Roberts Angela; Muller ToddANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It is with great pleasure that I stand to speak yet again on the Immigration (COVID-19 Response) Amendment Bill and I'm going to start with that title just to remind the member who previously spoke that this is not a bill that was ever about addressing any of the challenges that may be present in our immigration system. This is only about a response to COVID-19 and that is really important. Because that is the line that has run through every decision that is made and it is the line that will be run through when this legislation could—these powers could—actually be lifted before the two years is up if necessary because it's only about COVID.So I just want to remind people why it was a truncated policy because it came to the House unchanged. The reason it was unamended from last year when it did have support from the House as we have been reminded by the other side was because it worked. It enabled the Minister to respond nimbly and appropriately to keep everyone in New Zealand safe. Those borders are the only way that COVID can get into the country and so it is really important that we manage them appropriately.We are able to keep our people safe because we are managing the borders and industry has said so. Industry has said it has worked. They made submissions despite the truncated process they came along they wrote huge submissions and as we heard earlier many of them—dozens of them—came along and talked to us about their experiences. The meat industry came along and told us how much they appreciated the exceptions that were able to be made for their industry. They appreciated the tension the very fine balance between supporting industry and protecting our people—my mum; not just the meat industry horticulture and winemakers. They said they appreciated the approach that our ministry and our Minister made when they talked about the problem solving the collaborative approach that was taken because every day—as we were reminded of earlier this afternoon—the situation changes. You have to be creative and responsive in order to have the smartest border in the world.So that is why it was unamended. We heard earlier that about 12 months ago things were looking dire and we didn't know where we would be in 12 months' time. Well actually quite frankly we didn't know we would be in this situation a couple of months ago. Who would know that we would have a couple of international bubbles on the boil? Who knew that the variants that are rampaging the rest of the planet meant that we've actually got countries where we've had to make the border restrictions even tighter? Who would have known how the roll-out of vaccinations is going globally? Who would know? And so this is part of the problem; this is where it feels like some people on the other side are a little bit confused because they say we don't want a truncated process we need time to engage and consult. So that would have meant we would have to bring it—if we had only 12 months—back to the House in a matter of weeks.Now my mother always said I was a bit of a procrastinator but she also said that the good thing about being a procrastinator is you make just-in-time decisions. So to start making decisions about what would be appropriate in a year's time or in 10 months' time; in two months' time doesn't seem to make any sense at all because the information that we will have in two months' time about what will be appropriate then doesn't make for good decision-making. So what we could do is bring it back in a couple of months when we really don't know what the situation will be like in a year. Or we have the more accurate and nimble checks and balances that are in the legislation.The exercise of these powers has to be clearly tied to COVID-19 or the responses to COVID-19. If circumstances change and suddenly the variants disappear we have enough oxygen for our poor comrades around the planet and everyone gets vaccinated and circumstances change so that our borders can suddenly reopen the regulations can be revoked in whole or in part by Ministers with powers to act. I think it is a very cynical response to suggest for a moment that our Minister can't be bothered bringing this back to the House. Our Minister has worked tirelessly to keep our borders safe and you know that because look at how many of our people are safe. He has worked really really hard. If circumstances change and we can open our borders then we will be able to do so. It is a cynical very cynical suggestion to think that he can't be bothered. This is about the best decision-making to keep our people safe.I just need to remind you of one more thing. There again to come right back to the title of the bill. The challenge—Hon Scott Simpson: Tell us again what a good guy he is!ANGELA ROBERTS: Well apparently some people still aren't very clear on it. This is a very narrow-focused solution to a very big problem. This is not a power grab; this is about responding to COVID and COVID only. We've done it industry has said so and thus we will continue to act in a way that works for our people and I commend this bill to the House.TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Todd Muller): I understand this is going to be a split call. I call the Hon Paul Goldsmith.