Parker DavidCOVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE ACT 2020ExtensionHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I move That under section 3(2)(b) of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 the relevant period is the period ending on either 1 December 2020 or the tenth sitting day following the first meeting of Parliament after the 2020 general election whichever is the later so that the Act continues in force until that time. The COVID-19 Public Health Response Act provides the essential legal framework for New Zealand's continuing response to the COVID-19 global pandemic. As members will be aware it replaced for the purpose of the COVID pandemic the 1956 Health Act and it was necessary because the powers under the Health Act whilst appropriate for levels 3 and 4 didn't give the nuance that is necessary in respect of level 2 and below and also was of a formulation some decades old and didn't have the accountabilities that one would expect in respect of those sorts of powers even in respect of levels 3 and 4 should it—while none of us want this eventuality—ever be necessary to go back to levels 3 and 4. The 1956 Health Act is predicated on quarantine and keeping people apart from each other rather than on finer controls and once you get to level 2 and below and you're letting people go to work and to mingle and you're left with things like restrictions on large gatherings it doesn't fit within the framing of the Health Act which was predicated on more strict forms of quarantine. That's why the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act was necessary. So the new Act which we're discussing the extension of includes a sunset clause to give Parliament control of the regulation-making powers that are enabled by that Act and Parliament agreed that this would have to be brought back to Parliament periodically in order for consideration to be given as to whether it should be extended. The motion proposes that this be extended to the later of those two dates in the motion to allow for the election and the putting together of—whoever it is—the Government selected by the people of New Zealand. So the Act provides the legislative framework for the Government's response to COVID-19 and it does provide a fit for purpose framework for responding to COVID19 at all alert levels. The Act is needed at alert level 1 as it provides the legal basis for the two orders that currently provide for measures needed to control the border including testing isolation and quarantining to minimise the risk of another outbreak of COVID-19 within New Zealand. The measures that are in these orders currently can only continue and need to be updated and they can only be either continued or updated while the Act continues to be in force. If the Act is not continued then there will be a gap in measures that could be applied legally at alert levels 2 or lower and the higher alert levels would also require then to be reverted to the Health Act 1956 framework which doesn't have the improvements included in this current Act such as greater safeguards the infringement regime or the change of decision making to the Minister of Health rather than the Director-General of Health. The ACT Party made valuable contributions in respect of that improvement in this COVID-19 Public Health Response Act when it was passed a couple of months ago. We've been at alert level 1 now for nearly two months and the orders under this Act at the border have ensured that returning New Zealanders are in managed isolation or quarantine upon their return to New Zealand. The bespoke Act narrows the powers of the Crown compared with the powers that were available under the Health Act and the civil defence framework that we used for the first two months of the COVID response. We all know that the pandemic continues to grow internationally and that this is not a time for complacency. There are currently 18.5 million cases of COVID-19 worldwide. When this Act was first passed three months ago there were just over 4 million. This pandemic continues to increase apace. It's global and we're not out of the woods yet. We just need to look across the Tasman and see the risks that we face. This is a time for responsible Government and it's not the time to put things at risk through inappropriate politicking. Without these powers New Zealand would be at greater risk of community transmission that would necessitate a second lockdown costing millions if not billions of dollars of damage to the economy and many deaths. That's why this House should all support the continuation of this Act. If some MPs do not voters will rightly ask why those members support the risk that would then ensue of having a regime that would not be fit for purpose under the Health Act. A select committee considered the Act after it was passed and found it was necessary appropriate and balanced. They did—Hon Michael Woodhouse: By majority. Hon DAVID PARKER: —by majority—suggest that during health emergency responses that more enduring health emergency response legislation be developed to replace the outdated sections of the 1956 Health Act. That's a worthy proposal and it's something for the next Government to consider but they found that this legislation is appropriate. I understand that the Opposition again stated at that select committee that they were upset that we didn't take longer to pass this Act in May. They said the process should have been commenced earlier and that delays were occasioned by that delay. Even if they were right on that—and I don't accept that—they should be now in a position to accept that this legislation is appropriate and they should understand that any further delay in the passage of that Act or its extension would have meant greater health risks in New Zealand and larger social and economic costs. It's disappointing that some Opposition parties have participated in spreading baseless conspiracy theories about the Act. I think it's appalling that some members of this House have asserted that the warrantless powers under level 2 and higher used under the COVID Act to break up mass gatherings are some grand taking of powers. That is wrong and has always been wrong and it has been well described in this House. It's poor that some members of Parliament outside of this place continue to make those assertions because they risk undermining the social consensus that lies behind voluntary compliance behind whatever words they are—and I see a member of the National Party go Pah!" at that. It is absolutely correct that those warrantless powers are limited essentially to breaking up mass gatherings and the idea that there aren't other warrantless powers of entry that pre-existed—they were already in existence under the Health Act at the very time we debated this bill. They also exist under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act the Search and Surveillance Act the Resource Management Act the Building Act the Land Transport Act the Dog Control Act the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act the mental health Act the Arms Act the Oranga Tamariki Act and the Immigration Act and—Erica Stanford: So defensive. Hon DAVID PARKER: No I'm not being defensive. I'm actually describing this for the benefit of New Zealanders because there has been some appalling misrepresentation of that fact which does no credit to those people that do it. The most obvious example is that council officers have the ability to go and break up a noisy party and take a stereo. Surely people can understand that with this circumstance it can be necessary for the police to have the power to go and break up a party that would otherwise be putting at risk at different levels the ability of the country to control those events. So I would hope that we have absolute unanimity and support of this motion. I hope that National has moved past this nonsense that they spouted when the Act was passed and will support this motion because otherwise they're in the same category as Jami-Lee Ross' social media conspiracy party and they do this country no favours at all. I commend this motion to the House. It is necessary that this new framework continue in force until a new Government is able to be formed so that if—forbid—we do need to move up the levels again because we have another instance of community transmission we need the finer powers that are authorised by the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. I commend the motion to the House."