5. Question No. 5—HealthHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 5—Health5. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Did he intend for the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 to provide for the mandatory testing of certain individuals; if so was the Director-General of Health referring to mandatory testing when he said on 9 June from today everyone in managed isolation … will be tested twice during that period whether they have symptoms or not around day three and around day 12"? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): The COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 provides that orders can be made under the Act to require persons to "report for medical examination or testing"—section 11(1)(a)(viii). That Act maintains the 9 April 2020 section 70 order under the Health Act 1956 by the Director-General of Health which includes requirements for mandatory testing. Hon Michael Woodhouse: So if testing is mandatory or can be mandatory rather why were people in managed isolation given information advising them of their right to refuse a test? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That is something I have requested answers for because I find it unacceptable. Hon Michael Woodhouse: So are all individuals in managed isolation being tested for COVID-19 in the manner described by Dr Bloomfield on 9 June and if not how many individuals have not had the two tests the public were told would take place? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The expectations of Ministers and of myself are very clear that people will have those two tests in mandatory self-isolation. The second part of the member's question was how many people may not have had those tests to date. As he will know that data has been requested. I have not yet received that data because I want it to be absolutely correct. Hon Michael Woodhouse: How many other cases if any are there where individuals have been released from managed isolation before a COVID-19 test result is known where the individual subsequently tests positive for COVID? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am not aware of that having happened other than in cases that have been raised publicly. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Given his previous answers will people who refuse to be tested for COVID-19 now be allowed to leave managed isolation after 14 days notwithstanding that? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The expectations are really clear but I will say there's no evidence to date of any person coming out of managed isolation who has gone on to spread the virus into the community. The 14-day rule is done so because it is effective. The rationale for it is based on the incubation period of the disease. It's the time from exposure to development of symptoms considered to be in the range of one to 14 days but most commonly three to seven days and as such that—Alastair Scott: Answer the question. Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —internationally agreed protocol is the thing that has been shown to work. The member's question—if there's some aspect I haven't answered I'm happy for it to be repeated. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Which—SPEAKER: Sorry I'm just going to deal with an interjection. Who made that loud interjection? The member will stand withdraw and apologise. Alastair Scott: I withdraw and apologise. SPEAKER: I just remind members—and the member is not a long-term member—that that interjection is a reflection on me because it is my responsibility to ensure that that happens. Hon Chris Hipkins: Were the two women who tested positive for COVID-19 this week released from quarantine following personal representations advocating their early release from quarantine by National MP Chris Bishop? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am aware of that. Obviously there have been representations made for compassionate leave from members of Parliament. I think people need to be very careful because these are sensitive matters necessarily—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! Order! Sorry I'm going to hear the rest of this answer in silence. It's a very serious allegation that's been made here and I want to hear the answer. Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes I am aware of that and I just would ask members to be careful around these situations. On the one hand people have been requiring or requesting that people be let go early out of these situations. On the other hand we've seen the risks that that presents to New Zealanders and the team of 5 million and their efforts so far. Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I'd like you to reflect on your commentary about the question from the Hon Chris Hipkins as being a "serious allegation". It kind of injects the Speaker into the question time in a way that a value judgment of that question might not stand scrutiny. Mr Bishop's advocacy for those people did not infer that an unsafe process should be followed and the fact that you have effectively commented on the fact that it's a "serious allegation" is probably unhelpful—it's certainly unhelpful. SPEAKER: Well if—sorry I should have said it's a serious matter and not a serious allegation and I'm not absolutely certain that the member's point of order has diminished it. But I will reflect on that. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Thank you. Does he agree with the Ministry of Health's statement around the COVID-diagnosed sisters who were not tested that they have had no contact with anyone since their arrival in Wellington? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The most recent statement from the Ministry of Health is I believe the best information that we have to date."