Parker DavidSecond ReadingHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I move That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill be now read a second time. Given that we've just had a discussion at first reading I thought my contribution this time would be best to respond to some of the issues that are raised. I've noted that there have been two alternative propositions put by the Opposition: one is that it's inappropriate for the powers to be used by the Minister of Health rather than the Director-General of Health which is the proposition that has been put by some members of the National Party. And the proposition put by David Seymour from the ACT Party has said that it's appropriate that it move from the Director-General of Health to the Minister of Health because that's more aligned with democratic accountabilities and also as David Seymour says triggers some other judicial review rights that might not otherwise be as easy for litigants to pursue. I'm not so sure of that second point. But in respect of the first point I actually agree with David Seymour. It's also a point that has been made by legal academics that this framework that was put in the Health Act many many decades ago is actually now old-fashioned and that the better view—Hon Andrew Little: It comes from the time of Sid Holland!Hon DAVID PARKER: I didn't know that but before I was born. But in any event I agree with David Seymour and with the legal academics that this actually is an improvement to accountabilities. The Hon Michael Woodhouse said that this meant that the Minister of Health didn't have to have regard to what the director-general does and could just make his own mind up. That's actually not correct. The bill requires the Minister of Health to pay particular regard to what the Director-General of Health says.In respect of some of the issues that have been raised by both the National Party and the ACT Party as to the term of this legislation which in the version that has been introduced into the House has expiry two years hence—if not repealed earlier as a consequence of COVID-19 no longer being a problem—the Opposition says that that's too long a period. The National Party proposed a remedy for that whereby every 90 days Parliament has to pass a motion to extend it. They can extend it for 90 days or they could actually extend it—unusually—for longer than 90 days which might be necessary if we were coming up to an interregnum over the elections. David Seymour suggested another remedy which was to make it a one-year sunset clause for the bill. On reflection we've chosen the National Party remedy for those. We actually agree with both points but only one remedy can be chosen. And so we've chosen to adopt the proposed National Party remedy and that will be coming forward in a Supplementary Order Paper. A point that was made by both the National Party and the ACT Party was that the ability of powers to be delegated beyond the police to other agencies was too broadly cast. That was a fair point also and it wasn't the intention that this be widely cast. So the Supplementary Order Paper that we have laid on the Table adopts those recommendations as well. Again we've actually chosen the National Party formulation of that which was that we limit it to effectively Crown employees or people that are contractors to the Crown rather than this idea that we were going to be delegating it more broadly. That's clear in the Supplementary Order Paper. I also want to reflect on one of the—what I think with respect somewhat misses the interconnectedness of enforcement powers with the ability to get to level 2.We're taking our advice as to what we need in level 2 from the Director-General of Health. The Director-General of Health's comfort with going to level 2 depends on the enforceability of measures that we have in this bill. If we didn't have the enforceability of gathering sizes down to small sizes of 10 at the start—and we hope that that will increase over time—it may well be that the director-general would not have recommended that we move to level 2 at this stage. So the idea that these things can be completely separated is wrong. To a certain extent if you're going to go to level 2 as early as we're trying to get there the Director-General of Health requires more comfort as to our ability to limit the risk; if things do go as we hope they won't and there are some outbreaks we want to minimise the spread of those. That's why he favours smaller gatherings over large for reasons that the Minister of Health described in more detail during his contribution.In terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues and the power of entry I do have a list of other warrantless powers of entry if I could just lay my hand on it in front of the papers that are in front of me and if I don't get to it within my allotted time here I'll come back to it in the committee stage. But warrantless powers are not unknown in New Zealand but I'm obviously going to have to come back to that because I've put the page in the wrong place—Hon Member: Search for them.Hon DAVID PARKER: What's that? I need a search and surveillance warrant to find them. Yeah I'm going to have to come back to that in the next part of the debate unless I turn them up as I speak.It is an important point so I just thought I would try and find those. The warrantless powers include pursuant to the Arms Act the Misuse of Drugs Act from memory people who are being—where there is an offender at large. One of my colleagues was saying that in respect of—Hon Tim Macindoe: They're all offenders at large.Hon DAVID PARKER: I beg your pardon.Hon Tim Macindoe: They're all offenders at large.Hon DAVID PARKER: Ha ha! Thank you I'll put that on the record. But it is true that it's not normal to allow a constable a right of entry on to private premises and that's why we are requiring it to be reported up the hierarchy so that there is a trail both for the police hierarchy but also for the public to see when this is occurring.The Opposition say that this is a matter of trust. Actually it's also a matter of maintaining public trust in enforcement and we have a concern that the social consensus around these measures that we still need because of the risks that there will still be under level 2 will degrade if people see others flouting these rules in a private situation with impunity. And in order to maintain that voluntary compliance both privately and in public and the social consensus that we need to continue taking care under level 2 we believe—we accept the advice that we've been given that it's appropriate that where a constable has reason to believe that there is a large gathering that he can go into the house for that express purpose of seeing whether there is and if there is one asking it to disband. Thank you Madam Speaker.