Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak tonight on this bill the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill which has the primary purpose of setting up a regime for testing in managed isolation and in quarantine. Clearly hurried legislation—again we're here doing this under urgency and furthermore if we look at the documents that support it we can see how hurried this is. It's kind of interesting to see several ways through the document that people can elect to go into quarantine. I'd be interested to know quite how that works—how you would elect rather than be required to go into quarantine—oh I'll call it isolation actually and mean managed isolation and quarantine. There must be some purpose for that to be there. I'd be interested to here that. No regulatory impact statement which is commented on in the departmental disclosure as well. And if we look at all the other absent evaluations through the departmental disclosure again that very clearly confirms how hurriedly this was put together. Maybe as an extension of what my colleague was saying testing the legality of all of this I'd be interested to see the background work because it's noted in the departmental disclosure statement that there is a risk that charging short-term travellers for isolation may not be consistent with the World Health Organization (WHO) International Health Regulations. The argument here being made is that if other countries are doing it we should be OK too but there must be a body of material behind that and I note that without the regulatory impact statement that's absent. So I'd be interested maybe in the committee of the whole House to hear the response to that. How big is the risk of us breaching our WHO regulations?The parts of the bill that alter the primary Act are quite clear. I want to turn to an interesting proposition here. Fundamentally the Government is delivering a service—yeah?—and it's a service that you're paying for. Now any other service including Government services that you're paying for comes under the Consumer Guarantees Act. If I'm unhappy with it I have recourse. So what is the recourse in this bill? What is my ability to complain for the service I am paying for—be it delivered by Government or anyone else? What is the ability for me to get recourse if I'm not getting the sort of service that I'm looking for—that I'm paying for? I thought I'd jot down what I thought that service was. That service is to be in isolation to keep you personally safe from infection to keep others safe from infection to test for confirmation of infection or otherwise and for the basic essentials of life that would support you while you're in isolation. That's the service that you're buying. What if that service is not suitable? What if that accommodation does not provide you with those guarantees? What if I'm put at risk in the accommodation and isolation facility? What are my rights for the service I am paying for to say I've received a poor service? Where does the Consumer Guarantees Act sit over the top of this legislation? What if I'm not happy that I'm being told the policy is that you'll be tested on day three and day 12 and we know day three testing is optional? In fact if we look back at all the positive coronavirus tests over the past month 50 percent or more of them were day three tests that tested positive thus showing how critical that day three test is. I've paid for that; I didn't receive it. How does that work? What is my recourse for a poor service?What is my recourse for a poor service which I have paid for where I might legitimately expect the isolation staff to wear personal protective equipment (PPE)? What is my recourse? I am paying for a service and I'm happy to pay for it but I want a decent service that protects me and guarantees for the initial services I said I was purchasing that they're delivered appropriately which is what the Consumer Guarantees Act said. Now you could contest: no staff in isolation facilities are wearing PPE. No they're not. How this works is if you're a returnee you're required to wear a mask outside of your room; if you're staff you're required to wear a mask unless you'll have more than 2 metres distancing from the returnees. I would contend from what constituents have said to me and indeed what I've sent to the Minister in the past few weeks that that is not happening—that staff members at a number of isolation facilities are well coming inside that 2 metre distance and very clearly not using PPE. I'm getting a poor service that I'm paying for; what is my recourse? I'd ask the Minister to consider whether that is something that needs attention.Look I think the bill in itself is relatively simple. We can see the purchase. My colleague explained the issue of: is the funding is the costing enough is it accurate and is it appropriate? He's also raised the question of: what about the exemptions? Do they apply to everyone equally and fairly? I think that's a discussion we can have across the House. But I would commend the Minister to have a think about—and think about whether there's something in the committee of the whole House that she needs to address—the service I am purchasing and if that service is not adequate if that service is not up to standard what is my recourse first just to complain anyway—it's not clear to me there's a complaints procedure—and secondly what is the remedy if it truly is found to be unsatisfactory. So I look forward to the rest of the discussions as this bill progresses through the House. Thank you.