Ardern Shane: Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill — Second Reading 
Ardern Shane: Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:6901] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I thank the Minister for his comments with regard to the Government Administration Committee. This was a rare opportunity for Parliament to be involved in legislation that had no politics in it at all. A completely multipartisan approach was taken to how we could get the best result which is not something that we all engage in on a regular occasion. This Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill was probably one of the most difficult bills that any select committee will ever have to deal with—that is trying to strike the balance between the amount of executive power we must give to any Government in the event of a pandemic and trying to keep a check and balance on that power with regard to parliamentary scrutiny. Certainly in the initial draft the executive would have had substantial powers. The Minister has spoken about that in his comments earlier. 
The bill was referred to the select committee on 9 May 2006. The closing date for submissions was 6 June 2006. We received considered and heard 18 submissions from interested groups and individuals. We also received briefings from the Law Commission. We received advice from the Minister of Health the Ministry of Health the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet the Ministry of Justice the Minister for the Environment the Minister for Social Development and Employment the Department of Labour the New Zealand Police the Inland Revenue Department the Department of Internal Affairs and the New Zealand Parole Board. So members can see that the select committee did not rush to a conclusion without taking the necessary advice from a number of people. Even then it was difficult to establish which Acts would need to be amended by this legislation. As the Minister said the primary Act was the Health Act 1956 but there were many other Acts. 
All sorts of problems fell out of the various discussions such as what would happen if there was a pandemic during the period when Parliament had been prorogued and we were in an election cycle or even if it occurred after an election when a new Government had been elected but had not been sworn in and it was not possible to meet for safety reasons. So I am pleased that the Minister has said that further work will be done and further legislation will be brought forward to look at that situation. The other issue that the select committee considered for some time was the length of time required. It was decided that a 3-month period once a pandemic had been gazetted was a reasonable time for the necessary actions to be taken and hopefully was about the right time for the country to get through whatever ailment it might have had inflicted on it. 
The bill is intended to ensure of course that the powers that are needed in those circumstances would be provided. A range of human rights issues and natural justice issues spill out of that aspect. The Law Commission under Sir Geoffrey Palmer advised us on a number of ways to try to bring about a balance between executive power and the powers necessary to react to the situation. We hope we will never need this legislation but if we do need it and we have not got the balance right many people will have an opinion on not only the work of the Ministry of Health and the advisory team but also the work of the select committee when the event takes place. The bill will ensure that should there be a human outbreak of avian influenza or a similar disease capable responses will be put in place for that situation to be dealt with. 
 The bill seeks to address some of the gaps in the Crown’s statutory powers under the Health Act as I said before. It also revokes certain provisions in the Health (Quarantine) Regulations. That was essential because if one has notice from overseas that there is potential for a disease to be heading our way then the necessary precautions have to be taken at the borders. The Minister said in his comments that people can be detained and questioned and suchlike but that they cannot be compulsorily treated. Obviously most people who had one of these highly contagious diseases would want themselves to be treated but some may on religious grounds or for whatever other reason—maybe they have no faith in the system—decline that treatment. Those people can be detained in quarantine but they will not be treated by force. That seemed like a reasonable compromise in that regard. 
Notification cannot come into force unless first of all it comes from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health both under the direction of the Director-General of Health in writing. We think that is a reasonable compromise. One of the things that was suggested and teased out in the select committee was a wartime-like Cabinet—a multiparty Cabinet. I suspect although it would be difficult to legislate for this that in the event of a pandemic there would be multiparty or cross-party discussions and the meeting of Parliament that is needed to ratify any such decision clearly enforces that to some extent anyway. The issue of Parliament meeting was a much-debated issue including where that might take place. The Governor-General has the power to decide that Parliament can meet wherever it is deemed to be necessary or safe to do so. It does not necessarily have to be in Wellington. There are also many safeguards in regard to who the Prime Minister the Minister of Health or in fact the Director-General of Health may be in the event that all those who hold those warrants are incapacitated as a result of some disease. 
On balance after lengthy consideration and also after consulting with the Regulations Review Committee on a number of occasions and bringing in legal advice from the Parliamentary Counsel Office the select committee has decided that this is about as good a shot as we could get at the legislation notwithstanding the issues the Minister has addressed that are still outstanding. We think that the Parliament should support this legislation going forward and make sure that New Zealand is well prepared in the event of a pandemic.