edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hipkins ChrisCOVID-19 RESPONSE (FURTHER MANAGEMENT MEASURES) LEGISLATION BILLCOVID-19 RESPONSE (REQUIREMENTS FOR ENTITIES—MODIFICATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS) BILLThird ReadingsHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill be now read a third time.I'd like to acknowledge the contributions of members across the House and the cooperation of the Opposition in ensuring the smooth passage of this bill through its remaining stages. There's been an extraordinary amount of work that's been done by officials behind the scenes to put this bill together and to put together the amendments that the committee has just agreed to. It's involved a large number of agencies coordinated by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and I thank them all. It's a significant achievement to get a bill of this size and detail together in such a short time frame to amend 45 different pieces of legislation and as I've said earlier that illustrates the wide-ranging impact that COVID-19 has had.I won't at this third reading reiterate all of the changes that the bill's made as these have been heard by the House only just recently and they have been well canvassed. Some of the changes are aimed at making it easier for businesses to survive in the current crisis including changes affecting insolvency corporate law and commercial property and it will in combination with other action taken by the Government help to save businesses and save jobs. Some of the provisions recognise that COVID-19 has meant that some processes that would normally be routine haven't been able to take place such as those that would require a person to be physically present and mean that there'll be no penalty or disadvantage from that situation. Some regulatory requirements have been delayed—others accelerated as appropriate. Some of the changes made in the bill are sensible and overdue particularly those that incorporate the use of digital technology into Government business and processes. Many of these amendments may lead to a permanent change even if the bill does not make them so because they're sensible new ways of working. I think we've learnt across the House actually we've got some new ways of working that have actually been very useful and I hope that when the Standing Orders are reviewed some of those things may well be able to be adopted in the long term. It'll make a lot of difference to many processes and make people's lives a little easier and a little more straightforward at a very very challenging time. I commend the bill to the House.
SpeechJAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): Thank you Mr Chair and I appreciate the support from David Seymour on this particular issue. He raised a point there that I just want to answer about local democracy and how typically we leave these things to councils and we do leave it to the elected local members of a council to make their overall decisions. They do so within the constraints of the Local Government (Rating) Act and the Local Government Act. But in this case I just want to say and make the point that this is still being left in most parts to the decisions that the local elected members will be able to make as to how to implement a rates freeze. So it's not as if complete local decision-making would be taken away. The way I've drafted the Supplementary Order Paper it would effectively say an invoice that a local authority issues for the 2020-21 year must not be any greater than the previous financial year. There's an exception if there's a change of use with that particular rating unit but how they achieve that will still be left to the local elected members.The Local Government Act and the Local Government (Rating) Act have so many different constraints and considerations and requirements that are placed on local authorities. We do this on a regular basis. Every time there is a change to local government legislation Parliament passes on and imposes more constraints and regulations on local government. This is just another one but it recognises the extraordinary times we're in and it recognises the fact that people out there are hurting. This Parliament and this Government in the Budget tomorrow is going to recognise the fact that people are hurting and that people need support. The local authorities around the country that haven't already stepped up and said they'll at least consult on a rates freeze or maybe even implement it—they should be doing the same thing and assisting people while they're hurting while people are struggling to pay their mortgage. There will be mortgagee sales. There's unemployment across the country. Councils need to step up as well and we should lead the way.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 488 491 492 and 493 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.
SpeechBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I too will speak on Schedule 4 of the bill which inserts new Schedule 13 into the Companies Act—the business debt hibernation (BDH). One of the elements that was discussed in committee was the need to provide an incentive for general security arrangement (GSA) holders to be prepared to accede to a BDH application. There was agreement although not without some concern that if those GSA holders were asked to enter into an arrangement which would prevent them taking any enforcement action with respect to the large securities they hold none of them would ever be prepared to allow a BDH application to go through presuming they had enough of the vote weight to prevent that. So it was agreed that such holders would not relinquish their rights to initiate enforcement actions vis-à-vis the security they hold or the debt that they are owed. On the face of it we did agree with that but were concerned that that would mean that during the debt hibernation period unsecured or less secured creditors are at a distinct disadvantage. So the question I have for the Minister and for officials is: given that we had to do that what incentives are in there for other creditors to agree to sign up to a business debt hibernation arrangement? Is it not likely that on the premise that a bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush in actual fact too many of them might say Well I'm in a precarious position here—or I will be left so—so it's better for me to actually prevent this if I can and take what I can get now rather than to risk the GSA holder taking an enforcement action during the period and me potentially being left in a worse situation than I am on day zero."?So we don't disagree with the bill and we don't disagree with the position the committee reached but it is I think a fair question to put which is: we got to where we had to get to but to what extent does that actually create disincentives for other creditors to permit entry into a scheme?"
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Mr Chair. Just a brief contribution to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) number 503 which is two amendments to some of the insolvency matters within the piece of legislation. They are to Schedule 2 and Schedule 4.This SOP makes amendments to the bill as it was introduced to make it clear that if any entity has already entered into an instalment arrangement in relation to any part of its tax debts with the IRD under the Tax Administration Act section 177B the debt under that instalment arrangement is excluded for the purposes of the business debt hibernation arrangement which is within the legislation. This means that the instalment arrangement stays in place and the Inland Revenue will not be a party to the business debt hibernation arrangement in respect of that debt. This will we hope incentivise businesses to start talking to the IRD now without needing to worry that any instalment arrangement that they enter into with the Inland Revenue could be changed by the business debt hibernation.It also makes clear that where an entity enters into a business debt hibernation arrangement which does provide for the payment of sums to the Inland Revenue for example in respect of any debts that are not covered by a pre-existing instalment arrangement the business debt hibernation arrangement is to be treated as a new instalment arrangement for the purposes of the Tax Administration Act. The reason for doing this is to ensure that existing procedural arrangements in the Administration Act for how the Inland Revenue deals with effectively rescheduled debts need to apply. This will also mean that businesses aren't penalised under tax legislation where they enter into a business debt hibernation arrangement in relation to the debts owed to the Inland Revenue. The changes to the regulation-making powers provide the flexibility to adjust how Inland Revenue deals with such arrangements in the context of the business debt hibernation regime.Can I also back up the comments made by the Leader of the House in terms of the speed in which this legislation was turned around and pass on my thanks to the Epidemic Response Committee and also to the officials who have worked very quickly to draft the legislation and make amendments which came out of the select committee which was I believe just a one-day hearing. So can I pay thanks to the Parliamentary Counsel Office and to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials which have helped us grind through this work—to Susan Hall Geoff Connor Natan Karon Richard Clough and to Robert and Stephanie the MBIE officials in my office for the sterling work in the conditions. So again I think these are provisions which I think will come in extremely handy to businesses that are extremely worried about their short- and medium-term futures.
Hipkins ChrisParts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 to 17 and clauses 1 and 2Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): This is going to be a very brief contribution to this debate. The bill of course has a wide range of amendments. It amends a significant numbers of Acts in response to COVID-19. I think that there are a couple of substantive issues around the Supplementary Order Papers that my ministerial colleague Kris Faafoi will speak to briefly just to place on record what those amendments actually do; they sit within his portfolio area.I just want to echo the comments that I made in my second reading speech which is to thank the COVID select committee and the Opposition and Michael Woodhouse in particular for helping to shepherd this bill through in a very very tight time frame. They gave it some very thorough scrutiny given the time that they were allocated. They've come up with some very pragmatic and sensible amendments which is the reason why we're in the committee stage and I want to thank them again for that.
Hipkins Chris; Rurawhe AdrianCOVID-19 RESPONSE (FURTHER MANAGEMENT MEASURES) LEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteeHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the committee to debate all of the provisions of this bill as one debate. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I thank the House for its contributions and I reflect on the previous member's comments. We have had national transition periods before. There has been one. That was following the Kaikōura earthquake and it was in place for 180 days. The general point about these periods is that they enable a coordinated response. I would not expect it to have any particular impact on the election period to satisfy that member's concerns.I do say to the member opposite from the National Party Michael Woodhouse that despite his reflections public health has been a driver of this Government's response at every stage. Thanks to the efforts of all New Zealanders in response to the frameworks that have been laid out due to the sacrifices they've made we have been able to move through the alert levels safely. Nobody wants to go back. And I want to thank New Zealanders for their efforts again and remind people that we're not out of the woods yet. We continue to learn about the virus overseas. We continue to learn about what stops its spread what measures are effective. Although we've done well in New Zealand we can continue to learn from others and the ability to move in a coordinated way will continue to be important as we make our way through the COVID period.
Ministerial Statements — COVID-19—National Transition Period
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker and I acknowledge the Leader of the House for earlier raising a point of order so that all parliamentary party leaders could speak to this motion and the House for granting the leave that he sought.I just make a comment—two questions—about this motion. I looked through section 94 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act that allows this recovery notice for 90 days to be put in place. It was a part of the Act that was added in 2016 and I think it's fair to say what Parliament at that time had in mind was recovery from earthquakes. That's why it speaks a lot about clearing debris and breaking into premises where there's danger and so on. It's really not clear what the Government's intention is to bring about a recovery period right now particularly at a time when Parliament is in the midst of passing a new legal framework to manage COVID-19 from here on in. So I think it has to be said that the Government hasn't really explained why it is seeking to be able to use what are really earthquake-era powers for the recovery from a viral pandemic.The second point I'd raise—and I think this also applies to the legislation the COVID public health legislation that's going through—is that those of us particularly who lead political parties are very mindful that it's 129 days until the election and 115 days until advance voting begins. Now normally elections are the time for the public to assemble and organise themselves to elect a Parliament and they may wish to challenge the current Government as they do so. And so aside from asking the Government well what exactly the purpose is of these recovery powers that seem out of step with recovery from a pandemic I think it might also be asked how a 90-day recovery notice and the powers that it gives to Civil Defence and various State agents will be managed in the context of a time when there's an election under way. Will it give any powers to manage how political parties organise and campaign? Certainly the public I think will want to know what effect it has on the upcoming elections.So I just leave a couple of comments there that I hope the Government will actually rise and answer—why they want these recovery powers how they intend to use them and how it will interface with the coming election. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Minister for that statement. I guess my first response is: about time. We were ready for this; I said so a week ago. We have been under a state of civil emergency for too long. But as we know we're moving to another level and it's clear to the public that what that will look like is not quite what was on the tin last week.It's worth reflecting as the Minister has on the powers that are conferred via the transitional order. It has certain features: it goes for 90 days it provides for the exercise of powers that are in the public interest and necessary to ensure recovery and that can direct to stop activities that may cause or contribute to the consequences of an emergency or to prevent or hinder recovery and they are enforceable by a constable. Now if those things sound familiar it is because this House has been considering legislation that has similar elements of that ones which the Attorney-General assured us were not provided for in existing legislation. Yet the reading of section 94 of that Act I think provides a very good basis for the transition that we are going through. But I think what section 94 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act can't handle is power with no fetters.I think the Government will have heard the message from the public about level 2. They are confused about the inconsistencies. They are angry at being prevented from going to their places of worship or to grieve at a funeral or tangi. They're certainly aghast at the manner in which that power is being granted. I heard the Hon Chris Hipkins say that the virus has no regard to civil liberties. But I say to the Leader of the House: it isn't the virus that the public are worried about with respect to their civil liberties; it is the Government that they are worried about. They are seeing those liberties eroded unnecessarily. It simply comes down to trust. The Government does not trust a public that has done a fantastic job—another zero day today. Yet we are going to be enforced for longer and the impacts of that socially and economically are going to be devastating.So I say to the Government who is about to deliver a Budget: it's time to look at recovery firmly and to trust New Zealanders that they can lead that recovery because it's only then that we will truly get over what has been a tremendously difficult time. Whether it's businesses individuals sports clubs bars restaurants or new start-ups it's time to trust them. I implore the Government to do that in order to get over this.
Hipkins Chris; Mallard TrevorWEDNESDAY 13 MAY 2020The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Karakia.BUSINESS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The Minister of Health is about to deliver a ministerial statement. I seek leave for David Seymour to be regarded as a specified party leader" for the purposes of that debate.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Following discussions across the House earlier on I seek leave that following the conclusion of Government order of the day No. 1 the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill and the Immigration (COVID-19 Response) Amendment Bill progress through their remaining stages.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none."
Tuesday 12 May 2020 (continued on Wednesday 13 May 2020) - Volume 745
COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 & 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill with amendment.Report adopted.
COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill — In Committee—Schedules 1 to 3
VoteSchedule 1 Transitional savings and related provisionsThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 497 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Schedule 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.Schedule 3 agreed to.
COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill — In Committee—Part 2
COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill — In Committee—Part 1 (continued)
VoteThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 497 in his name to clause 5 be agreed to: delete the definition of specified private premises.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Amendment to the amendments agreed to.
COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill — In Committee—Parts 3 & 4
Rurawhe Adrian; Seymour DavidCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Part—Hon Alfred Ngaro: Mr Speaker sorry is this Part 3?CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah I've already started putting the vote sorry. Members need to be a lot quicker.Hon Alfred Ngaro: Sorry Mr Chair I thought there was an order there and I was just waiting. The gentleman was getting up. I thought he was seeking a call. The only reason why I hesitated was because I saw the gentleman David Seymour looking like he was taking a call.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah but that's not your decision—Hon Alfred Ngaro: I do apologise.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): —about who's taking a call. The issue is that (1) members need to stand and seek the call; no member did therefore I started to put the vote. Once I start to put the vote I must continue. It is unusual to accept points of order during the—I'm going to seek the guidance of the committee because it is unusual.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have been in this position when I was an Opposition member myself. The only way to resolve it—and it is unusual and at the time the Chair was very clear that he could not stop a vote once it had started even if there had been some confusion and at the time it was a National Party Chair of the committee who did it. The only way the committee was able to resolve that was through leave. So therefore if the member wishes to take a call in this—I think there is a bit of goodwill here on the fact that this should be well scrutinised—that is a course of action that is available to him: to seek leave to stop the vote and to go back to the debate on Part 3.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just wish to follow up what the Hon Alfred Ngaro has said. He did hesitate because he was very politely waiting to see if I was taking a call. I understand what you're saying about what the rules are strictly but he shouldn't be penalised for showing a bit of goodwill in the Chamber. So I wonder if I can seek leave to go back to debate on Part 3 in order that he might make a contribution.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Hipkins ChrisPart 3 Amendments to Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I hope that this will be one of the least controversial parts of this bill although I'm always open to being surprised on that. These provisions have a relatively simple purpose and one that I hope members across the House will agree with which allows for there to continue to be local states of emergency not related to COVID-19 whilst there may be a national state of emergency in place. It is important that we allow for the fact that other bad things might happen around the country and local responses to those will be required even whilst we're still grappling at a national level with COVID-19.The second principle behind this particular set of provisions is that local responses to COVID-19 should not be inconsistent with the overall national response approach that we are taking as a country to COVID-19. It's important as we move out of lockdown that there aren't contradictory local responses under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act and these provisions—I hope which will be less controversial—ensure that those things can happen.
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): In my contribution during Part 2 I mentioned I wished to seek leave to table a letter from Nelson funeral directors around the impact of the controls. I seek leave for the letter dated today from Marsden House to be tabled as part of the House record.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. That can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
McAnulty Kieran; Rurawhe AdrianKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We've had a lot of contributions—and I will call David Seymour. I just want to ask members to—there's been quite a wide debate that has gone beyond Part 2. One of the exceptions is Mr Seymour so I am going to give David Seymour the call.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Can I thank the member David Seymour for acknowledging that the format of the exercise of the powers under this bill through the Minister with political and democratic accountabilities is an improvement on leaving those powers as they currently are under section 70 orders under the Health Act with the director-general. This is achieved through clause 9 of this bill. I agree with the member and I also note that this is what the overwhelming majority of constitutional academics have been calling for. I think that is very responsible of the member to put that on the record and I think he is correct.In respect of the statement that this is preferable to—and I think he used the word diktat" that has been used previously. Can I remind the committee that actually the Government is bound by the law and the existing law under the Health Act required us—and the only powers we had were under the Health Act—to do it that way which is through the director-general exercising those discretions in respect of those notices not the Minister. That's what's changed by this bill.As to the member's secondary point about whether the power for the director-general to make orders within a single territorial authority—oh sorry just before I go that point I'll go to the point that the Minister must have regard to the advice of the director-general. Now if that advice from the director-general said "Look COVID's passed no need to do this." or "The risk's passed you don't need to do this." obviously if the Minister then took a decision to impose what were seen by the director-general to be unnecessary constraints on the way we live our lives that would be just justiciable—and that's another point that David Seymour made yesterday. Obviously if that happened I would have thought that the courts would strike down an order from the Minister to that effect and that's an additional protection that doesn't currently exist at law.In respect of the issue as to whether the narrower power in respect of an urgent order for a single territorial authority district should expire after 48 hours I would note that the director-general has to have found that it's urgently needed and it's the most appropriate way. So again there's something justiciable there. I would also note that under clause 15(3) I think it is of the bill the Minister has the whip hand and the responsibility essentially because it says that "The Minister may at any time revoke [a] section 11 order made by the Director-General." So the ministerial authority through that accountability regime and democratic oversight and democratic responsibilities that Ministers have to take is actually seen through that provision. So for that reason we're preferring that mechanism rather than a 48-hour expiry."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I say affectionately that it takes a legal vulture to bring Zoroastrians into the religious discussion here—and the member who's just taken his chair Tim Macindoe will get the amusing reference that I'm trying to make there. I do accept the point that is made about religious liberties; they're very important. I make the point that the effect of this on religious liberties arises from orders that are made under framework legislation and I repeat that why the Government will be voting against that Supplementary Order Paper 500 is that we have to contemplate future orders being able to take religious gatherings to limited numbers as they have been in recent weeks down to essentially zero at which point religious gatherings have had to be online. It's an undesirable outcome but that's where we have been.The question as to what we do for funerals whether the limit should be 10 or 20 or 100 as the member would say is an issue for the notices that are promulgated under clause 11 notices or previously section 70 notices under the Health Act. This doesn't do more than those section 70 notices can already do; it effectively carries that forward should we have to go up to level 3 or 4 again in the future.In respect of the question as to what is appropriate under level 2 I again accept that that is an appropriate issue for the Opposition to question and they should do that in my opinion through the criticisms or otherwise of the section 70—now clause 11—notices rather than through the breadth of discretion that may be necessary in the future under the clause 11 notice and that's why we will be voting against that. I think I've made it clear the Government's position and reasoning for it in respect of the other Supplementary Order Papers that are already on the Table.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Yes essentially the member is correct in her description. For the reasons that she's outlined the combination of these two Supplementary Order Papers is that—assuming they are passed by the committee—if they were to be passed then section 20(2) then reads: However subsection (1) does not apply to a private dwellinghouse" and there is no reference to marae.There is the protection left which has been inserted at subsection (8) that if a marae was entered as a private dwellinghouse—and that's a question of law as to whether it is a private dwellinghouse; we've had that discussion previously as to there being a number of roles that maraes undertake for want of a better word—then the power that's exercised triggers a requirement to send a copy of the report that has to be sent to someone senior in the police and also to the committee of the relevant marae."
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): So there the Minister goes again pointing at another tree to show us another squirrel: Look at that; it's running up over there. Forget about what's over here." All we have said is when these provisions are being enacted why can't there be a consultation with the Leader of the Opposition? It affects all New Zealanders—all New Zealanders. So it's only reasonable that the Leader of the Opposition should be consulted when the Prime Minister makes one of these unilateral decisions.To bring in this silly argument that because the Leader of the Opposition dared to say that the public of New Zealand should know the lawful basis on which the Government acted is somehow a complete contravention of all things democratic is totally wrong. It is the fundamental point in a democracy that a Government acts lawfully and if they were they would release the documents but they're not. They know they've pushed it right to the edge. They know it's been a marginal call and they probably know that if they release those documents anybody who's been slung into court who should have been because they were breaching the rights of other New Zealanders will probably walk free.The Minister sits there and laughs. Well what's he hiding? Because he's hiding something. And for him to say that "Because I've chosen to hide something and the Leader of the Opposition has had the audacity to challenge my right to do that we don't want him consulted over things that would be of huge importance to all New Zealanders." Any track back to the sort of situation we've had over the last seven weeks is even more disastrous than what New Zealanders are going to have to put up with for years to come as a result of that. But apparently no the Government of the day knows so much that they don't need to at least consult on such Draconian methods. That I think is very very sad and I think is a disappointment for a Government that touts itself as being so open so transparent and so in touch with the needs of New Zealanders. Well I tell you what there are all sorts of political regimes throughout the world who make the same claims with just a little bit more disastrous effect."
SpeechCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I will call the Hon Gerry Brownlee but I just make the point that actually this bill in front of us here does not contain anything about releasing documents whether they're legally privileged—so let's make sure that we are focused on the clauses in the bill.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Look the clock hasn't gone back to zero so I'll take a point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That's because I haven't done it.Hon Gerry Brownlee: My point of order is that—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh it's a point of order?Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh I beg your pardon.Hon Gerry Brownlee: No no hang on oh was that—oh yeah that's right. My—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The Minister was on his feet yeah.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yeah my point is—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You're taking a point of order.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes just to make it clear with you so I don't stray into the wrong sort of territory that the issue is about the consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. The Minister has said the reason for them not wanting to put it in the bill—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I understand that.Hon Gerry Brownlee: —relates to the release of documents. It's impossible not to mention the release of documents in some rebuttal of his position. So with that can I make my start?Hon David Parker: Speaking to the point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well I'm not actually quite sure what the point of order is because this is a debatable point. All I did was make sure that we were directing the conversation in this committee towards the provisions in the bill. So I don't really think there's a point of order and I'm happy to continue with the discussion.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I want to respond to the question or the assertion of the Hon Gerry Brownlee—and I wrote it down. He said Nobody's going to do what is not in the interests of New Zealand." as to why we should consult with the Leader of the Opposition. I'm going to put on record what's just been happening in the last week. The Leader of the Opposition having been offered a confidential brief of legal—Hon Gerry Brownlee: You tried to gag him.Hon Member: Gagging order.Hon Member: It's called legal privilege.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! Order! Order! All of you.Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you Madam Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition having been offered a confidential look at the legal advice he seemed so desperate to see said he didn't want to receive it because he wanted to make it public. He is a lawyer. He knows that legal professional privilege does not exist on that basis.Hon Dr Nick Smith: It can be waivered at any time.Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes it can be waived but it's not for the Opposition to waive it; it is for the Attorney-General to waive it. It is an over 100-year-old precedent of this Parliament entrenched in the legislation of this House that it is not even for Parliament to waive that privilege. The Leader of the Opposition then purported to issue a summons to require that privilege to be waived and said that he would override it.It is for the Government to make these decisions and we will. We will be held to account for the decisions that we will make but they are governmental decisions. We are introducing further scrutiny through the provisions in this bill but we are not going to devolve those decision-making responsibilities to the Opposition."
Parker DavidPart 2 Provisions to limit the risk of outbreak or spread of COVID-19Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): This is the part that has the powers that can be specified in a clause 11 order which is the equivalent of the old section 70 orders under the Health Act. I make the point that all of the powers that are listed there have broader equivalence under the Health Act. So why this is we think desirable is that this makes it clear that you can have narrower versions of those powers—for example rather than closing premises it's made express that premises can be conditionally open so that rather than them being closed they are open albeit with rules relating to maximum numbers and social distancing.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): The issues that come up in Part 2 I'll leave for Part 2. The issue in respect of the definition of a private dwelling" in this Part 1 what I said earlier and I'm not sure whether the member had the opportunity to hear it was that proposed addition to the definitions of "specified private premises means a private dwellinghouse or marae" is coming out. We're reverting then to the original wording in the bill in clause 20 but when we get to that we are taking out the words "or marae" so that we don't have that distinction."
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): With all due respect to the very emotional—unusually emotional—speech from the Hon David Parker it was really a bit like pointing at a tree and saying Look at that; there's a squirrel running up there." Well over here there's a really serious issue. That serious issue is that there is no basis under the law at the moment for the director-general to declare a pandemic. There's no basis under law at the moment for there to be a state of civil emergency to be declared. So if in fact the efforts of New Zealanders—which have been pretty splendid I've got to say—have got us to this point what's the fear factor that says that we now can't trust New Zealanders to do the right things moving forward?Let's be very clear. Those people that you cite Minister—in the flat parties in Dunedin and various other things—are going to continue doing that sort of thing anyway. They're nutters; they don't listen and they don't care. So to say "Well we've got to protect the population against the worst health effects that may come from that irresponsible behaviour." tends to deny the fact that it is irresponsible to see so many New Zealanders day after day—1000 a day and probably more. It won't be long before the daily toll of people going on to the jobseeker benefit losing their jobs unemployed matches the entire number of people who've been infected by COVID virus over the last seven weeks.So all we're saying is this goes too far. It puts far too much power in the hands of one person: the Prime Minister. There are no—there are no—controls in this or suggestions in this or you would say references in this as to what advice the Prime Minister should take. Now everyone knows Prime Ministers take advice. Everyone knows also Prime Ministers can make decisions that their whole caucus will go along with. But to legislate in here for that particular power I think is somewhat over the top."
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): That's a very good point made by my colleague because we're being asked to pass this legislation because there is going to be no pandemic notice there is going to be no state of civil emergency. So that raises the question: what is the basis for the fear that the Government has to the extent that they need to pass legislation that is going to seriously continue impinging on the civil liberties of New Zealanders? I don't want to be here saying that we shouldn't take any precautions or that we shouldn't be sensible or that we shouldn't watch the opportunities that we have to prevent the spread of this particular disease. But it appears that there is no trust that New Zealanders in the main can be sensible because let's be very clear the New Zealanders who broke the rules during 4 and 3 will continue to break the rules under 2 regardless of any law that might be there. So why do we then need to impose such incredible restrictions on New Zealanders?My colleague made the right point. Mr Hudson made it clear that it's the Prime Minister under this bill who calls all the shots. Why isn't there some kind of protection for the public in there needing to be some stream of demonstrable advice about why a particular measure is being taken? I'd like the Minister to address that particularly the issue of no pandemic notice no state of civil emergency. But somehow something driving a degree of fear in the Government that New Zealanders would not act sensibly having so willingly voluntarily—because it would appear there wasn't any legal compulsion—interrupted their lives so dramatically as they have in the last seven weeks to get on top of this thing.
Davis KelvinHon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd like to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 497—and in particular the amendment to clause 5(1) which deletes the definition of specified private premises" and it has an impact on clause 20.This goes to what the member Alfred Ngaro said in terms of marae being targeted Māori feeling that because the word "marae" is in the bill that they're feeling targeted. Now the intention was to give marae the greatest protection that we could. The confusion that is being caused is that people think that we are specifically targeting marae. So what we've done is listen to the concerns of Māoridom. We've heard from the Māori Council. We've spoken to a number of people in our Māori community. We've seen the reaction to marae being in here specifically so what we're doing is removing that.But Māoridom has to be careful what they wish for—that's the problem—because what this now does is it reduces the protections that were being afforded to marae. I want to be clear that our intention was to give marae the best protection that we possibly could. We have heard the concerns. We have listened to Māori who think that marae are being particularly targeted. We've made the changes and listened to what Māoridom are saying.So unfortunately it reduces the protections that were to be afforded to marae. But that is what Māoridom has asked for and that's what the SOP does by deleting the definition of "specified private premises"—and in clause 20 we're removing reference to "marae" specifically. But I think to be honest that it isn't really what should have been done; we should have maintained the protections for marae. But because of the confusion this is what we've done. Thank you Mr Chair."
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Mr Chairman thank you and I won't be needing all of those minutes and seconds.I raise two points and I just wanted to touch on the second one of them and seek clarification. It's actually a segue into the start of Part 2 which is the likelihood that this bill will be used if we need to go back into level 3 or level 4. I heard the Attorney-General say that that would be the case—turning to his officials and just seeking confirmation that that would be the case. Now there are options for the Government to use the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act and section 70 of the Health Act but the Attorney-General made it really clear that this is going to be the Act—once it's passed—that we would use to strengthen lockdown.So I think we need to be very clear. In my understanding—the Attorney-General can correct me if I'm wrong—this is now the vehicle for any form of lockdown for the next two years. Any form of constraints on freedom—this is what we're talking about. So in terms of its purpose it is much broader and raises the question once again of whether the other statutory powers that the Government had were sufficient to take us into the place that we have been in the last seven weeks.
Rurawhe AdrianTUESDAY 12 MAY 2020(continued on Wednesday 13 May 2020)COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 1 Preliminary provisions (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Tēnā rā tātou katoa i runga i te tuku iho o rātou mā ki te wāhi ngaro.[Greetings to all. I acknowledge those who have been sent below to the spirit realm.]Members when the sitting was suspended last night the committee was debating the question that Part 1 stand part. The Hon Michael Woodhouse had the call and he has three minutes 37 seconds remaining.
Tuesday 12 May 2020 - Volume 745
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Bill read a second time.
COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Bill read a first time.
COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That urgency be accorded.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Motion agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill be now read a second time. Ayes 119New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.Noes 1ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a second time.
COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill — Second Reading (continued)
12. Question No. 12—HealthKIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 12—Health12. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about what Budget 2020 will mean for district health boards and the services they provide?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): This morning the Minister of Finance and I announced a record investment in hospitals and health services. We announced that Budget 2020 will deliver the biggest ever increase in funding for district health boards as well as additional funding to deliver approximately 153000 surgeries and procedures radiology scans and specialist appointments to help clear the COVID-19 backlog.Kieran McAnulty: Why has the Government prioritised this spending in Budget 2020?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: A good question. Historically successive Governments have under-invested in health. One of the key lessons of COVID-19 is the need for a strong and sustainable public health and disability system. Budget 2020 continues this Government's record of tackling a legacy of neglect. Around the world COVID-19 has wrought devastation on underprepared health systems. It is absolutely critical that as a country we continue to invest in and build up the capacity of our health system. That is what the Government is committed to doing.Kieran McAnulty: What types of procedures will be funded by this new money?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The record investment in DHBs of an extra $3.92 billion over four years will help improve their financial sustainability and clinical delivery. It will also enable them to meet the costs of a growing and ageing population and already agreed wage increases. Ministers have also approved $282.5 million including $50 million of capital to deliver an estimated 153000 planned care procedures such as elective surgery radiology scans assessments and follow-ups and procedures completed in outpatient facilities. Although critical and urgent care continued even under alert level 4 we know that many procedures were delayed. Our hospitals are now returning to a more normal level of service but it will take time to recover and deal with the backlog.