Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I do want to put some important points down in my speech in a formal way which is important at a third reading in respect of the future interpretation of this legislation. But before that I do want to respond to Erica Stanford's suggestion that we could have closed the border earlier. As the Minister of Justice interjected at the time until less than a week before we closed the border there were about 5000 New Zealanders—citizens and permanent residents—returning every day and it was not possible to put them in quarantine because you'd have quickly run out of hotel beds.The COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill will create a bespoke and fit for purpose legal framework to support the Government's efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19 for a maximum of two years less if COVID-19 is brought under control sooner. This bill includes the necessary powers to enforce the alert 2 measures and I thank the House for working together to pass this bill under urgency. We have adopted further protections suggested by the Opposition. Passing this bill now is prudent as we move to level 2 on Thursday and into the next phase of our response to COVID-19. The Government's strategy for COVID-19 and the efforts of all New Zealanders have so far curbed the spread of the virus and the potential devastation it causes. It remains a precarious journey but we have broken the chain of community transmission and reduced daily cases dramatically. There is as yet no vaccine and no cure for the virus and our country must continue to act cautiously so that we maximise our prospect of avoiding or controlling its re-emergence to avoid the loss of life seen overseas minimise economic damage and prevent our health system being overwhelmed.Unlike many other countries around the world New Zealand is now in a position where it can restore many civil and economic freedoms—and we are. However the current legal framework is not best suited for enforcing the necessary medium-term public health measures at level 2 where there is increased freedom of movement and more nuanced restrictions: for example many more businesses can open provided they take certain safety measures; and gatherings of people can be held also provided certain precautions—limits on numbers and social distancing rules—are followed. On this side of the House we also believe more parliamentary oversight of level 2 and future COVID-19 measures is appropriate which this bill introduces. We consider it necessary to pass this bill under urgency to help New Zealand to alert level 2 on Thursday as every additional day is costing New Zealanders greatly with economic costs and current limits to liberties prolonged. Delay in our view also puts at risk the social consensus which underpins the voluntary compliance which epidemic prevention measures rely upon. Enforceable rules to require the minority who flout rules are still needed.The bill is necessary to continue our response to the unprecedented challenges of COVID-19. It will allow the Minister of Health to issue orders to give effect to public health measures—for example to require the maintenance of social distancing prohibiting gatherings of a specified kind and requiring people to be isolated or quarantined in specified ways. The bill creates a framework for COVID-19 orders not the orders themselves. The Minister of Health must have regard to the advice of the Director-General of Health. The Minister of Health may have regard to decisions by Government on the level of public health measures appropriate which may have taken into account social economic and other factors. The Minister of Health is required to consult with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice who will both be concerned with the correct balance of any order including civil liberties.Clause 9(2) of the bill makes it clear that the Minister must be satisfied that a proposed section 11 order is appropriate to achieve the purposes of the Act. That links back to the purpose clause clause 4 which provides the purposes of the Act: The purpose of [the] Act is to support a public health response to COVID-19". Paragraph (c) says amongst other things that the response is to be proportionate. As David Seymour said in earlier stages of the debate the structure of the decision-making is better and creates more accountability not less. He is correct as were the legal experts who also called for ministerial responsibility for these important decisions. The bill will give police and other authorised enforcement officials powers to enforce the orders and create a new enforcement regime for breaches of the orders. Those breaches don't always warrant criminal prosecution. The police will still exercise their discretion. They will rely mainly on education. But we will have a remedy short of prosecution which has more serious consequences.We've received feedback from other political parties and legal academics who had the admittedly time-limited opportunity to review an exposure draft of the bill overnight. At the committee stage important changes were made to the bill some of which were in response to that feedback; so I thank them. The most significant change during the committee stage was for the automatic repeal of the bill every 90 days or another period agreed by the House. Essentially it needs to be refreshed every 90 days with the ability for that period to be longer—for instance if it was just prior to the election. This is in addition to requiring every section 11 order the equivalent of the former orders under section 70 of the Health Act to be approved by parliamentary motion normally within 10 sitting days. The existing Health Act which currently applies has neither of these two protections.Other important changes include clarifying that orders made allowing for premises to open only if specified measures are complied with or orders prohibiting gatherings of a certain kind don't apply to Parliament or the courts. We're clarifying that orders made under the Health Act will continue in force as if made under the bill and can be enforced as if an order was made under this bill. We're clarifying in terms of the matters the Minister may have regard to any decision of the Government on the level of public health measures appropriate to—those are new words—respond to those risks of COVID-19. We're clarifying that for the purposes of the bill the range of people who can be enforcement officers will only include those employed or engaged by the Crown. We're removing any different treatment for marae in relation to powers of entry under the bill noting however that we've added a requirement for the enforcement officer to report to the relevant marae committee if a power of entry was used. I note that marae were originally included to add greater protections not take them away. However we've listened to concerns from the Māori Council and others following our consultation with them and accordingly removed that reference to marae.In terms of warrantless powers of entry under the bill the last speaker was again wrong. I observe that broader warrantless powers already exist under section 71A of the Health Act. I don't have time to read the full suite of those powers but they are listed at section 71A(1) and are broad. Section 71A(2) of the Health Act makes it clear a constable can enter a building—any building which includes a private dwellinghouse—for any of those full suite of powers. Clause 20 of this bill is narrower. A warrantless power of entry into a private dwellinghouse under COVID-19 is now limited to situations where the constable has reasonable grounds to believe the limits to gatherings have been breached. This power is in effect limited to breaking up parties flouting the rules on gathering size. The enforcement power is intended to limit contagion risks and to enable effective track and tracing if there's an outbreak we need to get under control.I note that the Human Rights Commissioner was mistaken in asserting there was no New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. There was and it was published. It concluded the power is proportionate. I normally have conduct of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vets but because I thought myself conflicted by my role here in having conduct of this bill we requested the Governor-General to make the Minister of Justice the acting Attorney-General for this limited purpose of that New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. I also repeat: the powers in this bill are narrower than under the existing Health Act and that the orders which trigger those powers will now be subject to more oversight mechanisms by this House as I have already covered. I commend this bill to the House."