edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I'll just take a brief call but I'll begin by responding to Mr Bishop's confusion about whether or not we've voted on the Budget. We haven't actually voted on the Budget; we voted on a piece of legislation which may be related to the Budget but actually is not the Budget and we don't have to agree with every piece of legislation. I think that my colleagues would have given a very good explanation of why we weren't voting for the previous piece of legislation. But what is confusing is why National's making such a song and dance and big deal out of this which makes perfect sense to me. You look at it and you're like Well OK we had to suddenly close the border and set up a whole MIQ system while trying to deal with a pandemic here at home." You know we had the shutdown the economic shock and the Government's dealing with things right across the board trying to make sure we could still get supplies into and out of New Zealand when passengers are no longer really travelling between countries. The breadth and depth of work that had to be done to respond effectively to COVID-19 is almost impossible to describe and it's generally gone very very smoothly. I thought everybody agreed with the process around the managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) system fees. I mean the Greens had some concerns about it but ultimately I think we made changes so that it was only people who left after the law was passed who would be liable for MIQ fees when they came back. But I don't think there's any drama or debate or expectation on the part of Australians who are not resident in New Zealand that they would pay their share of MIQ fees. It's also perfectly understandable that there might need to be a technical change to make sure that's the case and that's what everybody expected. That was the policy and that was very clear. But as it is sometimes in legislation because of the nature of our relationship with Australia in that they have a very unique classification of their visa once they come into New Zealand they are classified as residents. That then has to be rectified because it was not intended that non-resident Australians would be treated as residents coming to New Zealand in that they wouldn't be liable for the fees. I don't think there's any surprise about that. It's not complicated it's not difficult and we commend this bill to the House."
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. Well that was an entertaining diatribe. I'm surprised Chris Bishop stretched that out for 10 minutes to be frank and the most entertaining thing I learnt was that the member likes to hang out behind the parliamentary bike sheds. I can only assume he's having a cigarette behind the bike sheds.So what we do in terms of doing this bill has happened quite a lot in the past and I'd have to draw upon my experience as a public servant under both Labour and National Governments. The technical amendment that is being made right now has happened very many times and it's tidying up legislation so that it works properly—those members opposite know damn right that it happens frequently—to make sure that the legislation that's been introduced to keep New Zealand safe to keep our borders safe is working appropriately.So the managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) fees regime that came into effect set up who's liable and there has to be a technical amendment to ensure that we are fair to our Australian brothers and sisters and all other Australians. There is an agreement in place and we are making sure that that is in place. The bill will resolve the technical issue by retrospectively validating the collection of MIQ charges from Australians in the temporary entry visa-holders class. It's an appropriate thing to do to make sure the good laws that have been introduced under urgency are operating effectively and I see it as a good and appropriate use of this House's time. Therefore I commend this bill to the House.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Obviously managing the COVID response has been a complex task and when rules are made sometimes with some urgency there's always going to be some tidying up to be done. This is simply that—to make sure the intent of the executive is properly implemented through law. It's a perfectly sensible piece of legislation and it's great to see that we're making real progress with it here today. I commend it to the House.
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you Madam Speaker. The National Party has expressed their concerns around this bill concerns around process and concerns around why we're covering this under urgency. The legislation was first created in 2020 and we have some further understanding that it was three weeks ago that it was first noted. It would be useful to know—there wasn't a lot of clarity—about how it was exactly picked up. Was it by a working group that's routinely looking at this? I think that would be useful so that we can also apply maybe those same tools to other parts of the response in August 2020 so that we're not back in the House doing similar things.We've expressed concerns around the numbers. We now understand as the Minister has put on the Table it is 600 to 650 people—maybe $1 million to $3 million. It raises the question as we have pointed out in the disclosure statement where it asked: has there been further impact analysis? That seems to be being done today rather than being available to us through the disclosure statement. We've commented on the other pieces of information that are lacking behind this and why that is the case and why we're coming today without parts of the regulatory impact analysis and really we have concern around the process the information that brings us here. Let's figure out what the learnings are that we can take from this—learning as to how it was picked up in the first place. How can we and might we apply it to other parts of the legislation that came through in August 2020? The learning as to why so late in the piece we're finding out the data elements and why that's not as clear and as crisp as we need to have at the border. How can we extract that learning from the three hours we've been here this morning and apply it to other parts of our coronavirus response?So as my colleagues have described it it is a relatively shoddy loose sort of piece of legislation. We understand why it's being done; we're just not completely happy with the process. I think the best we could make of the morning is what learnings can we take from it and what can we apply to the rest of the coronavirus response—hopefully with no further surprises on the pathway when we do that. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Hipkins ChrisThird ReadingHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I move—you've got to get the wording right Madam Speaker. I move That the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Validation of Managed Isolation and Quarantine Charges) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. As I've indicated this bill resolves a technical issue in the inconsistency between the way our immigration law has applied and the way managed isolation and quarantine charges have been applied. All those who have paid fees under this anomaly were expected to pay fees. There was a technical issue around whether or not they should have had to pay fees although the intent always was that they should. They've paid them. This bill validates those fee charges.
Dean Jacqui; Salesa JennyHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Validation of Managed Isolation and Quarantine Charges) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Just very quickly in terms of who was consulted—was the Australian Government consulted? No we didn't discuss this with the—well I certainly didn't discuss it with the Australian Government. In terms of departmental agencies it would be all those who were relevant to be involved in that. In terms of managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) it's the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment—the MIQ team there the immigration team there. Various Crown Law will have been involved. The Treasury of course will have been involved given the budgetary issues involved in that.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm going to continue this line around normally resident" because I worry that we've got to get the black-letter law right. "Normally resident" is a nomenclature that's used but not in this legislation or actually in immigration legislation. We use it in places like for the Overseas Investment Act—"ordinarily resident". We talk about it in the Income Tax Act and IRD policy on who is a tax resident. So there is a variety of different definitions of normally or ordinarily resident in New Zealand but that doesn't necessarily relate to their legal residency status. So I go back to that fundamental question because as I said neither of the COVID-19 Acts actually talk about "normally resident"; they talk about "residents". "Residents" has a legal status in accordance with the Immigration Act 2009. The Minister was sort of saying "Oh well 'residents' is fine but we don't apply it to 'normally resident'. We don't apply the charge to 'normally resident'." but that's not what the law says and there is no legal definition of "normally resident". So given that we are fixing a mistake of wording we've got to make absolutely sure we get the wording right."
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I just want to thank the Minister for providing a response on my questions. I appreciate that. That brings me now to a follow-up question which I have and I'm referring to the departmental disclosure statement page 7 and section 3.6. The question here is Has this bill had any external consultation on the policy to be given effect to the bill or the draft of the bill?" and the answer is no and then it articulates below actually "Consultation has taken place with relevant Government agencies." which I'm conflicted—I mean is it "No" or "Yes" in terms of that word? I want a little bit of clarity from the Minister: what is the degree if any of consultation that has been going on in regards to this piece of legislation? Specifically what departments have been engaged and in particular because we're dealing with our good friends across the Tasman in Australia what conversations and dialogue have occurred at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade with our colleagues our good friends those members across the Tasman with which we have a special relationship? What conversations have been had at ministry and official level particularly by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade with those entities around this issue? You know as the Minister has just articulated it's in the region of $1.5 million to $3.5 million and we don't baulk at those numbers; that's a heck of a lot of money. I think you know in keeping with our close relationship with Australia I would have expected at least a little bit of dialogue around "You know what guys? We've made a mistake again—not the first time but you know we've made a mistake. You know this is how it's going to look." and at least getting their feedback in terms of consultation around what they consider. So those are two questions I'd appreciate a little bit of clarity from the Minister on and then I've got only a couple more after that."
Woodhouse Michael; Hipkins ChrisHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I don't want to labour the point—and I'm not sure if there's still a consideration of the question that I have raised under way—but I refer the Minister to the Immigration New Zealand website for Australian residents and citizens. This is not related to COVID. This is the business-as-usual sort of advice that we give to Australians: the length of stay is indefinite you can visit live work and study in New Zealand and you can travel to New Zealand without first applying for a visa as long as you meet the character and entry permission requirements. Of course that changed with the critical worker visa last year but it's back to that now. Things to note: you can only apply for this visa when you arrive in New Zealand. You can't apply for it before you travel and here is the key: if you leave your New Zealand residence visa will expire. You can apply for a variation of travel conditions to allow you to travel without affecting your New Zealand residence status but it's my understanding that most don't do that. They don't need to because they just get it back on their return and so they wouldn't normally be thinking about this. I understand that because of that policy even longstanding Australian residents in New Zealand have a succession of: visa status as resident and then not when they leave. I may be wrong on that but if I am not then I'm still not confident that in our efforts to fix a problem for newly arriving Australians we aren't casting the net wider than that to include the potentially several thousand Australians normally resident here who left and then came back during this period. Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Quickly to run through some of those questions working backwards for them. In terms of newly arriving Australians I think the member answered his question himself earlier on—that quarantine-free travel largely avoids that issue unless there is a prolonged and significant delay to it. In terms of the Immigration New Zealand website as I indicated to the member before it's not so much an issue with immigration law. It's the way the regulations interact with the immigration law that has been the problem. In terms of how much this could be as I've indicated before without going through and addressing the records of every one of those individual people who has come from Australia and who could have been invoiced my advice is that it could be anything in the vicinity of $1.5 million to $3.5 million is roughly the range we could be talking about here. But those numbers are very approximate. Has anyone asked for a refund? I've not been advised of that. When did I first find out about it: it was about three weeks ago in one of my regular meetings with the team at managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ). They have been doing quite significant fees reviews of the way the fees-charging regime is applied in MIQ and my understanding is that this arose as a potential issue with that work that they have been doing bearing in mind that the fees regime was established in a hurry back in August of last year.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I appreciate that and I understand the intent but we cannot ignore what actually happens. The term normally resident in New Zealand" as I understand it is not one that's used in our immigration framework. For an Australian who departs New Zealand having been here over a period of time the fundamental question that I have is: do they lose their New Zealand residence and if they do what stops them from being caught in that net when the Government has said effectively "We want to treat Australians who have been here and who are normally resident in New Zealand in the same way that we would treat New Zealand residents and New Zealand citizens"—so we don't charge them for coming back—"but we do want to charge Australian citizens and residents who come here for the first time who get residence on arrival. They should be charged the fees as persons under clause 6 of the regulation."? I understand the description the Minister has just made but I'm still not clear whether their legal status puts them into the same class—that effectively being an Australian citizen with no New Zealand residence who is arriving into the country and could be captured by the change we're about to make. I just want to get confidence that in our efforts to belts and braces the law for the people who the Government does want to charge and has charged we're not then unintentionally casting the net much wider to Australian citizens normally resident in New Zealand who lose their resident status if they had departed for a few months."
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Right so that's very helpful. Well it goes back to my question about the manner in which we're doing that because it seems rather superficial to be here on a Friday morning after Budget day tidying up a technical error in primary legislation but not giving anybody a say. We're hardly having a say because the members on the other side want to shut down debate and we represent good constructive opposition and proposition when it comes to legislation but I go back to the point of no taxation without representation. If the point was to change primary legislation so that the Government is not seen to be hiding—and I can understand that—well then give it a week. Let's have that conversation. By their own general policy statement they're not even sure if it is unlawful—and I'll come to that in the context of clause 4—but surely it undermines the Government's efforts to be transparent about a mistake that was made if it then just rushes it through. It might as well have just rewritten the regulation got the Governor-General to sign it and we'd all move on. They could have issued a press release. They'd get accused of burying it after the Budget. They could've done that three weeks ago actually if the timeline by the Minister is correct. So we now know we don't have to be here. We're only here so that the Government can appear transparent when they're not transparent. Clause 3 agreed to.
COVID-19 Public Health Response (Validation of Managed Isolation and Quarantine Charges) Amendment Bill — In Committee Clause 3
Woodhouse Michael; Hipkins ChrisHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): So if I might understand what the Minister has told the committee is that indeed the definitions of who is eligible and required to pay the managed isolation and quarantine fees is actually in the regulation but that because this is a retrospective validation of a levy that's been imposed the Government felt it necessary to bring a bill to the House to enable that to occur. Is that what I heard the Minister say?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): That is correct.
COVID-19 Public Health Response (Validation of Managed Isolation and Quarantine Charges) Amendment Bill — In Committee Clause 2
Woodhouse Michael; Hipkins ChrisClause 3 Principal ActHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): On the face of it we wouldn't normally be debating clause 3. But in our discussions on both clause 3 and clause 4 I think the committee would benefit from an explanation about why we are amending primary legislation and it may be necessary that the Minister could navigate the committee's way through the relationship between the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act and the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Managed Isolation and Quarantine Charges) Regulations because I have in the very short time that we have been able to consider this bill been trying to draw a nexus between the primary and secondary legislation to satisfy myself that we even need to be here. If one looks at the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act it contains provisions for charging in managed isolation and quarantine—that's understood—and it sets out the circumstances and the exceptions. But I can't find in the primary legislation which is related to clause 3 a place where we actually say that New Zealand citizens and residents are exempt from those charges in certain circumstances and that's the problem we're trying to solve because an Australian citizen becomes a New Zealand permanent resident on arrival. But I can see it in the regulation and in particular at clause 6 of that updated regulation where it describes that a specified person is anyone to whom 1 or more of the following applies:" and therefore why don't we just by Order in Council fix this up? If the Minister could point to the basis for the amendment being required inside the Act and not the regulation I think the committee would be very grateful. Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Just very briefly having been in the House for a number of years myself it's not uncommon—in fact it is standard and expected practice—that the Parliament has been asked to validate something that has happened where there may have been a technical question about whether there was a lawful authority to do that. It is common practice. It is standard practice for that to be done through legislation in the House."
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I appreciate the response from the Minister but I would remind him that the strong democratic principle of no taxation without representation is really really important including for our Australian friends who on arrival are granted a residence class visa and therefore they become to all intents and purposes Kiwis. So they're not being represented. Nobody is actually having an opportunity to have their say on this—the immigration agents the immigration lawyers the people who have supported those through managed isolation and quarantine—and I think it's unfortunate that we are not giving them an opportunity to have a say.Clause 2 agreed to.
Woodhouse Michael; Hipkins ChrisClause 2 CommencementCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that clause 2 stand part.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): We are in a debate. We might not want to quibble too much about the title but I am interested in the commencement of this and I have some questions for the Minister particularly around timing so it may be appropriate to do that in this part of the bill. If I interpret this correctly because of the trans-Tasman bubble the matter is effectively ended. No Australian citizen or resident coming from Australia would be required to spend time in managed isolation or quarantine at that time. So effectively we have closed the door on any future charging unless circumstances change. So I guess my question is: why the hurry? Why have we got a commencement date that is so immediate two days after we even found out about the problem? Is he confident that he has sufficient information to retrospectively validate this in the manner in which he's doing—and I'll expand on that in clauses 3 and 4? Was consideration given to actually kicking this to a select committee for a week or potentially while the power might be given having a back door out to say Well we did get this wrong." and therefore not make the legislation effective quite so quickly?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Madam Chair if I could comment very briefly on that. I'm happy to get into that in more detail when we talk about clause 4 which I think is the main clause that the member is referring to and clause 5 of course which is about the amendment of regulations. But just very briefly on timing the ultimate issue here is that we want to provide certainty. Everybody who entered the country and paid these fees expected when they came to New Zealand that they were going to be paying them. They came to the country on that basis and they have paid those fees in large part or they may have a fee outstanding depending on the timing of their invoicing. So I don't think anyone is going to be feeling aggrieved by this legislation because it simply aligns a technical legal distinction with the policy and practice that has already been in place."
Dean JacquiIn CommitteeClause 1 TitleCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is in committee on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Validation of Managed Isolation and Quarantine Charges) Amendment Bill. The question is that clause 1 stand part.Clause 1 agreed to.
Leavasa Dr Anae NeruDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Thank you Mr Speaker. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): I just want to comment on the irony that is that the ACT Party is talking about actually holding the charge for this when this actually is a prudent move in terms of tax. New Zealanders have paid for this and Australians don't and it's really important that the cost lies with the people who actually ate the food and stayed in the hotels and came here knowing that they would be charged for it. So it's an important and prudent move on the part of the Government. I commend this bill to the House.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): I commend this bill to the House Madam Speaker. Thank you.
McDowall JamesDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Madam Speaker thank you very much. It is a great shame that Ingrid Leary didn't appreciate my opposition or dissertation" in her words. But I actually think it is important that Government MPs actually understand immigration and border law because I suspect they're getting their advice from the Minister of Immigration and that really does worry me. Furthermore based on some of the speeches that I've heard this morning from the Labour MPs they possibly don't seem to understand this bill either. Bad immigration policy-making led to this point. There is so much bad immigration policy out there in the wild. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has changed their immigration policy towards Australia—well they changed it during COVID for God only knows what reasons. It was a very strange approach and unnecessary. But very obvious issues like this will arise and somehow more than 4000 staff at MBIE didn't see this coming. I just think what else have they missed? My goodness.So our opposition—Hon Michael Woodhouse: All the Immigration staff missed it too apparently.Dr JAMES McDOWALL: Exactly Mr Woodhouse. So our opposition is simple: retrospective charging is unfair especially under urgency like this. MBIE's bad policy-making towards Australians is their problem. They should move on and do better next time. Lastly we should treat our Australian cousins in good faith and not do stuff like this. Thank you Madam Speaker."
SpeechDr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Firstly to everybody happy Pink Shirt Day: Kōrero Mai Kōrero Atu Mauri Tū Mauri Ora! This bill makes a technical fix to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act to retrospectively clarify that charging managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) fees to Australians who have come here who are not ordinarily resident that it was actually legal.In the 52nd Parliament the Green Party supported Government policy and legislation in this area when we decided to apply charges to anybody re-entering this country. We had negotiated a few changes at that time and we supported it. So when those were implemented—and we understand the policy intent very much was to be consistent—that Australian citizens permanent residents they would have to pay like everybody else. This bill also clarifies that those who arrive with temporary entry status were definitely liable for that. We note that it also amends regulations that tidies these things up. And so because this is a technical fix we are going to support it.I would like to comment as a member of the Health Committee that I actually support some of the comments that were made earlier that perhaps we might have identified this earlier and if the Health Committee were actually able to do our proper scrutiny and to speak to MIQ officials we might have helped pick this up sooner and dealt with it sooner.So the Greens do not normally support retrospective actions. In this case we think it is technical and urgency seems justified to us to get it sorted. The policy is in effect it's all happening. Let's tidy up the mess and anything that's untidy. So we commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.
Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I rise to take a call on this because I feel like on Friday morning there is about 85 other things we could be doing. I actually agree with the member for Taieri and the point Simon Watts said but instead what we're doing is we're here debating an absolutely—it seems to me—pointless bill. I actually want to know—we haven't had any good answers to this; I hope we will get them in the committee stage—whether this actually needs primary legislation. Does this even need that given that it's a regulatory matter? It's in the rules and I wonder out loud actually whether this could have just been done regulatory-wise in secondary legislation—if it even needs the bill that we're talking about. I stand here and Julie Anne Genter thought I was getting rather metaphysical on things—why are we here? What are we doing? Are there paranormal activities going on in this Parliament? No that's not one of the things but I do ask: why are we doing this right now in urgency given that it seems this is pretty pointless? I note it's retrospective. Actually that's not good enough. I thought Chris Bishop was rather generous in the way he approached this by saying there are occasions when retrospective law is appropriate; not many actually. And yes for a supposedly busy Government that's had a big Budget spent a lot of money has talked a big game actually in the 24 hours post that on a Friday morning when some are tired and emotional here we are right now doing this.Shanan Halbert: Who's tired and emotional?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well not me but ask Chris Bishop because he got himself in a barrel of hot water not naming names but certainly throwing a few lines out in that regard. I say once again: this seems unnecessary. It's wrong in principle that it's retrospective. I hope Chris Hipkins while he's been out of the House has found the paranormal activity shown David Parker where the UFOs are—I don't know done something useful with his time because he's certainly not on this day at this time in bringing this little bill before the House that I question is even necessary.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Can I acknowledge everyone who is wearing their pink shirt this morning on this wonderful Friday morning that I love to spend with you all. Now Pink Shirt Day works to create schools workplaces communities and whānau where everyone feels safe everyone feels valued and everyone feels respected.Simon Court: Just not Australians!SHANAN HALBERT: Just not Australians in this discussion. But I do encourage those that are wearing pink shirts today to uphold those values in the work that we're doing on this wonderful Friday morning.But my support for the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Validation of Managed Isolation and Quarantine Charges) Amendment Bill this morning—I acknowledge our wonderful Minister and Prime Minister in the work that they've done on COVID-19. There are some steps that we've had to work through and these are one of them—it's a simple amendment it's nothing for us to sweat over but it is something that we have to do.And to the Opposition: I do encourage you to scrutinise the Government scrutinise the work that we do but today you are opposing this for opposition's sake. That is not the style of politics that I want to participate in and I'm calling you out for it. So this morning I commend this bill to the House.
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you Madam Speaker. We'd like to continue this discussion and raise some points that came up in the first reading. The argument was made that no one misleads or deceives and so this is actually OK. That's the new standard clearly for setting legislation by this Government. So long as you don't mislead or deceive it's all good to go. So you can impose a badness as long as you tell people about it—you haven't misled them; you haven't deceived them. That explains the philosophy behind yesterday's Budget. They weren't misled or deceived by the bad things that came through in the Budget; therefore it's good to go. That's the interpretation we should take from that contribution saying Nothing to see here. No one was misled or deceived." I think it sets a principle for the legislative reform for this Government.I think there are other points in the second reading that just need a moment's thought. One of my colleagues said "Some of my best friends are Australian." Surely that is my " 'I can see Russia from here.' moment"—surely that is the equivalent for that. I'd have to say the Minister's first reading where he led off with a legislative statement for three minutes—that's not a legislative statement; that's a haiku! That's the only way you could call it. That was so brief; that's a haiku. And really we need a lot more detail than what the Minister presented leading up to the first reading to make any sort of valid judgments here. So a lot of work to do on this bill. I think my colleague Chris Bishop and others are pointing out a lot of faults and flaws that bring us here under urgency for a bill that shouldn't be under urgency and that is weak in its background and detail. Reluctantly we will see this progressing through the House. Thank you Madam Speaker."
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Madam Speaker it's a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning. I thought I might recap on what's been a riveting session where we had a dissertation read from an ACT member we had the Greens accuse the Opposition of opposition for opposition's sake and then the lecturing from the other side became so intense that I fell asleep and nearly missed my call. We're effectively litigating a technicality. And I'd just like to correct Mr Bishop. The best law school in New Zealand is the one I went to in Otago as Mr Woodhouse knows. I commend this bill to the House.
Mahuta NanaiaSecond ReadingHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for COVID-19 Response: I move That the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Validation of Managed Isolation and Quarantine Charges) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The bill does two things. First the bill retrospectively validates the collection of managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) charges from Australian temporary entry - class visa holders including critical workers and critical health workers as prescribed and collected under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. This change is to ensure it is clear that previous charges are and always have been valid. This will be done by a new section inserted into the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020.Secondly the bill amends the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Managed Isolation and Quarantine Charges) Regulations 2020 to clarify that MIQ charges should apply on the basis of the visa or border exception a person travels to New Zealand on rather than the visa they are granted on entry if that is different. This change will help make sure this type of technical issue does not arise in the future.I would like to once again state that this bill is purely technical and validates charges that were understood and intended to be lawful. The bill does not change Government policy around who is liable for MIQ charges or how much the charges are. I commend the bill to the House.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): I commend this bill to the House.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Mr Speaker—[Interruption] Sorry Mr Speaker I must have been a little bit asleep during the ACT dissertation on the reasons—the deep philosophical reasons—why we should not be passing this legislation. And I can't believe that the Opposition are seriously suggesting that we do a full impact report involving officials' time and money on something that is correcting a piece of legislation. It is opposition for opposition's sake. We're not relitigating the border policy. It would be great if ACT and National actually put as much care into people and policy rather than these technical minutiae which is putting some of us who had a rather large night celebrating an incredible Budget yesterday—it's making it very difficult to sit here and listen to these dissertations. I'd just like to crack on and get through the day; so I commend this bill to the House.
Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Mr Speaker as my friend as my colleague Mr Damien O'Connor mentioned it's hard to find the perfect man and it turns out that even Chris Hipkins is not immune to imperfection. I said imperfection"—he is human. We have done extraordinarily well. Chris Hipkins and his team including the amazing border workers and the doctors have done extraordinarily well. Every now and again you get a little technical hiccup. This is probably the moment to say that some of my best friends are Australians. They are our cousins but they are not our brothers and sisters and they don't get the same protection as New Zealanders do. This is probably a good moment to mention that my grandmother is Australian—Kieran McAnulty: Oh I'm sorry.Dr EMILY HENDERSON: I know; it's hard. But this is a good bill. It is a simple bill. It is technical but there's no fuss to be made over it and I'm really surprised that anyone would be trying to get in the way of what's been a superb response to COVID. I commend this bill to the House."
Leavasa Dr Anae Neru; Rurawhe AdrianDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Fa'afetai lava Mr Speaker. It is a privilege again to rise to take a brief call on this first reading of the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Validation of Managed Isolation and Quarantine Charges) Amendment Bill which is a mouthful! It is pretty much—and many of my colleagues have mentioned—something that is trying to correct a technical anomaly with the bill itself. So I commend our COVID-19 Minister and the work that he's done and the ministry that has done the work for our people and community in New Zealand. I thank and take this opportunity also just to acknowledge the managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) workers and also those who go in and do the continual testing of our people. I acknowledge my wife and her team; they go into these MIQ places as well in Auckland. This is a simple bill and that's why I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I have to say I've never seen a better example of opposition for opposition's sake than the National Party opposing a minor technical bill and making a deal about it being retrospective legislation.Hon Simon Bridges: She couldn't even work out how to vote on the last bill.Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: So I guess they'll be here yelling all morning but honestly this is a pretty simple technical fix. There's no mystery. It makes perfect sense—[Interruption]DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Simon Bridges and Kieran McAnulty—really difficult for me to hear the person speaking when you are having a conversation across the Chamber. You're not meant to do it.Hon Simon Bridges: I apologise. I get wound up by socialists.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah—order! You're also not meant to comment while I'm making a ruling or on the ruling Mr Bridges.Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The vast majority of New Zealanders have been extremely pleased with how the Government has handled the COVID-19 situation. Obviously a lot of things had to be done incredibly quickly and it's not surprising that they've realised that the special relationship with Australia meant that their visa status was technically different than it should have been if they weren't normally resident in New Zealand. Hon Simon Bridges: Why are we here?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It sounds like the Hon Simon Bridges has some very deep philosophical questions about why he's here—a good question. But anyway—look the Green Party's supporting the bill. There's really no drama. I can't believe they're going to drag this out and make a big thing of it but then I kind of can. Thanks.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): Helen White—good morning Mr Speaker.Kieran McAnulty: Is it Emily? Oh it's Helen!HELEN WHITE: Ha ha! We have a small problem of too many blondes on this side of the House. Listen I just—Hon Simon Bridges: Ha ha! Can I say that? Am I allowed to say that?HELEN WHITE: Ha ha! I stand in support of this bill and as a lawyer I take note of the issues with regard to retrospectivity but I would also say it's one of the areas where I'm most comfortable with that kind of decision because as we know as lawyers proportionality's pretty important. So is the fact that nobody in this situation was misled or deceived. This was a situation where the people who were going to be subject to this change actually expected to pay the fees that they've paid and that is the way you cause least damage. So this is a law that will change just to meet the expectation of the people affected and it's a very sensible change. It's also one that happened in a situation of great urgency and I join my colleagues in commending the Minister for COVID-19 Response for the way that he handled an incredible crisis in our society. We have managed that extremely well much to the chagrin of the Opposition. Thank you. I commend this bill to the House.
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I stand to lend my support to my colleague Chris Bishop who has kicked off our approach to this bill. More specifically we have concerns around the process that brings this bill to the House and what's rightly been asked is: why is it taking so long to address this? When did we first find out that this was an issue?I think what that also talks to if we look at the disclosure statement the fact that any potential work or evaluation or supporting information around this is absolutely absent. If we look at the background material are there any publicly available evaluations? No. Were there any regulatory impact statements? No. Has there been any impact analysis? No. Any cost benefit analysis? No. I mean we could just make our way page on page: had advice been provided from the Attorney-General around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? No. Any external consultation? No. And yet here we are under urgency—let's understand this: three weeks ago they realised there was an issue and none of those points have been taken into account. This looks very shoddy in the background.I want to come back to the number that the Minister's pointing towards—600 to 650. Why do we not know that number? How hard can it be to count people coming across the border and to integrate information from the border from customs and our border people from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and to get an absolute number for people that are involved? You know maybe this also talks to why there's some issue in recovering fees for those who should have paid their managed isolation and quarantine fees because we're just not doing appropriate data collection and data analysis at the border and I think this bill just lends itself this very shoddy bill to that sort of inquiry when we don't really have any information and we don't have any detail around how we come to be here discussing this sort of thing.So I'm hoping in the second reading and in the committee of the whole House the Minister can add further information to that. The key points that you've heard us put on the table today is: when did they first understand it what wider information have they gathered around this particularly around impact analysis and cost-benefit analysis and then thirdly I guess we'd have to look at it and say the argument is being made that this happened because it was done under urgency around about August. Have they run a fine-tooth comb through other parts of that legislation to make sure we're not here again under urgency repairing similar faults? So it will be very interesting to see as this progresses over the next few hours. Thank you.
O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): I'm happy to take a call and offer a few comments in support of my colleague. He and his officials have done an exceptional job through COVID I have to say and put in place—very rapidly—the necessary legislation. He's very very good but he's not perfect. He's not perfect and so we have acknowledged that the intent of the bill in the legislation was really clear but the implementation was not. So what we're doing—and every Parliament has the responsibility to amend things that are clearly identified as being wrongSo the intent was quite clear we did want to charge Australians who were coming in but the ability to do that was not put in place through the legislation. So I think the Minister is doing the right thing—he's come to the House to clarify any points that member of the Opposition want; we are here to help always. So I think this is an appropriate thing to make the adjustments as necessary as identified in hindsight as we've moved through this process. So I support the bill and its passage through the House.
Hipkins ChrisCOVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE (VALIDATION OF MANAGED ISOLATION AND QUARANTINE CHARGES) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I present to the House a legislative statement on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Validation of Managed Isolation and Quarantine Charges) Amendment Bill.DEPUTY SPEAKER: That statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I move That the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Validation of Managed Isolation and Quarantine Charges) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. This bill is a very simple bill. But by way of background first the Parliament last year in August last year passed legislation in a hurry that allowed the Government to introduce charges for managed isolation and quarantine. Those coming into the country should be charged under certain circumstances. The policy intent there was that New Zealanders returning home—those who had been away for a period of time a long period of time—should not be charged; those who were staying for a reasonable period of time—at that point 90 days; subsequently increased to 180 days—should not be charged; but others should. So those coming in on essential work visas those coming in short term—they should be charged. That was the intent of the Government and the intent that the Parliament endorsed.What subsequently has come to light is that those Australians who have come to New Zealand on those visitor visas on those short-term work visas and so on regardless of the visa status that they came to New Zealand under they automatically get converted to a residence class visa when they arrive in New Zealand. That was not made apparent to the Government that that would have an implication on the charging regime at the time the charging regime was introduced. Therefore this legislation corrects that anomaly and ensures that those who have been charged—and the advice that I have had is it's impossible to estimate with precision exactly how many people could be affected but it would be in the vicinity of around 600 to 650 people who could have been charged and could have paid. It makes clear that those charges should be validated—because that was the intent: to ensure that those people were charged and paid—and corrects this anomaly so that people in the future who are in that category can continue to be charged. So it's a very simple legislative fix. It is of course regrettable that this was not foreseen at the time the legislation was passed. I would remind the House of the circumstances under which it was passed back in August last year which were that it was done in a rush. It was passed very quickly. This issue was not foreseen was not identified and has now been identified. It's important that we fix it so that we can make sure that those people who had always intended to be charged and have been charged—to make sure that those fees are valid.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.