Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to oppose a shortened report back for this piece of legislation and in doing so I want to remind members of this House about how serious a piece of legislation this is and how in fact that warrants more thorough scrutiny than normal pieces of legislation. Yet we are here tonight being told to do the opposite. Here we have the Government asking for an extension of the most extraordinary powers a Government has granted to itself possibly in decades and the Government in asking for an extension of those powers through to May 2023 has said that it does not wish for that to be thoroughly scrutinised through a normal-length select committee process. On this side of the House we raise our objection to that because we think it is more important than ever that there be appropriate democratic scrutiny of the measures contained in this bill.So let us remind ourselves of the substance of what it is that the Government is saying we need a shortened process for. Well possibly the most significant clause in the bill is that which extends the sunset clause for the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act to 2023. This builds on a piece of legislation that was introduced in 2020 that includes powers to require people to stay in a particular place; that require people to stay physically distanced from any person; that can give the director of health or the Minister of Health the power to tell someone that they must refrain from participating in gatherings that they must refrain from travelling; gives a Minister or the Director-General of Health the power to say that someone must be isolated or quarantined in any place in any way; that a person must report for medical treatment or must undergo medical examination or testing; that they must provide information for contact tracing. These are significant powers for the State.New Zealanders over the past 18 months have by and large cooperated because the view that people have taken is extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. They have placed enormous trust in institutions and individuals and public health advice and have given up their freedoms because they've been told that that is what is required to keep one another safe and to prevent death. But it is appropriate that when those measures move from being temporary in nature from being a one-off response to an emergency in 2020 to being an extended set of powers to last right through till 2023—another 18 months—the New Zealand people have the opportunity to thoroughly scrutinise the measures and to thoroughly scrutinise the additions to those.In this bill we also have new measures and what I would point out is that a number of the measures that are being proposed in this bill are things that the Minister for COVID-19 Response says are needed now and needed in a hurry but yet it would be perfectly reasonable to expect that a diligent Government would've anticipated ahead of right here and now and made changes with a thorough scrutiny and thorough process—things like enabling the chief executive of the responsible agency to make rules for the day-to-day operation of MIQ facilities". Well managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities have been operating in New Zealand for months so it should've been perfectly reasonable to expect that the Minister would bring to this House legislation to clarify that power in advance of today and in doing so would invite appropriate and thorough scrutiny. A shortened report-back period simply damages the trust between the elected and the electors because it says "We don't need your input on this one."The bill also does things like recognising "the ability of the chief executive of the agency responsible for MIQ"—which is of course right now the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment—"to impose room restrictions on people undertaking isolation or quarantine". Again this is a measure that actually many many New Zealanders will take a view on and actually there should be no reason for the Government to fear scrutiny of whether or not that power is appropriate to invite scrutiny of whether or not it's been framed up correctly and whether or not it fits within the right parameters. The trouble is when you're doing extraordinary things it is more important than ever that people have faith that robust processes have been used to form restrictions that appropriate risk assessments have been done that there has been the necessary balancing of the need to do something in order to protect public health against the potential incursion upon freedom. We are best as a Parliament when we let sunlight upon those judgments and the problem with shortened report-back periods is there is a sense that someone is trying to reduce the window for that sunlight to peer through.I would put to you that one of the challenges we have in New Zealand right now is that there are some people who are sceptical and I say that we should actually be open about everything that we are doing and we should allow absolutely thorough scrutiny and we should oppose motions to shorten the scrutiny of some of the most serious legislation this Parliament has passed in my lifetime with significant powers and extension through to 2023. I put this to members opposite: when the Government first locked down in 2020 did anyone expect that they would then be saying "We need the same powers to lock down right until May 2023."? I would argue that that is something that should be discussed fully and that New Zealanders should have the right to have their full say on. Thank you Mr Speaker."