Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill. I just wanted to start by saying that the clue is in the title—that it is a public health response bill. I'll just start with a couple of points made by some members of the Opposition. Dr Reti asked the question about whether the Consumer Guarantees Act would apply to this on the basis that this is a service that is being delivered to the individual. That's actually an argument against this bill rather than for it because people are being quarantined because they have to be quarantined. If they're being quarantined in particular types of hotels it's because they are the ones that enable us to actually manage the public health outcomes not because we're shouting everyone a two-week holiday in a four- or five-star hotel because we want to but because that is the level that is necessary in order to ensure that we can actually keep people safe.Dan Bidois who just sat down was talking about essentially the cost of this and how we need to recover the costs from New Zealanders who are coming in. This is a complete reversal from everything that we've done up until this point of course because we've laid out tens of billions of dollars actually and we haven't recovered the costs of those. It will come back via the tax system over time and people who are moving home pay taxes. People who are returning from overseas will move here and will pay taxes and will contribute to the public health response not just for their quarantine but the tens of billions of dollars that we are outlaying to support all New Zealanders through this crisis. So the very premise of what they're talking about—the question is: why are we seeking as part of a massive public health programme affecting every part of the economy why is it that we're singling out one group of New Zealanders for cost recovery and not everybody? I want to turn—Tracey Martin mentioned the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and I think it is worth just sort of mentioning a few things. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act guarantees to every New Zealand citizen the right to enter New Zealand—that's section 18(2). It doesn't say the right to enter New Zealand if you pay a $3000 fee." It also says that New Zealanders have the right not to be subject to torture. It doesn't say that "you have the right not to be subject to torture if you pay a $3000 fee." It says that we have the right to freedom of expression. It does not say "you have the right to freedom of expression if you pay a $3000 fee." It says "the right of peaceful assembly" not "the right of peaceful assembly if you pay a $3000 fee". So the New Zealand Bill of Rights and I know that this House does pass legislation—unfortunately fairly frequently—which contravenes or is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights. That doesn't make it a good idea right? Just because we do that because we have that facility under our legislation doesn't mean that we should. And I think that we should seek where at all possible to uphold the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Otherwise it's not worth the paper that it is written on. Regardless of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act I think that this is a matter of fundamental fairness. New Zealanders who have left New Zealand prior to the outbreak of COVID-19 or prior to understanding that there would be compulsory quarantine with a cost attached to it it's fundamentally unfair to retrospectively—and remember we do try and avoid law that is retrospective to say to people "That's bad luck. You left New Zealand perhaps 10 years ago. You now find yourself in a situation where you're returning to New Zealand and because there's a global pandemic we're going to charge you. But we're not going to charge other New Zealanders. In fact other New Zealanders we're actually paying their wages for them." It's only this group of New Zealanders who live overseas at the moment who are forced to return home due to the pandemic that we're saying "Well we're not going to support you the way that we're supporting everybody else. We're going to charge you instead." That's fundamentally unfair. I mean it creates two classes of New Zealanders: those who live in New Zealand and those who are currently outside the country. I have to say that I think that the treatment of New Zealanders living overseas in relation to this debate has been appalling. The expat community has been the subject of abuse and denigration for daring to return to their homeland. The team of 5 million I have to say is all of us not just those of us who live in New Zealand versus those of us who live overseas or are currently overseas. I would like us as we go through this debate to return to some of the fundamental principles—where we started as we were moving into the pandemic crisis into the state of emergency—where we said "Look out for each other be kind support each other. This is about all of us not just some of us." I will support this bill through the House."