these changes are proportionate. We are also continuing the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. This will allow us to respond to the risks presented by COVID-19 until such time as the Act can be replaced with broader pandemic legislation that is suitable for a range of infectious diseases. In order to canvass that we will be undergoing extensive consultation with stakeholders on future pandemic legislation. Any recommendation from independent reviews into the Government's COVID-19 response will also inform the framework's design. With the emergence of variants and subvariants it's become even more difficult for us to hypothesise about what future waves must look like. Although we know much more than we did when COVID-19 arrived in New Zealand there is still no crystal ball. But I do know that we are much safer than we were two years ago as a result of our immunity both from vaccination and from exposure; the availability of health tools like antivirals; and also the fact that we have all learnt so much more about managing infectious diseases ourselves. We're prepared for it with a series of public health protections that are appropriate for our current risk. I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Voting—Correction — COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill
Kuriger BarbaraVOTINGCorrection—COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment BillASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): Members before we move forward we have a correction to a vote. When the House was considering the second reading of the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill the result of the vote was incorrectly announced as Ayes 94 Noes 22. The correct result is Ayes 94 Noes 21. The record will be corrected accordingly.
O'Connor GregCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
O'Connor GregClauses 1 to 3 CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to our final debate clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on Title" "Commencement" and "Principal Act". The question is that clause 1 stand part.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that clause 2 stand part.Clause 2 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that clause 3 stand part.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed."
O'Connor GregA party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 94New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 30.Noes 21Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2.Part 2 agreed to.ScheduleCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come now to the Schedule. The question is that the Schedule stand part.Schedule agreed to.
COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2 and Schedule
Tuiono Teanau; Verrall AyeshaTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I have a different perspective on exactly the same set of clauses—from clause 30 to 33. My concern here is: what happens in the context when you actually need to have the lockdown? I brought it up in my second reading speech. It's easier to put the tools in the tool kit and close the tool box as opposed to putting the tools in the tool box and chucking away the tool box and I said that's what's happening here. I was wondering what's going to get put in place to make sure that people can actually stay safe and isolated and not be kicked out of their houses. What is the other mechanism here if there is one?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Just to reiterate the bill removes the ability for there to be lockdowns and then the flow-on amendment in the Residential Tenancies Act is therefore not required either. Lockdowns are not thought to be part of how we are going to need to manage COVID-19 now. It is highly unlikely. There is no current variant that suggests we would need lockdowns but furthermore Omicron and the virus is evolving to be more transmissible not less. In that situation measures like lockdowns work less effectively and you are seeing that play out in China—a country that still uses lockdowns. They are not able to get down to zero because Omicron can continue to be transmitted because it is more transmissible than the original and the Delta variant. So there are a number of reasons why lockdowns are unlikely to be effective and nor are they proportionate for our current situation and that's why they're being removed from the Act. TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you Mr Chair and thank you Minister for that explanation. I guess my question is: yes I understand that but then what is the mechanism if people are isolating? We are encouraging people to isolate. If you catch COVID we encourage them to isolate. What's stopping them from getting evicted from their homes? Just for a little bit of clarity.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Those would be unfortunate—what is it?—concurrent circumstances for that person to be in. It is not the sort of wide-scale problem we might have had with isolation that could have been appropriate when we were trying to eliminate COVID where just one case posed a threat to the elimination goal. That type of risk—of someone transmitting COVID because they were in that rare situation of both having COVID and being evicted—would not pose a public health reason to exercise a power over the landlord to stop them from being evicted. For that reason it's not really a proportionate limitation of powers that otherwise the landlord would have.
Severin Toni; Verrall AyeshaTONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm just looking for clarification around clauses 30 to 33. It's around the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 empowering to make the orders to provide termination of residential tenancy of COVID-19 orders: restrict[s] people in the area from moving … to [a] new home or other places of residence". Well this is fantastic because that was a whole huge problem for many people during that time and I'm glad it is gone.But I still have a bit of a concern that if any powers are thrown back and if we do have to restrict people's movements because of an outbreak of some sort would there be any lenience within the provision? If they are moving home and to a different place with no one else or with their household that they couldn't continue to move. Because I know that you've taken it away but I'm thinking that we've still got these orders here for at least another three years and if we have to stop people from moving how is that going to affect people that are moving from an empty home to an empty home or people moving back in with family? If there is a case that you do have to restrict people's travel between houses and so forth how would that work? Would you say "Hey yeah you can move but we need to know where you're moving to." Hopefully that makes sense Minister.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Thank you Mr Chair. The provision that is being repealed was for use during a lockdown. The Residential Tenancies Act was previously amended to enable the Minister of Housing to make an order during a lockdown to stop tenancies from people being kicked out of their rental property. With the removal of the powers for lockdowns in this bill then that provision in the Residential Tenancies Act is also being removed. So the question the member put—would we do that again in the future should we be in a situation where that is required?—is precisely the sorts of learnings that we need to reconsider in light of this experience and why the Government has undertaken to do a review of the COVID-19 response."
O'Connor GregPart 2 Amendments to and revocation of other legislation CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I just compliment members who took part in that debate. They were succinct in their questions and identified the parts to which their question was related so that meant the debate does flow quite easily. So thank you to those members.So members we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 30 to 37 Amendments to and revocation of other legislation". The question is that Part 2 stand part."
Chhour Karen; Verrall AyeshaKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Just a quick question—just a clarification really of the intent of part of clause 8 replacing section 11 which replaces the section with a narrower set of powers for the Minister to make COVID-19 orders. I'm just looking at one of the powers and it's to prohibit persons from importing manufacturing supplying selling packaging or using a test or testing device or to authorise them to do so only in specified circumstances. I'm just wanting clarification on that because the first time around when COVID first came along we had a huge problem with having tests available to the public and we had a huge problem of people even applying to be able to supply those tests to the public and import them.I'm wondering if this applies to just new products or new tests or if it applies to current tests and they're going to have to reapply if we have another outbreak and we're going to have concerns about people lining up for hours and hours and hours trying to get hold of tests from a Government site.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Thanks Mr Chairman. There is a testing order in place currently. Its purpose is not to restrict the import of tests; it is to be able to have a functioning regulatory framework for tests.The issue that we face is that there is not really a good regulatory system of diagnostic tests used outside of laboratories in New Zealand. In laboratories there is a system because there is an accreditation process for labs. However for point-of-care tests—which include the rapid antigen tests loop-mediated isothermal application tests and some of what's called nucleic acid tests—so they're like a PCR test that is more mobile and can be used outside a lab—there isn't really a strong regulatory system for that. The testing order that we currently have sets out a process whereby that can be done and it essentially just enables evaluation of tests—like rapid antigen tests—to know that they are of a standard and sensitivity that they can be relied on by the public for making a diagnosis. We currently let rapid antigen tests with I believe a sensitivity of 80 percent. They'll identify four out of five COVID cases. But there are certainly lower sensitivity ones on the international market and we use the testing order in order to make sure that the ones that can come into the country are those good ones that reach that quality standard.
Tuiono TeanauTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I was wondering in terms of the different options that were highlighted in the regulatory impact statement—and I know people will be interested at home because for those of us who got COVID earlier this year after some of us got that we ended up with the flu and then so on and so forth—option four was about implementing a disease-agnostic piece of legislation. I get it we can't do that right now. But I'm wondering if the Minister the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall could offer some reflections on how the follow-through from this amendment will then fold into that one potentially if that's what the Government is thinking.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Could the member repeat the question?TEANAU TUIONO: Yeah. So I was reading the regulatory impact statement and it seems to me that this amendment bill is the option three so continuing the powers in the Act and narrowing the powers. We talked a little bit earlier about proportionality and so on and so forth but there was option (b) which was about implementing a disease-agnostic piece of legislation. So I was wondering—because I think it would be beneficial for people at home—if this is going to fold into another piece of legislation given that for a lot of us when people caught COVID they caught a bunch of other things afterwards as well so making sure that that's being thought about I think would be useful for folks at home.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Yeah I thank the members for their question. Look I want to acknowledge that the Regulations Review Committee has done a great job with reviews of the orders and has made a positive impact on the response. We did not have a plan for a Health Committee review of the bill. I think the key point here is that there are a number of provisions in the Act as noted: the review of orders by the Regulations Review Committee as well as the requirement for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to be taken into account in all the orders plus the need for the orders to be debated in Parliament.With respect to the question about the proportionality the question was about the other options and the disease-agnostic framework proposed in the regulatory impact statement. So I'm referring to page 21 of the regulatory impact statement where it sets out four options and option four that's discussed there is to implement disease-agnostic legislation which is a technical way of saying legislation that's suitable for a range of infectious disease threats. That certainly has a number of attractions it could capture the lessons that we've learnt from COVID-19 in terms of the practicalities of how to respond to an infectious disease pandemic as well as the learnings about the legal frameworks that have been used and so on. But the point is that that undertaking would take a very long time and does really need to be the subject of further deliberation. That's the focus of an inquiry into COVID that we hope the Government will announce shortly. So it is not feasible to implement it prior to the expiration of the Act. So option four wasn't feasible in the context of this bill.
SpeechHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister Verrall in answer to the question from the ACT member Toni Severin it was stated—and please correct me if I've misinterpreted—that the orders made by the Minister will be reviewed by the Regulations Review Committee. Is that correct?Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Yes.HARETE HIPANGO: Thank you. So accordingly will the Government consider a post-enactment review of this legislation by referring it to the Regulations Review Committee or the Health Committee after it passes to check if any details have been missed?The Minister has confirmed that where orders are made by the Minister that there would be a review by the Regulations Review Committee in relation to those orders. My question is focused on a post-enactment review of this legislation. Would the Minister—or would this Government—refer to the Regulations Review Committee after it passes to ensure that nothing's been missed?
Tuiono Teanau; Verrall AyeshaTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I wonder if the Minister could give some further clarifications in terms of the proportionality in terms of how she arrived at the rights that were in section 11 that have now have been shrunken in terms of the powers that now exist within clause 8. I hear what you're saying and I agree we don't want to unnecessarily limits people's rights; that's an important thing and that's the balance that you have to make as the Minister and I totally understand that. But could you walk me through—and for those watching at home—how you arrived at clause 8 in terms of the best way you would see of making sure that that balance is struck right in terms of the proportionality of making sure that we have a good public health response without unnecessarily limiting people's rights as well?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Thank you. So you'll recall we developed earlier in the year a structured approach to assessing the risks of variants of concern. The Ministry of Health developed a number of scenarios of different ways the virus could evolve. It's impossible to have a crystal ball about how COVID will evolve but a range of scenarios were set up there. They were being considered in terms of what the responses would need to be and it was deemed that the most likely scenarios did not require the extraordinary powers that were in the bill originally—that is managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) and the lockdowns. If we look across the experience we've had this year those powers have not been needed in this year. Obviously MIQ wrapped up across the course of the year. Part of the reason for that is that Omicron appears to be a less clinically severe variant. Another reason for that is the widespread immunity that the population has through vaccination but also some through exposure. So at a high level that is the basis of that assessment that those powers were less likely to be needed and therefore the appropriate thing to do was to remove them. Of course as I said we don't have a crystal ball. It is for Parliament to decide if they should be needed again; they could be brought back.
Severin Toni; Verrall AyeshaTONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. This is just around replacement section 11(4) inserted by clause 8 of the bill. It's just about persons arriving into New Zealand. I know this all comes down to your calling of when any order may require a person before they arrive in New Zealand to satisfy any specified criteria in relation to 1 or more of the following matters" that are listed here. Well my concern is yes we know that there are variants out there. We do know that travellers are going to bring them in. It's also as we say summer. People are going to go on to overseas holidays and come back. It's just how is this going to be engaged and how long is it going to be notified to let people know in advance that if you're an overseas traveller coming into New Zealand you may have to go through some of this process to be able to come here? Because you know this is another thing—this is going to stop possibly people at the border. This could stop people that are coming here to work for us with their visas. There's a little bit of a criteria here and it's a little bit of a concern when we we're just starting to hopefully have people come into New Zealand to help the small business that have been struggling for the last two years that all of a sudden there may have to be a big stop. But how we are going to notify those overseas way in advance before they get on to that plane is a concern for me here. So if you could answer that question. I'll do a second question—it's clause 13. Because I also noticed now that the Minister has the powers to make the COVID orders rather than the Director-General of Health and how did that come about? I do know that those of us in the Regulations Review Committee will love not having to write so many letters to the director of health but just wanting to know how it now falls just into the Minister rather than both. If you could answer those questions it'd be much appreciated.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Thank you Mr Chair. Firstly just a reminder that the provisions in the bill relate to the scope of possible orders. So we do not have an order in place that makes particular requirements in relation to testing at the border any more. However the important thing is that we do continue to have powers that enable proportionate responses at the border because if something changes and we don't have this in place then we may only have quite blunt powers at the border—for example to deny a ship entry whereas actually a more proportionate way to proceed is to be able to manage the arrival of people. That is why the provision for such powers is available there. With respect to the change to the Director-General of Health that avenue has been used less in the latter stages of the pandemic and will continue—if new orders are to be made that will be made through the process through the Minister and of course with the requirement that those orders are with all the safeguards including that those orders are reviewed by the Regulations Review Committee and debated by Parliament."
Tuiono Teanau; Verrall AyeshaTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. Yeah I would like to begin by thanking the Health Committee as well for their report. It was very illuminating for myself—I'm not a doctor—and I wanted to acknowledge them first off. Of course they're very ably chaired by Mr Tangi Utikere a teacher—who better to wrangle a bunch of doctors than a teacher? So there's that.Minister Verrall I wanted you to perhaps give me some reflections on proportionality. And I look through from clauses 8 9 10 pretty much right through to 23 where a whole bunch of things are going to fall out of the legislation and I am interested to know about how you arrived there. I reflect on that in terms of the questions that were posed last week around public health advice saying that mask mandates should remain on public transport and that not being feasible—probably because people don't want to wear them. So can you give me some reflections about how you arrive at these particular decisions and how you arrive at what the public advice is telling you versus the limitations of rights. Following on from that how can that apply to so many of these sections?We did talk about earlier around the warrantless search into marae—good good to see that go. Hopefully everybody's learnt and they will do things better and empower Māori and so on and that's a good thing. But I wonder how that relates to everything else and how you arrived at how this is appropriate in terms of the ways that you got to the proportionality of it the public health response balanced against the limiting of rights and within the context of the decision around not listening to public health advice around masks on public transport.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I thank the member for the question. If I understand it correctly it's a question about how decisions are made proportional to the public health threat. Firstly just the Act requires that the impact on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is analysed and that the actions are consistent with it. So that requires that we the Government approach decisions made under the Act in a way of thinking if the restrictions on rights can be justified. That is always related to the public health threat posed by COVID so it is a balance of those two factors.If the member was asking an operational question well those are both Crown Law and the Ministry of Health's public health team give advice on those two factors. That feeds into a piece of advice that comes to Cabinet that reflects both of those components. I think the member also had a question about decisions made about masks recently where a decision made by Cabinet did not reflect entirely the public health advice. But as I said the role of Cabinet is to get those sources of advice of the Government from both public health and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act perspective and to make a decision on those. And I believe we covered that decision in the House a week ago.
Verrall AyeshaHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you Minister Verrall. Following on from the line of questioning that you've just responded to one of the members in the backbenches of the Government mentioned earlier—in the first reading I believe it was—that the Act had recently been before the Health Committee and so the National Party is aware that that being the case there was discussion around extending the Act to 2023.So why is it that with the Health Committee having spent considerable time and resources considering the extension of the Act until 2023—where there was a report deliberated by the Health Committee—it is now to be superseded by this bill to extend the Act out to 2024?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I thank the member for her question. Those renewals of the Act are required under the current Act at a six-monthly interval. In fact this bill removes the need for those renewals and just puts a two-year extension in place. So that issue of the need to discuss the renewal is addressed by this bill.
Severin Toni; Verrall AyeshaTONI SEVERIN (ACT): Sorry Mr Chair. I was just trying to find my page where the question is around Part 1. I wasn't listening clearly. It's just around the clause 3 about the sunset clause—which is great. But I was just wondering how did you come up with two years and what evidence you've had to decide two years or one year or not to have it at all and say that we're finished with it. Because now that we've got antiviral drugs people have been vaccinated people have got natural immunity; we've got a huge mixture of things happening within our communities now around COVID. So I was just wondering how we came to that sunset clause of two years.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Thank you very much to the member and thanks for those comments about the availability of both I guess hybrid immunity—both from vaccination and exposure to the virus—and also antivirals. Plus I think the member in an earlier speech canvassed the many things that have improved in terms of how people's own behaviour has modified and how people have learnt more about how they can reduce the chance of them passing on all manner of infections. It's in that context that we think that the greater powers in the original Act are no longer required but that some management of COVID—through both isolation and measures like masks—may be required.In terms of the two years—sorry and just to conclude: that puts the provisions in this bill similar to more-normal infectious diseases legislation as is in other pieces of infectious diseases legislation. With respect to the two-year time frame it's already been mentioned by the Government that we intend to have an overarching review and inquiry into the COVID-19 response and we would anticipate that we'd have advice from such an inquiry on the shape of future legislation by then. So that was the basis for two years but in addition it does acknowledge that things can change as well with the virus as it has done over the last two years.
O'Connor Greg; Bennett Glen; O'Connor GregIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members the House is in committee on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill. Members we come now to Part 1.GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. The question is that Part 1 as amended stand part.Toni Severin: I've got questions sorry.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I have started but I'll take the call from the member. Perhaps I will encourage the member to keep an eye on what's happening because we are moving quite rapidly.
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee to be able to take a call on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill.It may seem unusual that a chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee stand to take a call however it actually isn't unusual. If I take the House's memory back to the Inquiry into the operation of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 that particular inquiry was led by the Finance and Expenditure Committee which was well-chaired by one of our predecessor Dr Deborah Russell. I thank her for her work that she did back in 2020 with the committee to have a look at the powers that were brought in earlier in 2020.If I go back to the early time of basically the predecessors of this bill which was then amended in 2021 I recall I was working in the Minister of Police's office at the time. This particular bill is removing probably one of the most contentious powers within the COVID-19 Act and that is the warrantless entry powers.Now I remember the policy discussions that were taking place in the Beehive at the time. It was a really difficult discussion; not for any particular specific reason as to we want to be able to introduce these powers but actually we had to really make sure that introducing such an extraordinary power was taken with careful consideration.At the time it was finely balanced. The Minister of Justice at the time the Hon Andrew Little I remember we were also part of those conversations with the Hon Stuart Nash—at the time it was finely balanced. It was agreed that we would include these powers including into marae on the basis and the foundation that when they were not needed we would remove them. That time has now come. This is what this bill seeks to do: remove those warrantless entry powers because they are contentious.I respond to the member on the other side of the House who looked at the regulatory impact statement and noticed that there were parts that were redacted. They had been redacted for a very good reason; if you read that paragraph 16 just before it says because they're legally privileged. In order to be able to waive that privilege they would need to seek the permission of the Attorney-General. Obviously based on the context of where it is in the bill it is around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act considerations.I just want to be able to say: now is the right time to strip back these powers; now is the right time to ensure we still have protections but balance that against the ability to remove the powers that are not necessary and that are not needed given the COVID response that we've had in the last two years. I commend this bill to the House.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana Madam Assistant Speaker Kuriger. Can I congratulate you on your new role. I'm happy to speak in support of this bill which primarily does two things. Firstly it extends the Act and yes with a two-year repeal time frame post commencement it provides some certainly in terms of the lifespan of the Act rather than having to come back to the Parliament time and time again.Secondly it removes some of the powers including but not limited to those around managed isolation and quarantine and lockdown powers as well. This is I guess important given the changing context within which our community operates and the profile and risk that COVID-19 presents. Just last week the Health Committee did hear from Minister Verrall in terms of scrutinising some aspects of the COVID response and in particular around the extension of legislation. Health Committee members are very familiar with the scrutiny process very familiar with the examination process that many elements have been subjected to and the operational aspects of this Act and so it's within that context that I'm comfortable to commend this bill to the House.
SpeechHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you. In taking this call at the first reading of the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Extension of Act and Reduction of Powers) Amendment Bill I speak for the National Party.The purpose of the bill as has been explained is to enable the ongoing management of COVID-19 by continuing the legislative powers needed to implement public health measures to support the COVID-19 response.My colleagues Chris Bishop and Dr Shane Reti spoke at some length and detail during the initial stages of the introduction of the COVID-19 bill back in 2020 and as is well-known it was extremely controversial and concerns to all New Zealanders about the imposition on democratic rights. This bill is mostly focused on removing COVID restrictions; acknowledging those impositions in 2020 some of which are now no longer fit for purpose and appropriate; but extends the Act for a further two years. So in taking this brief call bearing in mind that this is under urgency bearing in mind that the National Party was notified on Tuesday of this week at approximately 4.30—I look at the clock today is Thursday 4.20—so just under two days ago that there is concern around the haste and the urgency that there hasn't been sufficient time for the introduction of this amendment bill and again members of the New Zealand public are questioning why it is that there is no opportunity for this to go to select committee for submission. It may be that members on the Government benches are laughing at the statement that has been made; this is no laughing matter because this is about the importance of New Zealanders' democratic rights and the New Zealand Government addressing the COVID-19 response and the continuum of that appropriately.So this bill is looking at removing reducing repealing and limiting powers. At the second call I will speak—or one of my colleagues will speak—further to what the limitations removal or repeal of the details to be addressed under this bill are. Pending that however the National Party does support this bill and commends the bill to the House.