Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Speaker and I appreciate your indulgence in allowing the Minister to finish her speech notwithstanding that she had gone over time. I think it was important to hear that last bit but I would encourage her speechwriters to perhaps time it a little better in the future because that last comment that was being made about section 11 I think is quite relevant and I will touch on it later.I just want to join with the Minister in acknowledging the work of those people who are working in our managed isolation and quarantine facilities whether they are hotel staff nursing staff Ministry of Health Defence Force police now. I have been critical—critiquing rather—the managed isolation process since 8 April - odd when it was first put into place and there's no doubt that the processes were too porous. The testing regime was insufficient. But there has been a response by the Government that has served to tighten that up and I think that's entirely appropriate.Can I also just segue into the issue that the Leader of the House raised in respect of the urgency motion because he quite rightly pointed out that the urgency that has been taken has recovered all but probably one sitting week of this year in order for the Government to get through its legislative programme. What he didn't say and what I think is important to acknowledge is that the consequence of urgency is that the public through the select committee process does not have the same level of input into the lawmaking that we are doing and I think that has to be borne in mind when we think about the catch-up that we're doing.Now when the Epidemic Response Committee was in place there were two bills that did get referred to it and the committee and that marvellous group of officials right across Government departments did an excellent job in scrutinising it making improvements bringing it back to the House within a week and passing it through. We don't have that luxury here and I do think it's important to acknowledge that while urgency is appropriate the select committee process is being compromised.I also acknowledge the need for Government to act in regard to emergencies to pass legislation from time to time. Previous Governments have needed to do that and including the Government I was in around earthquakes and other natural disasters. But I think it's really important that we exercise caution in the manner in which primary legislation is used to create a regulation-making power the details of which are not well articulated through the bill or understood by this House before it passes legislation and particularly when there isn't a select committee process. I acknowledge the need for haste but in that haste there is often error and it does behove us to scrutinise this bill in so far as we can because actually there's quite a lack of detail around what those regulations will look like.The Minister of Housing has provided a reasonably good summary of what the regulations might look like and what the charging regime might look like but I would point out that there remains I think a lack of detail about that regulation and the Regulations Review Committee frankly is not a very good control but is not actually the right place to be scrutinising the sorts of charging regime—effectively the Government reaching into the pockets of New Zealanders albeit returning New Zealanders and taxing them in a way that doesn't have the same level of scrutiny. I contrast that with for example the appropriations bill where we've spent 13 hours in a committee stage and three hours in a third reading analysing that bill because it is about the amount of money that the Crown is taking out of the pockets of New Zealanders. This is a smaller example of that but there is no scrutiny by the public on that point and that worries me.So I want to go to the regime as it has been described by the Minister both before and now in her first reading. It's fair to say that although the Minister is quite a few years younger than me she may be familiar with the term a Clayton's charge". Clayton's was a drink that you had when you weren't having a drink and this is kind of like a charge you're having when you're not having a charge. We are now getting to the point where we could be between $500 million and $1 billion depending on the measurement and the charging regime of costs incurred for managed isolation and quarantine and this is going to raise about $10 million. It's a drop in the ocean and it shows that this Government has actually been aware of the fact that there is an overwhelming support by the taxpayer in New Zealand to say "Look managed isolation is important but it cannot continue in the way that it is for as long as it is without there being some kind of charging regime."I don't think this Government actually has its heart in that charging regime and they're doing as little as they can the least that they can do this side of 19 September to look like they are responding to that public opinion which is growing. They are the bill payers ultimately up to the thick end of a billion dollars and they're saying "You know what? For those people who haven't been in New Zealand for a long time who haven't made that contribution through their earnings and taxes it's only fair that they should be charged when they choose to come home." And the National Party has been very clear about this—that it would charge at a greater level for those people albeit that there would need to be some exceptions. I'll be interested as we go through this bill because the Minister talked about Māori and tangi whether or not there will also be an exceptions regime for all New Zealanders returning for bereavement or whether somebody whose loved one passes away while they're overseas and they want to get back to be with their whānau—if they are non-Māori would they be required to pay? I think that will be an interesting point of clarification.I also point out that we are currently in the situation where the Minister talks about $3100 of reimbursement but we now know that the costs of managed isolation in the facilities that we are using is now exceeding $5000 per person. So if you're a family unit a nuclear family with a couple of adults and a couple of children that could be going into the area of five figures. You know that's talking about $700 $800 $900 per day in a five-star hotel. Even in a five-star hotel that seems to be an eye-watering amount of money to be reimbursing—at least to be expending; the reimbursement is going to be something less than that because it's part of the Clayton's charge the Government wants to do.But when we are imposing these sorts of charges I think it also behoves the Government to have a look at the nature of the accommodation and whether or not there could be other facilities that could be used that aren't the Pullman the Crowne Plaza the Novotel—these very fancy hotels in Auckland. The Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre is there. It's empty at the moment. The Whangaparāoa defence facility that we used for the Wuhan returnees—we must have hundreds of campervans around the place. I mean we seem to be fixated on the only way to be doing this is in five-star hotels. No wonder it's costing a lot. No wonder the Government is having to slow down the return of New Zealanders as a consequence of that. But it does need I think to think a little more imaginatively than it has.I want to touch on those section 11 changes because it strikes me as very interesting that almost as a "by the way" the Minister is slipping in a couple of belts and braces amendments to section 11 of the COVID response Act—for example to confirm the fact that the Ministry of Health can require somebody to submit themselves for testing or that they are required even to go into managed isolation on their return which suggests that they're not absolutely sure whether or not the legal framework has been in place to require people to go into managed isolation since they implemented it on 8 April. Now in terms of testing I'm quite clear that section 70 of the Health Act even at level 1 perfectly entitles the ministry to require people to submit for testing if there is either a pandemic or the risk of one. So I'm not quite sure what legal advice they have received in order to require those amendments.There's a lot more to be said about this bill. It does on the face of it look quite straightforward but it is I think important that this House scrutinises this bill as much as we can in urgency because it's important to get it right. Nevertheless and despite those caveats the National Party will be supporting this bill at this point and unless we see any material impediments to that support continuing we'll support it right through. But I am concerned about the manner in which it is being introduced and passed."