TUESDAY, 12 MAY 2020
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I thought it might be useful, following discussions across the House, for me to update the House on the Government's plans for the rest of this sitting day. The Government intends to follow the Order Paper for item number one, which is the second reading of the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill, first up after question time. We will then move urgency to pass through all stages the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill that has just been introduced, and the remaining stages, then following that, of the further management measures bill. So that's the ordering sequence that we've agreed for this afternoon and this evening's sitting session.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I thank the Leader of the House for that indication. Earlier in the day there was some discussion about the Cabinet advice or ministerial advice on the second bill that you're proposing to pass through urgency today being provided to the Opposition. I'm just wondering what the progress might be of that arrangement.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I'll make an inquiry during question time and get further feedback on that—it should be coming.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Social Development
1. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Associate Minister for Social Development: Will Budget 2020 make our communities safer by supporting family violence services in Aotearoa New Zealand; if so, how?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children) on behalf of the Associate Minister for Social Development: Budget 2020 includes nearly $203 million in funding for services and support for all those affected by family violence. This includes victims and survivors, people who use violence and want to change their behaviour, and people who have experienced non-fatal strangulation. This sector has done and continues to do incredibly important work, but they have done so without adequate funding for far too long, and we are beginning to fix that.
Jan Logie: How will these Budget initiatives support family violence services such as Women's Refuge?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: For decades, family violence and sexual violence services have not received the funding they need to do their work. We are changing that and finally beginning to fund organisations based on the actual costs in delivering their services, including provision for fairer wages, training, supervision, and management of staff. I acknowledge under-secretary Jan Logie, who said yesterday, "We want these services to be able to focus on their work, not running sausage sizzles to survive.", and Dr Ang Jury of Women's Refuge, who said, "This will mean they can recruit and retain workers without burning them out."
Jan Logie: Why is it important to fund services for people affected by elder abuse? 
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Data from the New Zealand Longitudinal Study of Ageing concluded that 10 percent of people aged over 65 and living in the community experience abuse. Elder abuse is a form of family violence. It can be physical, psychological, spiritual, or financial, but it is often not recognised when we speak of family violence. I know that my colleague the Minister for Seniors has advocated consistently and is particularly pleased that we are now doubling the funding over the next four years for specialist organisations to respond to this specific sector of an overarching problem.
Jan Logie: Why is the Government putting funding into the response for non-fatal strangulation?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: It is well documented that strangulation or suffocation is a significant risk factor for future violence. People who are victims of non-fatal strangulation can be up to seven times more likely to be killed. This Government, building on the work begun by the Hon Amy Adams, made non-fatal strangulation or suffocation a distinct offence at the end of 2018. The funding announced as part of Budget 2020 will support our police, health, and justice systems to provide victims with the psychosocial help they need, and properly resource and train forensic services to ensure successful prosecutions.
Jan Logie: And how significant is this funding in the context of the whole-of-Government response to family and sexual violence?
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: These initiatives represent the second-biggest Budget package for family violence and sexual violence in the history of New Zealand. It is only surpassed by last year's Budget, which contained $320 million in funding over four years. It is also significant because of the joined-up, all-of-Government approach which has been taken and which is essential to properly responding to and ending this terrible violence. I commend all the Ministers, under-secretary Jan Logie, and the respective chief executives who have come together to take collective responsibility for addressing it.




Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's statements and actions?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the Government's decision to move to level 2 as soon as possible. This will mean on Thursday this week, retail, malls, cafes, restaurants, cinemas, and other public spaces, including playgrounds, can reopen. On Monday, 18 May, all children and young people will be able to return to school and early learning, and on Thursday, 21 May, bars—under the provisions that already exist around Easter Sunday and Anzac trading for the week prior—will then after that be able to open under normal legislative provisions. This will mean that in 10 days' time, we will have reopened most businesses in New Zealand, and sooner than many other countries around the world. This has only been possible because of the strong measures we have put in place, and the hard work of New Zealanders, who have all joined together and united against COVID-19.
Hon Simon Bridges: Is Westpac correct that Government debt is likely to increase by more than 50 percent of GDP in the next few years?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: For any future forecasting and speculation, I ask the member to wait, as others are, until Budget day.
Hon Simon Bridges: When was the last time net core Crown debt in New Zealand was over 50 percent of GDP?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I can tell you is that it currently sits around the 20 percent mark under this Government, which is lower than what we inherited.
Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that every single dollar of debt her Government borrows will need to be repaid with interest by future generations?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely, which is why we worked so hard, as a Government, to reduce the debt that we inherited after the last Government. I also want to point out that relative to other countries, we have come into what is a global economic shock in a much better position, with debt relative to GDP around the 20 percent mark. That is better than the UK, than the United States, than Australia. We came in better and we hope, of course, to come out stronger as well.
Hon Simon Bridges: Is Westpac also correct that the fiscal deficit in each of the next two years could equal around $30 billion?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I don't want to get into speculation around the Budget, but what I think it is important to point out is this is a global pandemic. The impact, internationally, is being widely felt. New Zealand was never going to get out of this scot-free, but what we could do is take us into it in the strongest position possible. We always said that what we wanted to do was prepare ourselves for any potential shock that we might feel. In fact, I recall, it was not so long ago that many pointed out that we were running surpluses, and questioned whether that was the right thing to do. We always argued that New Zealand is a country that needs to be prepared. We have been, and the rainy day has come.
Hon Simon Bridges: Will this week's Budget show Government deficits for the entire 15-year forecast period?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member does not need to wait long to see some answers for some of his questions. But, again, what I also think it's important to point out is some of the forecasting that's been done, or assumptions that have been made from international institutions—which I think gives us helpful context, because New Zealand is not going through its own pandemic; we're going through a global one—does demonstrate that the likes of the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization (WTO) have pointed out that New Zealand's relative position will be stronger than most. In terms of recovery, if my recollection is correct, around growth, roughly about 1 percent better than, on average, other advanced economies, and for the WTO, they are predicting that some of our trade is looking more heartening than, for instance, even Australia.
Hon Simon Bridges: To limit the debt burden on New Zealand taxpayers, will her Government reprioritise existing spending that currently delivers low value for money, such as fees-free?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I think what we have always taken into account is that we have to be prudent in our spending, and we have always said that. That's demonstrated in the fact that we did get debt down from what we inherited. We're also very mindful that when you're in a period such as this, that what we need to invest in is people and skills. We will not be a Government that takes on a challenge and confronts it through austerity and cuts and by hurting people; instead, we will invest in people. That, equally, is the best way to stimulate the economy, get growth going, and get us into a better position to recover.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister assure us that there is no intention—and that she's had discussions with the Minister of Finance as well—to multiply New Zealand's Government debt over eight times, such as the last Government taking Government debt from $10 billion to $82 billion from 2009?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think what the member demonstrates is that, of course, that side of the House should have a good understanding of what significant global economic shocks can do to an economy, that can do to unemployment, that can do to debt, and the suggestion from the member that somehow New Zealand now, having been through a global financial crisis, will isolate itself completely and feel no impact from this global pandemic is just incorrect.
Hon Simon Bridges: Can she rule out extending the fees-free policy this Budget?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I will answer the same now as I have for every question: the member only need wait till Thursday to see what announcements the Government will make, and I just simply won't get into any speculation he chooses to get into on announcements.
Hon Simon Bridges: Can she rule out announcing a significant slush fund in the Budget that her Government can use in election year for anything she chooses?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I'm not going to get into speculation around the Budget, but I think the member would do well to remember that we will be, in the next year, having to rebuild the economy and rebuild New Zealand. The election, for many people, is going to be at the back of their minds; instead, we have to focus on what's best for New Zealand.
Question time interrupted.





COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE BILL
Cabinet Advice
Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If I respond to the shadow Leader of the House, that paper has now gone to him and to the chief of staff for the Opposition. And I'll actually also check that it's gone to ACT.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: It's emailed, is it?
SPEAKER: Probably email.
Question time resumed.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 3—Finance
3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made and undertaken.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding his statement last week that "it is far from business as usual", will his Budget reprioritise spending from nice-to-have projects to saving jobs?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I am always focused on saving jobs, creating jobs, and creating decent work with good pay for all New Zealanders.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he stand by his statement on 25 March that measures including the $6.25 billion business finance guarantee scheme show that business and workers "we have your backs"?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think the full range of initiatives that the Government has brought in over the last six or seven weeks are doing exactly that. In terms of the business finance guarantee scheme, the member will be aware we've made some changes to that scheme, and I continue to consider what other changes we can make to ensure it operates well. I would also add that, since that scheme was put in place, we, of course, have also put in place the small business loan guarantee scheme.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that the Government-backed loan scheme that he announced on 24 March has failed, given the scheme has only so far lent 0.37 percent of what it was supposed to have lent?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don't think that at any point we thought it would be $6.25 billion in the first few weeks of operation, so I don't accept that overall premise of the member's question, but I do accept—as I've said publicly—that that scheme needed to be changed from its initial design. We've done that, and I continue to look at further possible changes.
David Seymour: Did he ever think it would only be $27 million in the first few weeks of operation?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think we have to put that in the context of the overall amount of lending that banks have done in this period: around $5 billion worth of additional support that they have provided. As I said, the scheme has been tweaked. I'm considering further tweaks, and obviously—as of today, in fact—applications are open for the small business loan guarantee scheme which we announced subsequent to that scheme.
David Seymour: What was the point of the scheme if banks were going to lend anyway, as the Minister just said?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The point was to ensure that banks didn't just lend to the customers that they were 100 percent comfortable with. We wanted to make sure that medium-sized businesses in particular had an avenue to go there, that's why we guaranteed it at 80 percent of those loans. I've been very public about the fact that there have been some examples presented to me where I haven't thought that the scheme was operating the way that it should. We're continuing to work with banks on that. And I also would pick up the words of the Bankers' Association about the point at which that particular scheme may become more useful as people are more certain now that we've moved into level 2.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has any cash been given back to businesses under the Government's loss carry-back scheme that was announced two weeks ago?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe the Prime Minister addressed this matter in her press conference today, actually. I think somewhere in the region of $60-odd million has, and I expect that to grow considerably.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can he assure New Zealanders that programmes funded by the Budget will deliver more than that $6 billion business finance guarantee scheme?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think the member needs to look at the full range of support that the Government has delivered, including the wage subsidy scheme which has delivered $10.7 billion. All of the suite of measures that we've announced are important and useful and, yes, the Budget will also contain ones that are important and useful.




Question No. 4—Finance
4. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What announcements has the Government made with respect to Budget 2020?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): While the vast bulk of the Budget remains for Budget day, as is the tradition of Governments of the past there have been some early announcements. Our plan to combat the global COVID-19 pandemic has three stages: respond, recover, and rebuild. I've announced that Budget 2020 will focus on laying the groundwork for the recover and rebuild stages. It will strengthen our public services and provide significant investments to get New Zealanders back to work and to begin tackling some of our long-term economic challenges. These are necessary investments, given the extremely difficult global and domestic economic outlook that is ahead of us. This will change our fiscal outlook substantially and, as I have said before, with higher debt and deficits for an extended period, I remain committed to managing our books carefully and responsibly. And, right now, being responsible means investing money to support our people, our businesses, and our communities to get through this and to rebuild.
Kiritapu Allan: What announcements has he made regarding funding for health in Budget 2020?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This morning I announced alongside the health Minister, Dr David Clark, that Budget 2020 will deliver the biggest ever increase in the funding of district health boards. The different abilities of Governments around the world to respond to the global COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted just how important it is to have well-funded public services like our health system. The $3.92 billion boost to DHBs is a 9 percent increase of funding following on from 5 percent and 4.5 percent increases in the previous years. It is added to by $282.5 million for a planned care catch-up programme. Budget 2020 will continue this Government's record of tackling the legacy of underfunding and neglect of our health system.
Hon Paula Bennett: Will there be more money going to horse racing than Pharmac in this Budget? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely not, but, since the member raises it, it is worth noting that the 15,000 people directly employed by the racing industry and the 60,000 people indirectly employed by the racing industry will be pleased to know that the Government values all jobs in New Zealand, not just the ones the member picks out.
Kiritapu Allan: What other announcements has the Government made regarding funding for education in Budget 2020?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On Monday, education Ministers Chris Hipkins and Tracey Martin announced Budget 2020 investment of $320.8 million in early learning support, higher quality early learning for every child. This includes a $151.1 million funding boost for the pay of up to 17,000 qualified teachers working in education and care services, $122 million to fund a 2.3 percent increase in subsidy rates for education and care services, and additional help to professionalise home-based early learning and support for playcentres. As we respond to the impacts of COVID-19 on our society and economy, we must have strong public services, including our early learning system, to protect and improve our collective wellbeing.




Question No. 5—Prime Minister
5. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Is her Government the most open and transparent Government New Zealand has ever had?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): This Government has certainly worked hard to be open and transparent, and we have done, for instance, a number of things to improve transparency, like, for the first time, introducing a policy for the proactive release of ministerial diaries and Cabinet papers. We've responded to record numbers of Official Information Act requests (OIAs), with Government agencies completing responses to 19,829 OIAs just between July and December 2019, compared to 14,000 roughly in 2017 for the same period. We've responded to a record number of written question requests, answering 103,117 so far this term, compared to 41,000 last term. In addition, just through COVID-19, obviously, we've tried to make sure that daily we've been available. I've done, personally, over 30 press conferences. The Epidemic Response Committee was set up in the absence of Parliament to allow questioning and the Opposition to have a voice and apply accountability. We released 317 documents on Friday as part of a proactive release to provide COVID material. This is alongside reporting, like weekly reporting from Treasury on the fiscals, weekly reporting now on benefit numbers through COVID-19 as well.
Hon Paula Bennett: Did a leaked email from her office on Friday say that "I would like to sign off and see all written responses. Do not put Minister up for interviews on this.", and, if so, is that working hard to be open and transparent?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is quoting from an email from a member of my staff, so I feel I should just clarify that, when she quotes "I", that wasn't a reference to myself. I'm only saying that because, of course, it is not my expectation I receive those personal requests personally. We have received some feedback that the time of day of that release was an issue. We have given a commitment that we'll look to provide that kind of information now in the mornings, and that we will signal in advance when that information is being provided to try and ease, for instance, the gallery's coverage of what was a large amount of information that we did want to make sure that we provided for the purposes of transparency.
Hon Paula Bennett: Did the Prime Minister see the memo before it went out?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, I only saw the email in preparation for question time, anticipating that the member would ask me questions about it.
Hon Paula Bennett: So if all communications have to go through the Prime Minister, then why didn't this memo?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, it was a reference to coordinating responses to a large amount of information, which is not unlike what the member did when they were in Government also. But also, you'll note that I was not the first person to speak on these documents. Actually, Dr Clark was, and Minister Shaw also commented on the proactive release.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did the Prime Minister get any communication—because this is about communication—of thanks from Mr Bridges or Paula Bennett for insisting upon the 10 people at funerals rule so that the National Party MPs couldn't meet and roll their leaders?
SPEAKER: I think there's just far too much irony in that question.
Hon Paula Bennett: If, as she says, it is about lining up communications, then why did the leaked memo say, "There's no real need to defend. Because the public have confidence in what has been achieved … Instead, we can dismiss."?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is not language that I would use. Again, to come back to the substance of the issue, what we're debating here is, actually, the release of 317 documents, and if the member would like to ask me any questions about any of those documents, I'd be happy to oblige.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does she have confidence in the senior adviser that wrote the memo and does she stand by the statements that he quite clearly made in the memo that "There's no real need to defend. Because the public have confidence in what has been achieved … Instead, we can dismiss."?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: To answer that question: yes, I do have confidence in that member.
Hon Paula Bennett: Is her office's belief that "we can dismiss" the reason officials are no longer allowed to provide an assessment of the regulatory impact of her Government's legislation?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I refute the basis of that question.
Hon Members: It's true.
Hon Grant Robertson: That's just not correct at all.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Just be very careful about the use of that word.
Hon Grant Robertson: With respect to the primary question, has the Prime Minister seen the letter from Dr Ashley Bloomfield, the Director-General of Health, dated 7 May 2020, to the Hon Simon Bridges which corrects the factual inaccuracies that Mr Bridges presented to Dr Bloomfield at the committee, and has she heard whether or not Dr Bloomfield has had an apology from Mr Bridges?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have heard reports of that exchange.
Hon Paula Bennett: Is there a regulatory impact statement for today's COVID legislation, and why was that legislation, if we're working with the most open and transparent Government, only given to the Opposition less than 24 hours ago when the Government has had weeks to work on it?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That member has that legislation because we provided an exposure draft for the Opposition. Equally, we're providing it to others who have an interest in this area because these are extraordinary times—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Can the people just stop shouting the Prime Minister down—the two senior members of the Opposition.
Hon Paula Bennett: I'm not shouting her down, sir—I'm not shouting her down; I've got an opinion.
SPEAKER: You were.
Hon Paula Bennett: It's called a debating chamber.
SPEAKER: Stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Hon Paula Bennett: I withdraw and apologise for arguing with you.
SPEAKER: Stand, withdraw, and apologise without any reflection on the Chair.
Hon Paula Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I am very happy to answer the member's question, though. There is no expectation or assertion here from the Government to do anything other than try and be open around pieces of legislation that we're having to work at great pace on. There is no politics in a pandemic response. But there is an issue around, of course, timing. As the member is well aware, there just hasn't been the same time usually available for the full drafting of legislation and process that we would usually want. We've tried to mitigate that through, of course, the select committee process the member has been a part of, and through providing documents and advice to the Opposition as quickly as we're able to.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why, then, did Cabinet decide not to have a one-day select committee on the bill that's being moved through urgency today as recommended to Cabinet?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Ultimately, it is about trying to get input on the bill in a meaningful way. The determination was we would try and do that through an exposure draft, because an afternoon at the select committee may not have been able to provide that space for meaningful feedback, and we are still seeking to do that through alternative means. I think the point is that effort is being put in here to do what we can in the time we have available, but the member would do well to remember this is a pandemic and we are working very hard under the circumstances we have.
Hon David Parker: Is the Prime Minister also aware that the reason why that one-day select committee didn't proceed was that that would've left a one-day gap between the earlier stage 2 start, which we've managed to bring forward by a day but which would've left an enforcement gap had the bill not been passed.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That, equally, was a factor. But, actually, also members did discuss that we did want input from those who had significant interest and expertise in these legal matters, and we felt by directly providing an exposure draft that would give us the ability to try and do that as well.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Prime Minister been advised that, following the Christchurch earthquakes, Parliament passed legislation without regulatory impact analysis that also had an impact on people's human rights and their property rights?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, and I know the member who has asked the question knows how difficult it is to balance speed but whilst also allowing due process, and we have tried to do our best.




Question No. 6—Environment
6. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister for the Environment: What confidence does he have that there will be sufficient support in Parliament to pass all stages of his bill to allow fast-tracking of consents for certain projects?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): It's not for me to prejudge the determination of parties in this House. We do, though, have the support of governing parties to first reading and further consideration of the bill following the select committee process.
Hon Judith Collins: Does he believe that the process of introducing this bill meets the goal of being the most open and transparent Government ever?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, in the circumstances. I would note that the select committee period, which is yet to be determined, may be up to 12 days long, which, in fact, is 300 percent times the Kaikōura earthquake select committee process, which was just four days.
Hon Judith Collins: Does he realise that the Kaikōura process that he's just referred to referred to one project and not to multiple projects over the entire country?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes.
Hon Judith Collins: Is it correct to say that this bill that he would like passed next month has not yet been drafted?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The drafting has not been finished, but it has been started.
Hon Judith Collins: What are the criteria that he will use in deciding which projects would be fast-tracked?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The primary criteria will be employment.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister, would that be an essential for the Government now if the previous nine years of the previous Government had have done anything whatsoever with the Resource Management Act (RMA)?
Hon DAVID PARKER: If the RMA had been earlier reformed, it may not well be. In truth, the underlying RMA takes too long, costs too much—
Hon Member: You never voted for it.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: You had the majority.
Hon DAVID PARKER: —and has not protected the environment.
SPEAKER: Order! Would the pair of senior members just let the Minister answer. Former Minister.
Hon DAVID PARKER: In truth, the underlying RMA takes too long, costs too much, and hasn't protected the environment, and that's why we've got that root-and-branch review of the RMA going on at the moment. I'm expecting a report back from that panel led by retired Justice Randerson QC before the election.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister expect that the governmental parties will pass this legislation and are not going to throw the responsibility on other parties in the Parliament like the previous one did, who blamed members of the Opposition, when they had a majority, for not passing their own legislation?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I'm confident that we will pass this legislation.




Question No. 7—Education
7. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to address low pay and funding disparities in early childhood education?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Good news: as we respond to the impact of COVID-19 on our society and our economy, the Government remains committed to fair pay for lower-paid workers, especially the workers who have helped to get the country moving again. Yesterday, as part of Budget 2020, I announced that $151.1 million over the next four years will help to improve the pay of up to 17,000 qualified teachers working in education and care services. A significant pay gap has built up over time between these teachers and those working in schools and kindergartens, following a decision 10 years ago to stop passing on to education and care services the funding rate increases that kindergartens got to meet the cost of pay settlements. Now, from 1 July, the minimum salary for teachers working in education and care services will increase to $49,862, bringing it into line with kindergarten teachers' pay. We've got a way to go, but this is a very good start.
Kieran McAnulty: What response has he seen to this announcement?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Teachers have welcomed the announcement. The NZEI, speaking on behalf of early childhood teachers, has described it as "fantastic news". They've called it a significant first step towards pay parity for early childhood education teachers, and a clear sign that the Government is hearing the call to further invest in early childhood education.
Kieran McAnulty: How else is Budget 2020 addressing funding disparities in early childhood education? 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm very pleased to say that yesterday, in conjunction with my Associate Minister Tracey Martin, we also announced that there'll be an extra $3.1 million invested in our Playcentre movement. This will help to increase funding rates for Playcentre from July, supporting more than 400 playcentres up and down the country so that they can continue to provide what is a unique early learning choice for 9,500 children and their families. That means that Playcentre rates will increase by 7.6 percent, the largest increase they have received in a very long time. We consider that the ongoing sustainability of playcentres would be compromised without this additional funding, and we look forward to working with Playcentre to ensure their long-term sustainability.




Question No. 8—Tourism
8. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Tourism: Does he know what proportion of tourism and hospitality businesses will be profitable under alert level 2 restrictions without additional Government financial support?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Tourism): Many tourism and hospitality businesses will be able to operate under alert level 2. The Government's economic package, which includes wage subsidies and tax provisions, is ongoing during this time, and I'll be announcing on Thursday additional support and assistance, including a tourism recovery package on Budget day.
Hon Todd McClay: What does he say to those businesses that told the Epidemic Response Committee today that a large number of tourism, accommodation, and hospitality businesses are likely to fail under level 2 restrictions, even with further support?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Under levels 3 and 4, there was absolutely no tourism and no movement around the country, and, under level 2, it's the beginning of the recovery. The businesses have all been able to make use of the business support package that the Government has offered them, and, as I said, there is a tourism package being announced on Thursday.
Hon Todd McClay: Is the event sector able to organise business meetings of up to 100 people under level 2 from Thursday if they meet the same social distance requirements as cinemas, restaurants, or political party caucuses?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Events are an important part of the tourism sector and drive regional tourism. Officials continue to work with them on what level 2 means for them, and we expect a plan for the event sector early next week.
Hon Todd McClay: Why are Government agencies cancelling meetings and events for the end of this year, as heard in the pandemic committee today, rather than providing support and confidence to the hospitality, event, and travel sectors?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: As I said in the select committee today, Government agencies are just like any other business. If they can operate in line with the guidelines, well, then they will do so.
Hon Todd McClay: So is the Minister saying that Government agencies can't operate within the guidelines and that's the reason that they are cancelling events and meetings at the end of this year and not showing support or giving confidence to the hospitality, travel, or accommodation sectors?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Government agencies are no different to anyone else. We need to obey the guidelines and follow the guidelines in order to make sure that we don't spread COVID-19. The last thing we need is a spike because people haven't followed the guidelines, and then we end up reverting back up the levels, which is no good for anyone—for the economy at all or any tourism business.
Hon Todd McClay: So if Government agencies cannot organise meetings by following the restrictions and guidelines provided by his Government, how can a single other tourism, hospitality, or accommodation business in New Zealand plan to do the same thing today, if the Government can't follow their own advice?
Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The member needs to get his ears cleaned because that's not what I said. What I did say was that the Government agencies must follow the same guidelines as everybody else.




Question No. 9—Health
9. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by the restrictions for alert level 2? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes. In particular, I stand by the decision to use a staged approach to the resumption of some activities such as the reopening of bars, which we know from the experience of South Korea can pose a particular transmission risk. 
Hon Louise Upston: What is the public health evidence that supports a limit on funerals to 10 people over the original 100 people? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The advice I have received relates to the number of people at a gathering and the risks that pertain thereto. I have to say that in respect of funerals and tangi, this was one of the most difficult decisions that we had to take as a Cabinet. I personally found it very challenging to work through, but we didn't want to see a double jeopardy, which has been seen overseas at funerals, where people come together to grieve and then the virus is transmitted, leading to further tragedy. 
Hon Louise Upston: Does he agree with the president of the Funeral Directors Association that restrictions on funerals are "a cruel and heartless blow to the thousands of New Zealand families who have lost loved ones and is unjustifiable."? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Funerals are a time when people, naturally, need physical comfort from each other. The decision to restrict that was not one we took lightly. I do disagree with those comments as they've been presented by the member. 
Hon Louise Upston: What does he say to the family who delayed a funeral under alert level 3 because the guidance for alert level 2 announced by the Prime Minister last Thursday included gatherings up to 100 people, only to be told yesterday that the restriction is now only 10? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I do reject the premise of the question, and I do, again, want to acknowledge that this is a particularly difficult issue for people. As I've said, I know that I found this a difficult decision—to restrict the attendance at funerals—and I know the Prime Minister did and other members of the Cabinet also. But we do not want to see community transmission, and we do not want to see the kind of tragedy that's happened overseas at funerals where people have come together to mourn a loved one and then further tragedy has ensued. We hope that in a short period of time, we will continue to see the risk diminished, and then we will see the ability for more people to gather. But when people gather and are in funeral situations—having conducted them myself, I know that people want to physically console each other, and it does not seem fair to put people in a position where there is risk to them and to the wider community. 
Hon Louise Upston: What does he say to the man whose wife, sadly, passed away from cancer, who has to explain to his young daughter that under level 2, a rugby team of 15 can have physical contact and play a game, but that she can't have all the support she needs when she says her final goodbye to her mum? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Naturally, I feel very sad for that family. This is the kind of situation that is not an easy one at any time—when grieving their loved ones. In terms of the specific matters the member raises, I would observe that professional sport only at this stage is progressing, and that is with strict contact tracing in place. But, equally, I'd go back to the main point that I've made before that tangi and funeral are places where people come together to grieve and physically support each other—physically support each other. This is a difficult thing, and I, as I say, am hopeful that in time we will be able to ease these restrictions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was the Minister encouraged by listening to a Polynesian undertaker on Morning Report this morning, who set out that he fully understood the Government's position and how difficult in the Pasifika and Māori setting it was to keep people apart in that most difficult emotional moment—
Hon Judith Collins: Does this undertaker have a name? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters: —at a tangi or a funeral, and he backed the Government in the full—
Hon Judith Collins: Or is it enough to refer to him by his race? 
SPEAKER: Order! Judith Collins has just lost two supplementaries for her side. 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Sorry, Mr Speaker, I missed the last part of the member's question. 
SPEAKER: Well, I'm going to ask the question to be asked again. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was he encouraged by the Polynesian undertaker on Morning Report this morning, who understood—
Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. 
SPEAKER: The member can't interrupt a question unless it relates to this question. 
Hon Judith Collins: Mr Speaker, perhaps if you listened to me, I find it deeply offensive—
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. Winston Peters, complete the supplementary. Start your supplementary again, please. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That member just made a comment about "his race". What did she mean by that? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee: How can he take a point of order and she can't?
Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. 
SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order of the Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Hon Judith Collins: Thank you. 
SPEAKER: And just to make it absolutely clear, one may not interrupt a supplementary question for a point of order unless it relates exactly to that point of order. Once interrupted, however rudely, a further point of order can be taken. Speaking to this point of order, the Hon Judith Collins. 
Hon Judith Collins: Mr Peters has asked a question. My concern is that he has referred to the undertaker by that man's race as though that is actually relevant. Either he has a name, this undertaker, or he is an undertaker. Why is it necessary to bring the man's race into the issue? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I can answer that question. I referred to his race because he clearly understood the Pasifika or Māori tangi setting. That's the only reason why I referred to him—not to be ethnic or racial about it. But he just might understand more than some what the setting was all about. 
SPEAKER: Now, I just want to check that the Minister got the gist of the question—
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think I've got the gist of the question. 
SPEAKER: —probably—from what went back and forth. 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have had representations from members of the Pasifika and Māori community saying that they understood the reasons for having this separation, and, indeed, it is very difficult to maintain physical separation in those funeral settings because of the desire to physically comfort one another and because of certain cultural practices. 
SPEAKER: Question No. 11, Simon O'Connor. 
Simon O'Connor: If I might, actually, I think Paul Eagle was next—
SPEAKER: Sorry?
Simon O'Connor: —if you don't mind. 
SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. 
Simon O'Connor: If you'd give us two supps back. Otherwise, I'll take the call. 
SPEAKER: Did the member say he wants two supps taken away? 
Simon O'Connor: I'm not sure my hearing's so good. 
SPEAKER: Well, the member had better sit down. 




Question No. 10—Trade and Export Growth
10. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What role does international trade have as part of the Government's response to COVID-19?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Our immediate trade response to this crisis has been to keep trade flowing, with supply chains moving in and out, and to push back against protectionism. Together with my Singaporean colleague, I led a process that now involves 11 trade Ministers, including G7 economies Canada, Australia, and others, to push back internationally against rising protectionism. That has evolved into a bespoke supply line arrangement with Singapore and New Zealand. It's also led to other initiatives, including a New Zealand - Singapore declaration which eliminated tariffs on goods essential for fighting the pandemic. This practical action is, we think, stimulating some of the other measures abroad: an initiative with Australia, Canada, Singapore, and Korea, where we're working together on similar things—and the eventual movement of essential persons is another example.
Paul Eagle: What are the next steps of the trade response to COVID-19?
Hon DAVID PARKER: With the measures I've already described behind us, we can now focus on the medium-term response, which we are terming the three Rs: retooling exporter support by scaling up economic diplomacy, with offerings including the trade barrier portal, exporter helpline, our tariff finder website, and expanding market intelligence; we're refreshing our existing trade architecture, not just for the World Trade Organization but the China upgrade and the digital economic partnership, which we position as signature-ready projects, and, of course, we're looking to launch the free-trade agreement negotiations with the UK; and the third of the three Rs is reinvigorating and refocusing our trade relationships as we turn volume to value and seek to diversify our exports and markets.
Paul Eagle: How will Budget 2020 support exporters?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The Minister of Finance will announce the details of the Budget on Thursday, but I can say today that it's critically important that we reconnect our exporters with overseas markets. It's difficult for them to travel at the moment, obviously, so we need more boots on the ground as our overseas markets recover from COVID-19, because exports are critically important for New Zealand and our economy, and so our Government will provide support for our exporters.




Question No. 11—Health
11. SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by the restrictions for alert level 2?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes. In particular, I stand by the balance those restrictions strike between reopening our economy and continuing to keep people safe by, for example, continuing to use physical distancing and limiting the size of gatherings such as funerals and church services.
Simon O'Connor: Why has the Government singled out temples, mosques, synagogues, and churches for discriminatory treatment by, effectively, banning their gatherings?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I reject the premise of the member's question, but what I would say is that, in accordance with a cautious approach that seeks to manage the public health risks, the limit on gatherings is initially no more than 10. I understand that will limit traditional church services, which do have close interaction between people. In fact, that is one of the main reasons for them to be held—the fellowship that they have in those worship settings. The intent is to increase the limit over time as we become more confident that that loosening of controls is not leading to an increase in infection. The member will be unsurprised to learn I do not wish to limit church services or other religious services any more than is necessary to protect public health.
Simon O'Connor: Are freedom of association and freedom of religion—as described by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—still relevant in New Zealand today, or are they just a nice to have?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: They are still relevant.
Hon Tracey Martin: Did the Minister hear a minister of the cloth this morning on the radio saying how they've been running their church services online, and that while they understood that only 10 people could gather, they would continue to run their church services online, and, actually, they'd had more people come to their online congregation than they had in the in-person congregations, and they would continue to run online services post-COVID restrictions because of that uptick?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I did not hear that particular interview; however, I can confirm that the parish that I normally attend has been offering services online in just that fashion.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister confirm that the restrictions placed on New Zealanders under alert level 2 are far more liberal than many other countries we would compare ourselves to, including Australia?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I can confirm that. We are in the fortunate position of having gone hard and having gone early, and having had a public willing to make sacrifices to ensure the success of that approach. When we look overseas to countries like the UK or like Italy or Spain—other countries around the world—they are facing lockdowns and many more restrictions for a time to come, and not only the economic consequences of that but also the social sacrifices they're going to have to continue to make, all the while facing challenges with people dying from COVID-19




Question No. 12—Health
12. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about what Budget 2020 will mean for district health boards and the services they provide?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): This morning, the Minister of Finance and I announced a record investment in hospitals and health services. We announced that Budget 2020 will deliver the biggest ever increase in funding for district health boards, as well as additional funding to deliver approximately 153,000 surgeries and procedures, radiology scans, and specialist appointments to help clear the COVID-19 backlog.
Kieran McAnulty: Why has the Government prioritised this spending in Budget 2020?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: A good question. Historically, successive Governments have under-invested in health. One of the key lessons of COVID-19 is the need for a strong and sustainable public health and disability system. Budget 2020 continues this Government's record of tackling a legacy of neglect. Around the world, COVID-19 has wrought devastation on underprepared health systems. It is absolutely critical that as a country we continue to invest in and build up the capacity of our health system. That is what the Government is committed to doing.
Kieran McAnulty: What types of procedures will be funded by this new money?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The record investment in DHBs of an extra $3.92 billion over four years will help improve their financial sustainability and clinical delivery. It will also enable them to meet the costs of a growing and ageing population and already agreed wage increases. Ministers have also approved $282.5 million, including $50 million of capital, to deliver an estimated 153,000 planned care procedures such as elective surgery, radiology scans, assessments and follow-ups, and procedures completed in outpatient facilities. Although critical and urgent care continued even under alert level 4, we know that many procedures were delayed. Our hospitals are now returning to a more normal level of service, but it will take time to recover and deal with the backlog.
 





URGENT DEBATES DECLINED
COVID-19—Crown Law Advice on Alert Level 4
SPEAKER: I've received a letter from David Seymour seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the New Zealand Herald article purportedly based on Crown Law advice on the Government's decision to move New Zealand to alert level 4 in the COVID-19 alert system. A newspaper article is not a matter for which there is ministerial responsibility. If the subject of the application is the Government's decision to move to alert level 4 on 25 March, then the application or an urgent debate on that matter should have occurred before the House sat on 28 April. The application is therefore declined.





COVID-19 RESPONSE (FURTHER MANAGEMENT MEASURES) LEGISLATION BILL
Second Reading
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill be now read a second time. 
I'd like to acknowledge the work of the Epidemic Response Committee for the careful deliberation on this bill, given the very, very tight time frame they were given to do that. In particular, I understand I should acknowledge the acting chair of the committee, Michael Woodhouse, for being a steady pair of hands in shepherding this bill through what was undoubtedly a very short select committee process. I'd like to thank everybody who made a submission on the bill. I know that the Epidemic Response Committee were impressed by the way, at very short notice, submitters had carefully considered the amendments in the bill, and I believe that the bill has been improved as a result of those submissions and the committee's deliberations. 
Before I go into the changes recommended by the committee, I do want to give a brief overview of the bill. The important purpose of the bill is to manage the response to COVID-19. The fact that it amends or modifies 45 different pieces of legislation—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: I'm just going to warn the member, the thing will finish in a minute. 
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh yeah, that's all right. The fact that it covers 45 different pieces of legislation does show the wide-ranging effect that COVID-19 has had on the New Zealand economy and society. There are two tiers of amendments in this bill. The first tier deals with more significant amendments that enable businesses, local government, and others to effectively manage the immediate impacts of COVID-19 and to mitigate unnecessary and potentially long-term impacts on society. These include changes to insolvency and corporate law to increase the prospects of businesses surviving the COVID-19 response; changes to property law to support commercial tenants and borrowers to manage situations where businesses are unable to pay their rent or meet their mortgage payments; changes to parental leave to enable COVID-19 response workers to temporarily return to work to assist the response to COVID-19 without being disadvantaged and losing their entitlement to certain leave and payments; changes to local government by-election timing to enable key stages of by-elections to be postponed until movement restrictions are no longer in place; changes to the Gambling Act to enable the Heart Foundation, the Coastguard, and the Countdown Kids Charitable Trust to send and receive forms and take payments for their lotteries online or by phone. 
The bill also includes a number of minor and technical changes that are necessary to respond to and recover from COVID-19. These will include deferring new regulatory requirements in circumstances where Government agencies or businesses would have difficulty implementing new legislation or requirements that are due to come into force while New Zealand is still responding to COVID-19, deferring existing statutory deadlines and other minor exemptions where compliance would not be possible or would be unreasonably burdensome, mitigating impracticality issues that have arisen through the response to COVID-19—for example, changing the Coroners Act 2006 to enable a coroner to direct a pathologist to takes swabs to test for COVID-19 as part of a post-mortem exam situation where the deceased is suspected to have had COVID-19—to mitigate problems with legislative compliance that have arisen due to physical presence requirements and other technological reasons. 
As I indicated, the Epidemic Response Committee has recommended several changes, and these have been presented to the House in the form of a Supplementary Order Paper. They have suggested that the bill should clarify the amendments in relation to hearings, examinations, and appearances by use of audio-only link as opposed to audiovisual link. They have suggested there should be some minor changes to the Unit Titles Act to maintain consistent language and to clarify that the changes will apply from when the epidemic notice came into force and will have effect for 12 weeks after the notice expires or is revoked. They clarify that during the extended duration period, for firearms and dealers licences that may have expired during lockdown, the application fees for the new replacement licensing will be the same as those that applied on 24 March.
A new Schedule 14A should be added to the bill to modify the Rating Valuations Act. This is because it may not be possible for some councils to practicably complete a credible general re-evaluation to statutory deadlines due to the likely impacts of COVID-19 on the property market in the latter half of the year. There is clarification for the bill to ensure that it is clear that a temporary return to work as a COVID-19 response worker is not a return to work from parental leave for the purpose of section 14 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act. 
There are also a number of changes recommended to the insolvency and corporate law - related amendments in the bill as a result of the submissions made to the committee. Briefly, these recommendations include changes to modification and exemption provisions in Part 2 of the Act to change the expiry date for the corporate governance modification and exemption provisions from 30 September to 30 November 2020, to add voting integrity provisions in relation to electronic meetings, to add counting people for quorum purposes to the list of electronic meeting permissions, and other minor and technical changes to make the modification and exemption regimes more effective.
Changes to safe harbour provisions are to add a purpose clause to assist with understanding of the scope of safe harbour and providing that Ministers must have regard to that purpose when making regulations relating to safe harbour; to make it clear that any entity incorporated before the date of announcement of the safe harbour on 3 April 2020 can have the benefit of it, provided that they meet the threshold test. Changes to business debt hibernation provisions are to ensure that the business debt hibernation provisions regime is easy to understand and navigate for small businesses, noting that Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment websites will have educational and guidance material available, including removing the need for a statutory declaration to enter the business debt hibernation scheme; clarifying the scope of protections to businesses through the moratorium; making it clear that creditors with large over the whole, or substantially the whole, of the property of the business—general security arrangements holders are not bound by the moratorium; clarifying the voting rules; and modifying the way that the voidable transactions provisions will apply when a business is in a business debt hibernation mode.
I have also released Supplementary Order Paper 493. This is a technical Supplementary Order Paper, which amends two clauses to the bill that calculate the periods of time in reference to the orders or other restrictions under section 70 of the Health Act. In both cases, it adds a reference to an order made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 so that the calculation of time can also be done with reference to an order made under the Act. 
So once again, I'd like to thank the Epidemic Response Committee, my ministerial colleagues and their officials who have worked on these amendments, and the numerous officials who have worked on the bill. The effects of the COVID-19 epidemic are being felt widely across the country. This bill does assist New Zealanders to respond, and I commend it to the House.
Debate interrupted.





SPEAKER'S RULINGS
Officials—Devices in the Chamber
SPEAKER: Before I call the Hon Michael Woodhouse, I should just indicate to the House that I have agreed to relax normal restrictions with regard to officials supporting the House and the committee and their use of either laptops or phones for text-type communications, not for use of phones but for those purposes, especially because of the restriction in the numbers that we are applying here. So I thought it was important to tell the House.





COVID-19 RESPONSE (FURTHER MANAGEMENT MEASURES) LEGISLATION BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I, firstly, thank the Minister Chris Hipkins for his acknowledgment not of me but actually of the committee's work. Before I go into the details of that, I want to just segue a little bit away into something else that's been going on during the lockdown, and which is relevant to the process we just followed. I was asked if I would represent the New Zealand Parliament at the World Bank Group Parliamentary Network Briefing on Pandemics and Covid-19, which I was very pleased to do, and I'll be reporting to Mr Speaker on the discussions on that and the Asia-Pacific World Health Organization forum. In the early hours of Anzac Day, actually, between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m., I was on this virtual meeting and didn't stand at dawn that day but stood instead at 3 a.m. It was a very helpful dialogue to understand what was going on around the country, but in the chat that accompanied it, I was struck by the number of MPs and representatives from around the world who were worried about the degree to which Parliaments were setting aside the normal scrutiny process of, in our case, the executive. The representative from the Italian Parliament described this as something that was going on in his country but also in what he described as "weak democracies".
I've been reflecting on that in the context of the last bill that this House passed last week, this one, but also another bill that may be before us in the not too distant future. It highlights—for me—that weak democracies are not necessarily developing nations in far-flung parts of this world, with autocratic leaders and family dynasties; actually, Westminster democracies with strong and proud histories of passing bills carefully and over time risk undermining that legacy through the crises. What I would say is that, actually, the rule of law and the process of passing bills is most needed during a crisis, whether that's a war or a war-footing such as a pandemic. It is not a time to set them aside, and so I was very pleased to see that this bill, and another, was referred to the Epidemic Response Committee last week for what was a very short but, as the Minister said, quite thorough examination of the bills—that came to us in good shape, actually. There's obviously been a lot of thought, and I commend the Government for what the submitters told us was a degree of engagement with them during the writing of the bill, but also for, clearly, Cabinet's but definitely the department officials' willingness to take good ideas and make the bills better.
I won't steal the thunder of my colleagues who will speak after me, because they are the subject matter experts in areas like the Companies Act and the Courts Matters Bill and so on, but I do want to acknowledge that this is actually a pretty good exemplar and an example of what can be done in emergency without setting aside due process, without setting aside the necessary scrutiny of the executive that is so important in times of crisis. I worry that we are going to fall below that standard again, and we will see what that means for the freedom of movement, the freedom of expression, and the freedom to live our lives without fear of interference from the Government and the State, even in an emergency. 
So I commend the Minister for this process, actually, and I sure as heck commend not only the members of that committee who worked so incredibly hard in what I described in the first reading as a herculean effort, but it was made easier, frankly, by the fact that officials burnt the oil, literally—Stuart Smith and I were still examining the proposed committee report at about 11 o'clock last night, having only finished the meeting process but a few hours earlier. And the quality of that support was high. Once again, we can have an extraordinary confidence in the quality of our public sector.
But the public and the public sector have a right, I think, to expect the same in return from its executive, and this is the place where we examine, where we scrutinise, where we make better, where we hold the Government to account for their actions and inactions. I hope, in commending the Minister and the Government for the ability to be able to do that in this case, that we can continue to do that, because we know laws made in haste—and we saw an example of that last week—can be very, very difficult to fix, or can undermine what we're actually trying to achieve.
Can I particularly point out a couple of the areas that I know my colleagues will elaborate on, that I thought was a very sensible change that the submitters first came up with, and that was particularly around the use of audiovisual equipment and audio equipment only in the courts and corrections process. We heard from our submitters and they said, "Look, this is understood, but we need to have a hierarchy."—that there was a standard, firstly, of face-to-face, then audiovisual, and then audio only if that was a last resort. I was really pleased with both the nimbleness of the response and the amendments that were made, which I'm sure the Minister of Justice—who is nodding—had a part to play in, but also there were concerns around when that might be used, particularly in relation to the mental health Act but also sentencing. So we had a very sensible amendment—an improvement to the bill—that made that part of the bill better.
The one that was really vexed—and I know Mr Hudson will elaborate on this. We all want to make sure that as many companies as possible can survive this, and, boy, I'm sure colleagues will agree we're getting some horror stories about what's happened and what will happen if we can't give them the means to get through the next period of time. So the business debt hibernation scheme and the directors' safe harbour is going to be so important in doing that. I hope it works. I think the directors' safe harbour is one where we're actually asking directors, who are conditioned generally to be cautious—because the law requires them to be—to be a little less risk-averse, at a time when they are seeing risk at every turn. So while I'm hopeful, I'm not overly optimistic that this will make more than a minor impact on the bill, but we've got to give them a go. We've got to give them the conditions as best we can to enable them to be able to survive. 
But the best conditions—I'll finish on this point—that we can give them are the conditions that enable them to trade. So we need to get back to a new normal as quickly and as safely as we can, and I do worry that we have the balance not right in that regard, because they're telling us that they can trade safely, that they can re-open, and it's only then will we give them the truest safe harbour that they want, and that is something of a return to a normal. But with that, I'm very pleased to have been part of this process and to continue to support the bill.





Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I begin by echoing the sentiments expressed by my colleague the Hon Chris Hipkins, and indeed the member who's resumed his seat, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, in acknowledging the tremendous work that the Epidemic Response Committee did in scrutinising this bill and coming back with, in some cases, some quite significant changes. Clearly, the committee understood and undertook their role with due seriousness, gave a detailed examination, and have come back all with very sensible and important changes.
Can I also acknowledge the comments of the Hon Michael Woodhouse, too, in his adumbration of the circumstances that we are in—when I say "we": this House is in—in a country that, like the rest of the world, is in crisis. We have to be very careful when we adjust and adapt our democratic institutions, and this—this institution, the apotheosis of our democracy. When laws have to be made, when rights and interests have to be legislated for or against, the need for scrutiny, the need for accountability is, as I think Michael Woodhouse said, even more paramount, is even more important. And so, as I think this House has proven on many different occasions, under many different Governments, it is important to be nimble and agile about adapting our processes and our structures to enable that to happen, and I think we've demonstrated that that has been possible over the last five or six weeks.
But I also agree with the Hon Michael Woodhouse that we should not get used to this. This is not a set of processes—this not a way to run a Government. We need to be able to respond to the circumstances and we need to restore stability and certainty, and then we need to come back to allow every member of this House to discharge their full privileges and responsibilities. For the Opposition, it's calling the Government of the day to account; for the Government, it is about proposing and putting up laws and policies and measures that augur for the wellbeing and the goodwill of the country. So I acknowledge the sentiments that Michael Woodhouse expressed. They are the sentiments of a parliamentarian. We are all part of that equation, and it's incumbent on all of us to make sure we make the system work and that accountability happens.
I just want to comment on a couple of points in the bill, or the Supplementary Order Paper, as it now is, with the changes recommended by the committee, all of which I agree with. I'm thankful for the changes made in relation to the Courts (Remote Participation) Act. I think it was right for the committee to look very carefully at the possibility that sentencing might be conducted on an audio-only basis—I think there was a bit of an overreach there, for which I take responsibility; I signed off the original provision. It is right that that more limited means of remote participation should be confined to procedural matters only, and when it comes to sentencing it is important that there is a fronting-up. So I acknowledge that.
In relation to the Property Law Act changes, which are very important, I think, I acknowledge that apart from one correction to a cross-reference, there is no material change there, and I'm thankful for that improvement and for that provision coming back largely unchanged. That will, I think, make a big difference to both tenants and landlords, but particularly commercial tenants, who are grappling with the fact that they had reduced or, in some cases, no income and have been having to deal with some landlords—not all landlords, because many landlords have done the right thing and come to terms with their tenants—who are still holding out to continue to receive their full rental payments even though the circumstances simply do not allow that.
Finally, I want to acknowledge the significant work that the committee did in amending and, I think, improving the business debt hibernation regime. Obviously, very careful consideration was given. They are good changes that have been made. That's an important initiative, a temporary initiative, to get businesses through and the New Zealand corporate community through what will be a challenging few months ahead. Some businesses, as we know, will take longer to recover because of the industry that they're in and the circumstances that they're in. Others, as consumers return, as markets restore, and revenues are recovered, will be able to restore themselves more quickly.
The initiative is an important one, as indeed are the safe harbour provisions that are provided for in the amendments to the Companies Act in the original bill. 
To draw again on the spirit of the Hon Michael Woodhouse and the parliamentary comments that he made, we know that these are measures to respond to an immediate crisis. They should be temporary. They by and large are. I think there are one or two measures that the committee agreed ought to be made permanent, and so that is there, but by and large most of these measures are temporary. If we are to make permanent changes along these sorts of lines, they should be subject to the full level of scrutiny, with the appropriate time taken, and the expertise drawn upon both in the community and from within this House. But in the strange circumstances such as we have them, the committee has done a tremendous job, and on that basis I too commend the bill to the House.





BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I rise, too, in support of the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill. I'd like to echo the sentiments about this necessarily truncated process. None of us want to see this as part of the new normal which faces New Zealand and New Zealanders in coming weeks and, possibly, months, but I particularly want to reiterate the comments around the officials who supported us over these few days that we had to scrutinise this bill.
We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that, while it is their job to support the committee to work with submitters and to provide advice, they too are people that are living, as we all are, with the circumstances we are under and the challenges that that presents to our society, to our families, and to individuals. Their work was exemplary and their response was, quite frankly, fantastic. It was a challenging set of circumstances, to do all the work in such a truncated time, but all the more so because the committee members had a number of questions and challenges that they posed to officials, who were very, very good, indeed, at responding to those.
But if I look at the bill and the nature of the process we had to go through and the purpose—particularly to the areas I want to spend most of my contribution on, which are the safe harbour and the business debt hibernation—I look at them and I think of the work that we had to do, and I think the fundamental principle in terms of what we could do with the legislation could be summarised with the maxim "First, do no harm", because, unquestionably, when dealing with such a tight time frame, there is a real risk of unintended consequences, of overlooking certain things. So top of mind, certainly for me, was to make sure that what we brought back to the House was, first of all, not going to introduce harms, particularly to creditors and customers—or, indeed, risks to directors, if we talk about safe harbour—that would be undue and would actually unravel or undo the principles of what we were looking to achieve. I do believe we achieved that; in fact, I'm very, very confident that we have achieved that. But linked to that is a nagging doubt as to whether or not the measures that will be brought in, should this bill be enacted, will make a large-scale material difference.
We heard that there is a view amongst directors—a misapprehension, we were told—that too many of them believe or perceive that their personal risks, particularly around offences related to reckless trading—they believe that those provisions are all too similar to those that exist in Australia. We were told that that isn't, in fact, the case, but the fact that the perception persists was one of the principal reasons for instituting a safe harbour for this period of time so that directors who might otherwise be too keen or too pressed into potential liquidation of a company that might otherwise actually be able to trade out of the current challenges might feel themselves pressured into taking a less than optimal route. So the safe harbour provision gives them some confidence that they won't expose themselves to the sorts of personal liability that they perceive that they could be placed under, even though some advice we received says that that level of risk isn't there in practice—in New Zealand, at least.
So, absolutely, going into it we supported the idea of the safe harbour and we still support it on the way out. But I questioned in the first reading and I questioned again through the select committee process, if our directors are, quite rightly, quite conservative, quite risk-averse, if we look at the safe harbour provisions and the conditions they still place upon directors, not only must the company have been solvent at the end of December 2019 but the director has to have some confidence that the company will be able to trade out of whatever current solvency difficulties it's faced with or, in fact, during this period of six months, solvency issues that might arise. They have to have a confidence about the future likelihood of being able to trade out of that, and yet we exist, we live, in extremely uncertain times. I think we could all contend—I would certainly contend—it will be challenging for a director to gaze into that crystal ball and have any view of strong confidence of what the conditions might look like in the next six weeks, 12 weeks, or even more months into the future, because the duration of the economic impacts resulting from this pandemic are equally uncertain.
So that leads me to being concerned that their risk-averse nature could lead to the point of not taking up the safe harbour because they can't have sufficient confidence in being able to attest that they have the confidence that they can trade out, given those uncertainties. So we could well enact good provisions—good provisions that do provide protection, but which is a protection that won't be taken up in all too many cases. That would absolutely meet the criteria of doing no harm, but we can't guarantee that the measures we're putting in place through the safe harbour will lead to a sizable, a larger scale, material difference. I'm not sure that there is anything that we could have done differently about those provisions, but it is still a worry, because, fundamentally, our objective is to promote that businesses which feasibly could trade out of the difficulties of COVID impacts do so.
So I'll move on to the business debt hibernation. We heard a lot of concerns there about the complexity of the scheme. We also heard concerns about those general security agreements (GSAs) and how the holders of those might refuse to enter into a debt hibernation arrangement if they were unable to enforce their securities during that process. It could be likened to a case of those holders having their cake and being able to eat it too. Quite frankly, some of us feel it's quite a difficult position to be in, and for other creditors to be in—that someone has that incentive that unless they get special treatment the business debt hibernation could never work, but in getting the special treatment they do and persist with exceptional special treatment vis-à-vis other creditors, and that leads to a concern as to those other creditors. Where are the incentives for them to actually agree to enter into debt hibernation arrangements, particularly when they know that a GSA holder is going to still maintain extra special advantage over them? So I worry too, with those provisions, that not as many companies that theoretically could take it up will be able to—and that creates a very real worry.
I just want to finish off—because it doesn't feel like 10 minutes, Mr Speaker—with the Arms Act amendment around—
SPEAKER: It's because the clock was late starting. I started at five—a bit of time.
BRETT HUDSON: —the ability of licences. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'll just finish with this point then. It's pleasing to see—because I got a lot of correspondence from firearms owners worried that if licences expired during the lockdown period, then they were going to be left high and dry. It is extremely pleasing to see that the Government decided to come forward with provisions that do a simple extension of validity, which means the licence is unchanged and, subject to alert levels—whatever they may be at the time—the licence holders will have every right and privilege of the use of that licence as it existed prior to the lockdown during that extended period, along with the very clear pledge that they won't be paying more because of a late relicensing through no fault of their own. I think that is a very, very sensible way to deal with a troubling issue—we will all have received correspondence from firearms owners over the last year or so, and we know the concerns that they have held and which persist for them. So doing that was a very sensible move, and I welcome it, and I do commend this bill to the House.





Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to give New Zealand First's support to this COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill, and I do wish to start by thanking and acknowledging the work—in Mr Woodhouse's words—of what was a herculean effort on the part of officials, who were able to so swiftly knock together a good piece of legislation, which has been improved by the parliamentary process and the contributions of all of those parties and individuals who make up the Epidemic Response Committee.
So much has been said about this bill already, and I think to rotary hoe the same paddock again would, in some ways, be pointless. But I think, from the New Zealand First perspective, I do need to note a couple of points. One is very clear: this is a very broad omnibus bill—some 45 different pieces of legislation all contained within the one. I do note with a degree of satisfaction and comfort the changes to the Local Government Act, which are very pragmatic changes and take care of the issues, although there's no local government elections pending on the immediate horizon, so that—[Interruption] Oh, by-elections, of course. It does take care of those, should we have this—well, we have one local government election under way in Ōtorohanga, as has been said, and I am aware that there are other mayors who have stepped down. In fact, I think—
Hon Member: Two others.
Hon RON MARK: —the current president of the—yeah, that's right. The current president of Local Government New Zealand is still the president, and there has to be a process at some stage whereby a new president is able to be elected who is, in fact, indeed a mayor, because David is not any longer. 
The changes around the company law, corporate law, that are aimed at assisting businesses to survive and also deal with the issue over the lease and rent of commercial properties—it's an interesting debate and discussion. Listening to some people as this bill was put together, and the discussion that was had prior to the bill going to committee, it's often the way for some people to be very focused on the tenants and—forgive me—maybe not so aware of the circumstances that often landlords themselves are in. It's probably fair to say that people look upon landlords, generally, in the same sets of eyes that they have through history, as being the one who is actually profiteering off of the person who's renting their property. 
We sometimes forget that very often landlords are just Joe Blow mum and dad investors, who look at that property—be it a commercial property or be it a residential property—as part of their superannuation plan. And they struggle—they lever in to purchase the property and accept the overheads that come with it, given the market circumstances at that time, and they lease it at what is considered to be a fair, marketable, attainable margin. 
Of course, then COVID-19 comes along, and everything changes. So there had to be a way in which we could protect tenants and offer some pragmatic changes to the law that will, at the same time, give some protection to the property owners themselves who were up against the banks and the provisions in terms of their mortgages. 
So it is satisfying to see cross-party unanimity and the work of the COVID response committee that has actually produced for the House, for New Zealand, a very pragmatic, workable piece of legislation. Of course, the changes that have happened here go hand in hand with the initiatives that the Minister of Finance and Cabinet have already announced, aimed at alleviating circumstances of people who own properties, who have large debts, and who are struggling to pay staff during this crisis.
I've got to say, obviously, as a firearms owner—I acknowledge Brett Hudson's comments—very satisfying to see a very pragmatic solution. A lot of people, to be fair, are feeling under the pump at the moment—those people who are licensed firearms owners, due fit and proper people, and by a quirk they would have been found to have been in breach of the law and unable to continue to own firearms, simply because their applications for renewal could not be processed.
I just want to congratulate all involved. A great piece of work; good to see it was turned around so swiftly, so accurately, and I commend the bill to the House.





Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm very happy to rise to make a contribution in the second reading of this—I suppose I better get the name right of it—COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill. In the passage of the committee, members have been referring to it as the "further management measures bill", so it was nice to say the name correctly in the House.
I want, as other members who have sat on the committee have, to acknowledge the work of the officials in drafting this bill—Parliamentary Counsel Office for their work on the way through, but the officials for the way they presented to the committee. Clearly, they have done nothing else but work on this piece of legislation and its many and varied clauses. The chair, Mike Woodhouse, on Friday afternoon wished them a relaxing weekend, knowing full well that that was not going to be the case—and so it proved to be on Monday at 9.30 when we recommenced our consideration of this bill. The praise that is being heaped on those officials is well deserved and, I have no doubt, will continue throughout the further readings and the eventual passage of this bill, because it is a bill that we can all agree to and agree on.
Another couple of reflections, if I may, about process matters. The Zoom meeting scenario for select committees took maybe one meeting to adjust to the new way of doing parliamentary business, but, in this instance, it certainly worked. It worked well, perhaps because it was intensive work. It was, essentially, day in, day out; day in, day out; weekend off for members; and then a couple of days and then on into the House. So under these circumstances, it has been a way for members to absolutely focus, almost in an unbroken chain, through the Zoom ability. If that is to be part of our suite of measures for parliamentary consideration, then, from my point of view, it certainly does have a place. I want to acknowledge, Mr Speaker, that that is an innovation that yourself has brought in that, I think, in this instance, has been very useful.
In the consideration of the number of clauses throughout this bill, it fell to me to take particular notice of several areas. I'll start perhaps with the shorter area, and that was around—if I can find it in my many pieces of paper—changes to notices from bodies corporate. I can't find it, so I'm going to have to talk to the House from my memory. There were a couple of changes in clauses in the bill which relate to meetings of bodies corporate so that those meetings could, in fact, happen by video conferencing or telephoning, and another clause relating to bodies corporate which brought the terminology in line with the Unit Titles Act. They may sound small and not particularly exciting amendments, but they certainly, if members are a body of a corporate—a number of us are because a number of us have apartments and flats—body corporate membership, and particularly meetings, can be over some quite substantial matters. So the ability to have those without delay and to undertake those in a timely manner are certainly very useful changes and ones which we've supported by ourselves.
However, my main focus has been on changes in the local government space. The Hon Ron Mark has raised one of those changes already, and that is around the ability to delay by-elections. If members think about a by-election in a local community—and particularly those of us who have stood in local council elections—local campaigning is very similar to campaigning for Parliament in that it's very local. Under alert level 2, reaching a number of people just simply isn't possible to happen, so it impacts on the candidate themselves and their ability to get out and about amongst their community. 
The constraints of level 2 also have implications on the electoral system itself. The electoral officers themselves need to be kept safe under those conditions. Furthermore, the voters who get to vote in those elections need to feel that when they come to cast their vote—I know it's postal voting in the main, but in some councils—for example, in Greater Auckland local authority elections, there was a polling day, as there was in Wellington, and that may be part of local authority election voting in the future. So from the simple and very easy point that democracy is so very important in New Zealand, even under COVID conditions, then amendments like these simply make sense.
There was an issue that I did take up with the officials throughout our consideration of this bill, and it relates to the ability of a chief executive to delay a by-election in the event of an extraordinary vacancy. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! It's not a lunchroom. Jacqui Dean, I'll add some time on.
Hon JACQUI DEAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There is a new clause in the bill which provides for the chief executive of a local authority to notify the electoral officer of delay to the commencement of a by-election due to an extraordinary vacancy. The question that raised in my mind was why is that needed, necessarily, and why do we have to legislate for such an occurrence, given that there is no legislative requirement currently for the chief executive to notify the electoral officer in the event of an extraordinary vacancy? So why suddenly do we legislate for a notification to the electoral officer now? I put that to Jonathan Salter of Simpson Grierson, and he took a moment to give me a considered reply, which was along the lines of surety, of people knowing that in the event of an extraordinary vacancy the council had plans to move on a by-election. I accepted his advice and I accepted the advice of the officials that that, in fact, was the case—in fact, people want certainty—but I still reflect, and it still grates with me a little, and I do wonder if we are legislating because we can. Is that a good way to make law in New Zealand? 
If there had been a longer period of select committee consideration and members had had the chance to hear from chief executives, not just industry bodies and council and officials—had we had the ability to hear from mayors, to hear from chief executives, on their view of that particular clause, I would say that that would have enhanced my consideration and the consideration of the members just on that clause alone. So in the end, I am happy to accept—because it is a benign clause. But is it necessary? That is one of the failings of legislating in a terrific hurry: we lose the opportunity to hear considered views of the whole sector, not just a selected few. 
Yes, I know the prior Government legislated for the Canterbury earthquakes and legislated for the Kaikōura earthquake, and there are always shortcomings in legislation in a hurry, but I do consider that legislating in a hurry has its shortcomings. In the case of this bill, they were benign, but I do fear that in this House we are going to be considering pieces of legislation that are not so benign. That truncated process certainly does have implications for us as parliamentarians, but, even more importantly, for the lives and the freedoms of New Zealanders.
Having said that, the changes in the local government space are worthwhile. It is around allowing—
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon JACQUI DEAN: —different ways of notification—thank you, Mr Speaker. We support the bill.





JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to again offer our support to the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill, and had the luck of speaking to this at the first reading as well. I would like to join others in the House in acknowledging the public servants and officials who have been working so hard in all the stages to be able to get this legislation to this point, and the very, very long hours that are going on right across our Public Service at the moment, as people are really conscious of the work that's needed to be supporting our communities and to reset even better in the future.
This piece of legislation that's been noted by others covers 45—it's an omnibus bill—pieces of legislation, and I think is a real testament to the connection between Government and community and business, and the range of issues that are covered in this. I would like to reflect, not having had the pleasure of being on the Epidemic Response Committee doing this work, but that the tone of the debate this afternoon, I think, reflects Parliament at its best. It has not been without concerns being raised, but they have all been raised in a very thoughtful and constructive manner. It's very clear to me that all of the members working on this bill have been focused on ensuring that it is the best that it can be to meet the needs of our communities. That's, I suspect, what all of us hope to be part of when we come in to this place, and may not be that common an experience for many of us.
So just to touch on some of the specifics in the legislation—as I've said, it's hugely wide ranging, from points around looking at changes in relation to insolvency in corporate law changes, from the safe harbour provisions that have been mentioned for directors, and acknowledging that is about trying to provide directors with a sense of security, and being able to make decisions in very, very uncertain times. Acknowledging comments that have been made from members across the House around—legislation at this point, I suspect, is not going to be able to give magic certainty or assurance, but this is a step to give people more certainty. What the committee has done is add a purpose clause and clarify the coverage of these provisions and that they apply to entities incorporated before this announcement. They are specific changes that strengthen, hopefully, the inaction of these provisions to help good decision-making, and also around the business debt hibernation aspects of the bill, which is about providing one other tool to our businesses to help them get through what is going to be—without doubt, for many of them—incredibly challenging times.
Again, to acknowledge the committee, and that they made several changes to this section of the omnibus bill in removing the need for a statutory declaration to be able to enter the business debt hibernation scheme; clarifying the scope of protection to businesses through the moratorium, and making it clear that creditors with a charge over the whole, or substantially the whole, of the businesses are not bound by that moratorium; and clarifying some of the voting rules.
I do just, at that point—again, as we're talking about the challenges our businesses and, obviously, everyone working for them are experiencing, and may into the future for the next period of time—want to again acknowledge that this piece of legislation and these provisions are not the extent of the Government's support and engagement in this area. What I've seen has been a huge focus for this Government is looking at how we best move through this together and keep as many businesses open as possible. I sense that the public understands that. It's great to see us all working together on those lines.
Other changes—and just to note the point that was made by the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean, about the changes in enabling delay to by-elections at a local government level. That's, I think, covering three councils who would be in that situation at the moment, and pointing out that, actually, campaigning at a local level is often very face to face. Having run in a by-election at an electorate level that was full of getting outside the supermarkets and the train stations and going to public meetings—that was very, very face to face. That would not be appropriate or safe in the times that we're living in at the moment.
I think, while I'm seeing some really fantastic meetings happening on Zoom, bringing more people in who wouldn't have engaged in those traditional face-to-face fora, I think the chance for us to learn from that is what else we can do on top of the well supported existing democratic engagements that we've had in the past to reach new audiences, rather than jumping straight into that world and leaving behind methods of communication and connection that we've had in the past.
Also just to note that in this legislation there was also a change, I understand, through the select committee, around the Rating Valuations Act and recognising that it might not be possible for councils to practicably complete a credible general evaluation to statutory deadlines due to the likely impacts of COVID-19 in the second half of this year. 
There was a tweaking to the paid parental leave provisions that are in here that I was very enthusiastic about at first reading, because, you know, I was part of the people who fought to get paid parental leave in this country very belatedly. It plays such an incredibly important role in terms of maintaining women's attachment to employment, but also, most importantly, I suspect, nurturing our families and our littlest ones. This provision enables people to step back into essential work and ensures that they're not penalised and they are not prevented from going back and finishing their entitlement to paid parental leave. I think that's fantastic: recognising that most people actually do really care about the jobs that they do, and if they see a gap that they can fill, some of them will want to step in and do that. We don't want them to be penalised as a result of caring and putting themselves out there for our communities.
There are many other changes in here. Some of them, it's just about deadlines, and making sure that in this context we are recognising that business as usual hasn't been possible, and we're changing those deadlines to give people more time. Others are slightly more substantive. I will pick up on one last point, which the Minister of Justice acknowledged, around the amendment around the audiovisual links, and that the initial legislation included sentencing, and that that was, on reflection and consideration through submissions, pulled back on. I think this is Parliament at its best. It's an honour to get to speak in a debate where we are all focused on the wellbeing of our communities.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill. We just heard from Jan Logie of the Green Party that politics at its best is when all the politicians agree. That may be true in North Korea, but it is not true in New Zealand, and nor should it be. The truth is that activity does not equal productivity. So while it is right and proper to give thanks to the officials who have worked so hard at all hours over the weekend, and while it's right to give thanks to the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who was chairing the Epidemic Response Committee, for his efforts—and to all other members of the committee, actually—we can't necessarily credit them with a good outcome.
I opposed this legislation on the first reading for a couple of reasons: (1) it's not good process, but (2) while there are parts of it that are very good, to support it is to support other parts that are very bad. One of those parts is the so-called safe harbour provision, which removes the requirement of directors not to trade while insolvent—or, at least, that's how it was initially sold to us.
I want to try to recollect the extraordinary conversation that was had between members of the committee and officials that Brett Hudson, in his speech, partly referred to. It went something like this. It's a requirement that the problem we're solving—by introducing this safe harbour provision, what we're trying to do here is inform directors that they don't have strict liabilities for trading while insolvent, as is the case in Australia. The simple question that we asked is "Is it the case that this committee has been asked to change the law to what the law is?" "Yes" was the answer. And then we said, "Well, if the problem is that directors don't understand what the current law is, then isn't the answer to tell directors what the law is, and won't it make it more difficult if we change the law and then, presumably, these directors who don't understand the law will have to have a new law explained to them?"
Now, if people are finding this difficult to follow, I can understand that, because I think everyone in that conversation was struggling to see what the purpose is and what is actually trying to be achieved through these changes to directors' liabilities. Certainly, there was no reassurance from officials that they knew what problem they were trying to solve or that the solution being proffered would actually solve them. When we asked professionals who actually were directors from the field—people who did the work that we're trying to make easier with this legislation—they said, "Well, it's true. Through cases such as Mainzeal, there certainly are confusions around what the requirements and liabilities of directors are, but the last thing we want is change, particularly at this point in time."
So I admire people for burning the midnight oil and working through the weekend, and the officials for what they've done, but the fact remains that I can't support this bill when it's got provisions in it that I opposed on the first reading, raised the question of what the problem was and whether or not this would have more adverse consequences than expected, went and asked the officials on the committee what they were trying to do, and then heard from the private sector that, actually, the last thing they want was this change. Now I read in the select committee's report that, actually, they thought that on balance this was the least worst option. Well, that's not good enough. 
Then we move to the other really substantial change in this piece of legislation, which relates to the time frames or limits that are allowed for either banks cancelling mortgages on commercial landlords or commercial landlords moving on tenants. This suffers from not quite as bad a problem as what the safe harbour legislation introduces, but the problem is that, if anything, it is going to undermine the basis on which the overwhelming majority of landlords and tenants in the commercial space have come to agreements that work for them. 
It's not good enough to say, "Well, if anything, it will just give them a little bit more leeway—so no harm, no foul." We find ourselves again, as a Parliament, being asked by the Government to pass legislation that simply does not have a clearly defined purpose and has no analysis—no regulatory impact analysis; no regulatory impact statement; no analysis of what the effects, the unintended consequences, of the legislation are likely to be. That's a great shame, because I'd like to support this legislation for the sake of all the good things that it does do.
I'll give you some examples of those. It's absolutely right to extend the licence period for licensed firearm owners. There is an admittedly small minority of people whose licence, in a 120-month cycle, happens to be due now, this month. But, for those people, it's very worrying, and I think that's a commendable part of the bill.
It's certainly true that there are certain charities which do really great work, and we know who they are, who are reliant on running raffles, and of course they should be able to do that online. The real question is why it's been prohibited for so long, not why we're legalising it now. 
There are certainly requirements for local government democracy that people are able to participate in elections and do council business online rather than in person, which, in the context of COVID-19, would be a risk. 
So it is certainly true that it's with some regret that I'm opposing this bill, because there are certainly parts, including the ones that I just listed, which are noble and worthwhile. In a way, I'm pleased to know that the bill looks set to pass, for those reasons, but I cannot support the parts of it that have no clear problem definition and are more likely to do damage than they are to help anybody. 
It's worth noting how we got here, because I know people will get up—I know Kiritapu Allan is just about to get up and say, "Oh no. We heard a totally different version of events." Well, I just put on record what I heard is true—
Kiritapu Allan: That's correct. That's what I'm going to say.
DAVID SEYMOUR: —and I'd love to see how she can possibly dispute it. She's now indicating that she might actually agree with me, just to be difficult. We can look forward—Kiritapu Allan should be grateful. I'm trying to build up some suspense so people will want to listen to her speech for a change. She should be grateful.
She might also say, "Well, it was difficult because we're under pressure and we had to act fast." It's worth asking the question why we have to act fast. Some people say it's because there's a pandemic. Well, actually, the fact is the Government has been behind the people every step of the way through this crisis. 
We hear repetitively, ad nauseam, that we went hard and went early. Going hard and going early looks like Taiwan, who told the World Health Organization of their concerns about human transmission in December last year and who had their full public health response in play by 20 January. 
When I said, on 26 February, that maybe this is becoming a problem and the Prime Minister shouldn't be in Fiji for three days—she should be here working on the problem—people in the media said, "Oh, David Seymour is scaremongering." Well, I look forward to hearing an apology from those editorial writers in the media, because the reason we're here today, legislating at the speed of light, and, in my view, making mistakes, is because the Government's response has been so slow that Parliament is having to play catch-up. The people who ultimately suffer from that are not us in Parliament but those people who end up with poorly considered and inferior laws to follow.
With that, I cannot support this bill. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Kiritapu Allan.





KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): That was a rather extraordinary contribution from my friend the member for Epsom, who stands in this House and condemns this piece of legislation on the basis that the safeguards that have been introduced to ensure that those directors making extraordinary decisions in such uncertain times—I would have thought that he would have been rather receptive to hearing from within the business community, who are seeking those safeguards. He gets up in this House and says, "Actually, I'm not going to vote in favour for this bill, on the basis that the officials didn't give me a good enough answer. But"—he says in the same breath—"I am actually happy that this bill is going to pass, because there are a whole range of matters within this piece of legislation that are exceptionally and extraordinarily positive."
Now, I'm one of the members on the Epidemic Response Committee, that did contemplate this piece of legislation, and I will say that those officials that contributed—who did, as Mr Seymour says, burn the midnight oil, and we do hold them in high regard, and every single public servant that has spent the last six, seven weeks working extraordinary hours to ensure that we do the best we can in these circumstances, to ensure that (a) we can respond as is required through a public health lens, and (2) that we can do what is required right now to kick-start the economy.
Now, this is an omnibus bill which amends 45 pieces of primary legislation. That shows the extraordinary reach of the impacts of COVID-19. That shows how the entire operation of Government, whether it be in companies law, whether it be in the Resource Management Act, whether it be within the courts—this is an incredibly comprehensive piece of legislation. But what my friend can rest assured of is that there are particular safeguards, including a time limit that means that this bill expires in September. So I'm disappointed with his contribution this afternoon.
I do want to thank the members of the committee, and in particular the Hon Ruth Dyson, who turned to those officials and commended them for their work. This has been an extraordinary effort by many, and I commend this piece of legislation to the House.





Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak to the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill, a bill that I was able to offer some contribution to in the first reading.
I do want to acknowledge the Epidemic Response Committee. This has been a really good body of work. They've worked hard. I've been fortunate to be able to somewhat job-share this, and I'd like to acknowledge Chris Penk, who I think was maybe my substitute in the times I was travelling at the period when the committee was actually on. So I'd like to certainly thank those who were part of the committee, and the chairperson, the Hon Michael Woodhouse. A number of submitters appeared in front of the committee by Zoom and submitted in writing, and I think the departmental report—which was compiled very quickly—is a good summary of what we saw and heard. I want to speak to several parts of that.
First of all, the part of the bill that speaks to corrections and courts. This was very much around audio and audiovisual, and it is a component of: can we create legislation or enable legislation that allows audio to be a part of the courts and corrections? And then it expanded to, well, if there's audio, there's actually more likely to be audiovisual, and that's a more fair representation of what we're trying to achieve. So it then jumped to "and audiovisual". Then the New Zealand Bar Association and others also commented that there must be the right, on behalf of those who are in front of the process, to decline either of those. I think we only learnt or got to that sort of material from some of the legal submitters, who really did improve and fine-tune the bill.
I think we've already heard some commentary around debt hibernation and safe harbour, and a number of submissions where they gave real examples of what that would look like. I want to read just a couple of sentences from one that caught my imagination that I thought summarised the debt hibernation and the safe harbour—I thought it encapsulated it quite well. The submitter said, once they gave their example of suffering under coronavirus, "This is where the hibernation scheme and the safe harbour provisions intersect. The safe harbour provisions provide confidence to directors that they can continue in an attempt to salvage their business without the potential for personal loss if they were to fail in their endeavours. That confidence means they can proceed to put together an arrangement that … be considered by creditors in an endeavour to find a way of restructuring debt." I think this is exactly the purpose of the debt hibernation and safe harbour.
There was a lot of discussion—again, some of my colleagues have raised—around not wanting to provide a mechanism for those who were maybe struggling significantly and proceeding towards insolvency prior to coronavirus, and to try and nuance the legislation so it mostly solely applied to those who are suffering as a consequence of coronavirus, and that's quite difficult to specifically focus on, just that reason.
There were health components in the departmental report as well, and I am pleased that the Government took on board a small suggestion I made at the first reading that they take some care with mental health examinations over audiovisual links and how challenging this can be. I see one of the suggestions here is that an examination under Schedule 11 cannot be carried out by audio-only link. I'm pleased that was taken on board.
There are items here for police, very much administrative, around licensing and licensing extensions, workplace relations, and some more administrative areas.
I think, at this point, I want to just also thank the officials for doing a wonderful job with the departmental report. I think that did summarise the submissions, the submitters, who really added value to this process. We listened and changed. If we look at those changes across one, two, three, four, about eight portfolios, that's quite a few changes. But so there should be, because this bill amends 42 to 45 pieces of legislation, as I recall, so I'm not surprised that that was the fine-tuning that needed to be done. Again, I'd like to thank the committee for getting it to this place in the House, and I commend this bill to the House.





PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to be able to talk to this bill—my first speech since being back in the House post the COVID lockdown. I want to take a turn where I acknowledge all of those who have been working on it. One of the things that most impressed me was the ability for a whole-of-Government approach to pulling together the 45 pieces of legislation and bringing together those practical pieces of work to enable Kiwis to get on with it, and I think that's one of the great things about this Government: when issues arise, when Kiwis need to go about their daily work and they need to do that more easily, then we have a responsive ear to them, and this, I believe, helps in every way possible.
I also believe that Kiwis expect that in times like this we do come together, and we've heard an opposing view where that may not have been the case on some of the legislation brought forward for amendment, but, all in all, in times like this, Kiwis demand that, actually, we put the politics to one side and get on with changing the things that need to be changed to enable us to live our lives more easily. And that's what this bill really demonstrates by taking all of those pieces of work, having a look at simple things to make things better, and there are numerous examples of that.
There's been a lot of conversation around the changes for local government, a passion area of mine but also something that's really practical. I was unaware of a by-election going on in Ōtorohanga, but no doubt that is hotly contested. Be it in a large metro or a small province, none the less, they are important. They are even probably more important for a smaller town where the local representative can be seen as the go-to for everything, particularly on a small council. So I'm really happy that some of these things have made it into this omnibus bill and those changes have been accommodated.
I am also going to agree with my Green colleague Jan Logie, who talked about the changes to parental leave, and those who are returning to work to assist to respond to COVID-19 won't be disadvantaged by losing their entitlements to certain leave and payments. That's been expressed to me by several who have been nervous. One of several hundred constituency queries that come in daily—this has been a feature. And I am proud that I will be able to advise them that this is going through the House now, and with some positive news, because, again, these are the small things. People become nervous about what the impacts are. They are desperate to contribute to the situation. They know they can do it but they just want to make sure that any entitlement or any employment matters that pertain to their roles are going to be kept intact.
The other issue that's been raised, certainly, is around those changes to the Gambling Act, and the three organisations mentioned in there are the Heart Foundation, the Coastguard, and the Countdown Kids Charitable Trust. I know two of those entities really well. I've worked with them. The call's been made as to why some of these changes were not made previously, and let's look on the positive side and say, "Look, these will be made now.", and I'm sure that this will be a springboard for those entities to be able to campaign for further change to legislation post the September deadline expiry date—I think it's September—and that will enable them to do that. But, more importantly, and I know by dealing with other big charities in the electorate right now, they are nervous about donations. I've talked to the Wellington City Mission, who in one case have had a recent surge in one aspect of their business, their operation, but in other aspects it's not been positive, and that also extends into entities like the Crimson Trust—and if you look at the great work they do with the Trees That Count programme, for example, there are nervous sponsors in there. And they are vehicle sponsors, they are sponsors who are used to providing in kind, and without some sense of certainty for their businesses, and some changing, transitioning, arrangements, it means those charities won't benefit. So anything that we can do to enable them to continue to receive donations from Kiwis is really important.
I see there that others have discussed a range of deferments to regulatory requirements for Government agencies, the Public Service, who had difficulty implementing new legislation or the requirements. That's fair enough, and those are practical things. I said at the start that one of the things I like about this bill is that it is practical, and people expect that. So it's good that I see that those things have been included. It was good to hear from the previous speaker, too, just getting the clarity—he's left now—around that audiovisual link. I wasn't too sure what that meant in terms of how that applied to some of the health sector work. But it's good that we are able to pull that together, and the Epidemic Response Committee was able to play its part and recommend that. And thank you to all of those who participated on that. I hear it's winding up soon and we can resume normal business, so that will be a bonus as we get into the swing of things in the new normal phase.
Others have mentioned some of the changes to other provisions in the bill. I go back to what I said right at the start and say this is a good, practical omnibus bill, and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll just remind the member that you cannot mention the attendance or not of another member in the House.





STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, my colleague Michael Woodhouse mentioned the process that the committee had gone through to deal with this bill. I think everybody has paid their respects and expressed their gratitude to the officials that worked on the bill, and I, too, would like to do that. I think they did go above and beyond the call of duty to deal with this in a timely manner. I do agree also with my colleague David Seymour in some respects; it's not ideal. I totally get that. We're not in ideal times, unfortunately, and there are some things that I would be more comfortable with if we'd had more time to go over them, but we didn't, unfortunately. 
This bill deals with meetings by audiovisual means and other things in the bill, and I'd just like to relay how difficult it was at some point yesterday in the committee meeting. Just before 4 o'clock, our digital connections started to waver, and several of us restarted our computers in the hope that that would actually help, but that wasn't the problem. For some unknown reason, there was an issue with the network here in Wellington around 4 o'clock, and the most disappointing aspect of that was that I gave what I thought was one of my best contributions in a select committee, which was lost to the digital ether. And when I had the opportunity to have another go, I just didn't really feel the moment was there, so you'll have to take my word for it. But it was a wonderful contribution to the bill, and it would have made the bill so much better, but, however, the moment is gone. 
But it does highlight, actually, how difficult it is. We think we have got pretty good digital connectivity in New Zealand, and we do, but at times it lets us down. I think the bill's covered this pretty well, but it's not going to be a world where we do everything by Zoom. It just simply doesn't work that well. And I, for one, am looking forward to when select committees can meet in person, because eyeballing the other people in the room and getting their body language actually is a far richer experience and we get a better understanding of what people are thinking and saying. 
But as has been said, this bill amends 45 Acts. It's a significant piece of legislation, and to get it through in the time that we did is quite a mammoth task. It deals a lot with companies, and several people today have alluded to, certainly during question time, about the Christchurch and the Kaikōura earthquakes and getting legislation through quickly to deal with situations of natural disasters and so on—and those disasters still go on for some people. But I know from my own experience of dealing with businesses trying to recover or making the decisions, particularly around these insolvency and company law provisions in this bill, how difficult this is for people. It is a significant issue for a company director or a company owner who's sitting in their business overwhelmed by the situation that's around them, trying to assess the economic situation for their business. And then you add into it at this time that we're in such uncharted territory. Who knows—who knows what's going to happen in six months? Who knows what's going to happen in two years? And for a company director who has to make a decision on their company's viability and whether they can meet their creditors and meet their banking covenants, it's very difficult. 
And we see now Air New Zealand is assessing their company will be back to 70 percent of its prior service, but in two years' time, yet international aviation pundits are all saying it will be five years. Now, I don't know what the right answer is, and I would suspect none of those people do either, because we simply don't know. So when you get into a company sitting around a kitchen table or a boardroom, considering whether they are going to go into insolvency or not, it's very difficult. These provisions, particularly the business debt hibernation provisions and the safe harbour provisions, do give them more leeway to make those decisions. But it is a human decision in the end, and they're making a decision on something that—I don't think anyone knows what's going to happen in two months' time, let alone six months, and some of those decisions have to be made on those sorts of time horizons. So these provisions are much needed, and I was pleased to support them. 
I do have some concerns about the safe harbour provisions, and I know my colleague Alastair Scott had a very good member's bill in the ballot, which covered this very provision and, I thought, was an excellent bill. It's a shame it wasn't pulled out of the ballot, actually, but, however, we've got the one we've got. It does have its shortcomings—I agree with that—and that discussion we had, in the end I was confused at the end, but, David, I do have to admit—oh, Mr Seymour. 
David Seymour: It wasn't just you, mate.
STUART SMITH: Yeah—ha, ha! So, at the end of it, we did what we could and we've got the bill in the shape that we have today. As I said, I do have some misgivings on it, but in the end I think we have to do what we think is the right thing and that is to pass this legislation through. 
I think the uncertainty, you know, as the point was made in the select committee, might encourage risk-averse behaviour. We can't really say with any certainty that the bill will do that. I think it is something that will have to be watched for, but, hopefully, that won't be the case. But people are people and they do funny things, and particularly when they're under pressure, as I've seen through my experience, anyway, dealing with the earthquake. 
Company directors and their duties—it is a difficult one, and I think the Institute of Directors covered that pretty well. But, you know, in the end, we got to where we did. It is the least worst option in the circumstances, perhaps, but that's the way it is. 
Property law and commercial landlords—I think the issue we're seeing at the moment, certainly when I talk to businesses in my electorate, is you have businesses who are getting into significant issues. They're either trying to come to an arrangement not to pay their rent or to lower their rent; the landlord on the other side of the transaction has significant debts often, and they're also struggling. So what we're often having now is just the problem being passed along the line to the next person in the line, and, unfortunately, it is going to be a pretty difficult time in the near future for people in those situations. I'm sure other members who've taken the pulse of their business community will be well aware of what lies ahead. It is going to be pretty tough out there. 
The paid parental leave provisions—well, yes, it was absolutely essential that it was dealt with. The Gambling Act changes, I do agree also—I'm going to have to stop doing this—with Mr Seymour. But why didn't we do this years ago? Why do we have to do this—why weren't they allowed to carry out their fund-raising activities online? It makes perfect sense. I don't know why we didn't allow that, but that's none the less where we got to. But it's here now, so that's going to be great.
It was raised earlier that companies are often the owners' or the principals' superannuation. Michael Woodhouse made a very good point about keeping a business in operation, because often the greatest intellectual property in the company, particularly for a small and medium sized enterprise (SME), is actually the principal—the people that own and run the company, particularly for smaller companies. So it's not like handing the keys over for a repossessed car to someone else to take over, where you just jump in and drive it away. Businesses are all about people and they're all about the processes that go with it—and big corporates, they have all of that documented. But often in SMEs they do not, and then to simply have the keys handed over, you end up with a business not only failing for the principals but going out of existence, and that's not a good result for anyone. So if we can keep those businesses going as long as possible, then that is the most desirable outcome that we could hope for.
So it was with that reluctance which I've outlined that I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.





KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I'm very pleased to be able to stand here on behalf of the Labour Party and lend my support to this bill which we wrote. So the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill is quite amazing, really, when you think about it—that something like this can come up so quickly and deal with issues that only eight weeks ago this Parliament, I'm sure, would not have anticipated that we needed to do. But that is the nature of the crisis that this country and many other countries face, is that is evolving, it is unprecedented, and there is no template—there's no blueprint as to how to go about this.
There have been many examples of issues that have come from various sectors that this Parliament is being asked to deal with through this process—45 pieces of legislation are being amended in this bill, and I think that's marvellous. I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the officials for the work that they have done, because they're often overlooked. To go away and work over the weekend to be able to present the report to the Epidemic Response Committee was, I'm sure, something that no one wishes to do, but they had no choice. They had to do it and they did it because it needed to be done, and good on them for doing that.
I also want to acknowledge—credit where it's due—the Hon Michael Woodhouse did a very good job of chairing the submission process for this bill, so well done. I think that's something that this House doesn't do enough, is acknowledge when there is collaboration across the House. I'm one of the first to point out the foibles of the other side, so I also wish to take the opportunity to congratulate when there has been collaboration. I know that that is a part of the political process, the parliamentary process, that the public don't see very much—collaboration does not sell newspapers—so it's great to be able to acknowledge that.
There are various examples in this bill of things that—like I mentioned earlier—I don't think we would have anticipated would have needed changing, such as, as referenced by the previous speaker, Stuart Smith, the necessary changes to the Gambling Act. Now, organisations like the Heart Foundation and Coastguard and Countdown Kids Charitable Trust needed a law change to be able to take payments for their lotteries online or by phone, and it is astonishing that that is required, but it was. And so it's great that that has been identified and included in this bill.
There are a number of changes that are significant, such as, for example, allowing the by-election in Ōtorohanga to be postponed. Now, otherwise that wouldn't have been able to happen, but, obviously, with the conditions that are currently in place as a result of the necessary lockdown that we are undergoing at the moment, that would have impeded democracy. So it's a good opportunity and a great example of those sorts of issues coming through the hard work of Government departments, the Ministers identifying that including that in this response, and the other side of the House taking it into consideration, hearing submissions on the Epidemic Response Committee, and lending their support to this.
It's been an extraordinary experience being part of that committee, I have to say, and I want to acknowledge the submitters, because they had to come at short notice. And the submissions that they provided in this allowed the committee to make a number of recommendations for changes in this bill, and that's been addressed by the Supplementary Order Paper that's been presented to this House. It just goes to show that even in a short process, the select committee process does contribute greatly to this.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Ah, not for the next bill!
KIERAN McANULTY: There are, of course, times where urgency is required, as the previous Government knew very well—many, many, many examples of urgency; far more than this Government, I might point out. There are many examples where some bills need to go in through urgency. And the next bill that this House is going to consider is one of those, because—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Give us three reasons.
KIERAN McANULTY: —of course, the COVID-19 response requires such an approach.
Now, I understand that the member on the other side of the House that wants to take the opportunity to interject is under a lot of pressure at the moment because the response has been so strong and it has been received so well that the other side of the House is running out of platforms from which to try and get attention. So if this is the platform which that member chooses to try and grasp attention, then good on him—good on him. It's not the approach that we would take, of course, because we are a party of principle.
So—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the bill?
KIERAN McANULTY: Back to the bill—back to this marvellous bill. I will not concentrate on the interjections from the other side any more. I will come back to this bill. I don't actually think that there's much need to go on too much longer to be honest, because—
Hon Simon Bridges: No, no, give us more!
KIERAN McANULTY: I don't know if I will give them more. They plead for more—they plead for more, but I will not give it to them. I don't know why, but it seems to me that they want this to continue—they don't want to get to the next bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm happy for it to continue if it's about the bill.
KIERAN McANULTY: I don't really want to continue, Madam Speaker, because the point is that this bill has been covered—it's been well covered. It's so broad and so varied. But, in such a short period of time, it has addressed the things that needed to be addressed. I commend all those that have been part of it and I'm looking forward to seeing it progress through the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 119
New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.
Noes 1
ACT New Zealand 1.
Bill read a second time. 





URGENCY
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the passing through all stages of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill and the passing through the remaining stages of the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill, and any bills into which it may be divided.
I will deal with the easy one first, which is the latter of those two bills, in terms of explaining the need for urgency. Members have—just in this debate that we have just concluded, on the second reading of that bill—outlined the reasons for it, outlined the urgency behind it, which is that many of those measures are needed to be put in place in order to ease the burden of COVID-19, in order to particularly ensure that our businesses can get back up on their feet and that the impacts of COVID-19 are, as far as possible, mitigated. So we've passed the second reading today—normally, Parliament will only do one stage of a bill at a time—and urgency is required in order to ensure that Parliament can complete the passage of that particular piece of legislation.
On to the more substantive issue though, which is the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. At the end of tomorrow, New Zealand moves into the next phase of the fight against COVID-19, when we move to alert level 2. We will move out of the cycle of the renewal of a national state of emergency. This bill, the public health response bill, establishes a fit-for-purpose legal framework for managing the unprecedented circumstances of the COVID-19 epidemic in a coordinated and orderly way where a national state of emergency may not exist. To this end, the bill establishes stand-alone legislation that provides a legal framework for responding to COVID-19 over the next two years, or until COVID-19 is brought under control, if that is sooner.
The need to pass that legislation is self-evident. The legal framework needs to be in place as we move to level 2 from 11.59 p.m. tomorrow night, Wednesday night, so that the powers and the protections that it creates will be available from the outset of level 2, and so that there will be no opportunity for the virus to regain a foothold in New Zealand because of a legislative hiatus.
New Zealand and New Zealanders have gained international respect for our response to and our resistance to COVID-19. This bill offers some assurance that the effort and sacrifice that the country has made will not be wasted, and the Attorney-General will talk specifically about the provisions of the bill in the first reading.





A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Motion agreed to.





COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE BILL
First Reading
Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I move, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill be now read a first time.
This bill creates a bespoke legal framework to support the Government's future efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19 in New Zealand. This is designed to last for a maximum of two years although can be brought to an end earlier if the threat passes.
New Zealanders have been on a precarious journey combatting this virus. We're not at our final destination yet, but together we've made extraordinary progress through the largely voluntary efforts of our people, who accepted the need for unprecedented actions to isolate ourselves in bubbles to cut off the chains of infection. We went hard and we went early to fight a virus for which there is currently no vaccine and no cure. We know it can hide and spread through those with no symptoms, and around the world we've seen the devastation and loss of life it can cause, especially in aged care and in dementia units. We've negotiated difficult terrain and have broken the chain of community transmission. In the meantime, we've improved our stocks and supply lines for polymerase chain reaction test kits and reagents as well as personal protective equipment supplies and distribution. We've ramped up testing and the quality and capacity of track and tracing. We've minimised the damage the virus would have otherwise done to our people and to our economy.
We cannot afford to be complacent but we can take a moment, as a nation, to pat ourselves on the back. New Zealand is now able to restore civil and economic freedoms at a far faster rate, and to a wider extent, than many other countries. The move to level 2 is welcome. We can reconnect with friends and family we haven't seen for a couple of months, catch up—with appropriate social distancing—for coffee and, dare I say it, get a haircut. But level 2 does not mark the end of our precarious journey. It does not remove the need for vigilance, nor for the measures we need as we do our best to ensure the virus does not get a second chance. Level 2 does allow us to live our lives with greater flexibility, but still with great care and some restrictions, and that is what this bill addresses. Some critics, including this House, have said we went into lockdown too late, then argued we should leave it sooner, and now argue that we should take another week to consider this legislation, which would extend the social and economic impacts.
Managing the epidemic has required the fast escalation of measures to stop the spread of the virus, for primarily health reasons. The step down has to be prompt for different reasons. Each additional day has significant economic costs for New Zealanders. Delays which can be avoided also risk undermining the social consensus we need to maintain. We considered whether to allow this bill a select committee process; this would have either delayed level 2 or risked a level 2 without the more nuanced enforcement powers that we believe are warranted for an interregnum. We concluded that passing it under urgency is necessary for New Zealand to move to alert level 2 at 11.59 p.m. on Wednesday.
We provided an exposure draft to other political parties and to legal academics overnight. We recognise this is a short period—we have received feedback, and we thank you. The bill doesn't change the alert level framework, or any of the measures or restrictions that have been required at former levels; it does modernise the legal framework that sits behind and supports these measures. As New Zealand moves out of lockdown, and looks ahead to level 2 and beyond, it's necessary to create a bespoke legal regime. I must emphasise now, as I have before, that there is already a solid legal basis for all the legal restrictions that have been placed on New Zealand's freedoms and liberties at this extraordinary time. However, the current legal framework is not fit for purpose for enforcing certain measures at level 2, where there is increased freedom of movement and more nuanced restrictions. New legislation is necessary, as we don't want to rely on a national state of emergency and the Health Act alone to enforce measures at these lower levels.
To date, restrictions at alert levels 3 and 4 were given legal effect by notices under section 70 of the Health Act, in conjunction with the state of emergency under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act and the Epidemic Preparedness Act. To support alert levels 3 and 4, the director-general has issued notices to close premises except those providing essential services, prohibit congregation in outdoor places, and require people to remain at home in their bubble except to access essentials and to exercise. These orders are lawful under the Health Act, and the restrictions proportionate to the scale of the COVID-19 threat.
That said, some aspects of the Health Act do need to be modernised and adapted, and this is particularly true for the detailed level 2 measures, which are not well suited to the existing Health Act and Civil Defence Emergency Management regime. This bill provides new enforceable measures that don't depend on a state of emergency being in force. The bill allows the Minister of Health to issue orders to give effect to these measures, either for all of New Zealand, at a regional level, or for a particular class of people, businesses, or other activities. For example, it includes powers to require people to maintain social distancing measures, to require people to refrain from travel to or from any area, to require people to be isolated or quarantined, to prohibit gatherings of any specified kind, to report for testing, and requiring premises to be closed or allowed to open only if specific measures are complied with.
The measures in the bill take into account the particular characteristics of COVID-19 and give us the best chance to keep it under control. Due to its asymptomatic and contagious nature, measures may need to be imposed at a nationwide, regional, or group level, where necessary, to reduce the risk of transmission. The Government recognises the restrictions and measures to combat COVID-19 have had an enormous impact on our lives and livelihoods, and so the social and economic impacts will be important factors in decision making under this bill. The bill moves decision making from medical officers of health to the Minister of Health, who needs to be satisfied the measures are appropriate, and they must take into account any decision by the Government on how to respond to those risks and avoid, mitigate, or remedy the effects of COVID-19 which may have taken into account any social, economic, or other factors, and must take into account advice from the director-general about the risks of the outbreak or spread of COVID-19, and the extent and nature of measures appropriate to address those risks. The Minister of Health must consult the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and any other Minister the Minister of Health thinks fit.
The bill will give police and other authorised enforcement officers clearer powers to enforce the orders, consistent with the graduated approach police have taken to enforcement to date. Those powers sit aside along voluntary measures, public health, and other guidance. This bill creates a power to enter premises, a power to direct people, to stop activities that are in breach of the order, a power to close roads and public places, and a power to close businesses operating in breach of the rules for 24 hours. Clause 23 allows a constable to enter a private dwelling house without a warrant only if they have reasonable grounds to believe that people have gathered there in contravention of an order and entry is necessary to give a direction to cease the activity. We acknowledge that it is unusual—though not unprecedented—for a constable to have warrantless power of entry into a private dwelling house. This is due—the fact that it is unusual—to the high expectation of privacy that citizens have in these places.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: What's the precedent, Minister?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The extraordinary risk posed by COVID-19—I will cover instances in later speeches; I haven't got time to detail that now—and the fact that it can be spread readily in large social gatherings, whether in public or in private, justifies the power in these circumstances and the limits it places on rights. There are safeguards in the bill so that a constable must report every time a warrantless entry power is exercised, summarising the circumstances and the reason why the power needed to be exercised.
This bill will create a new infringement offence regime. Some breaches will be dealt with as an infringement offence, and an intentional breach will be a criminal offence which may result in a fine or imprisonment on conviction. An infringement offence regime gives police another graduated step in their enforcement options where the breach is not serious enough to warrant criminal prosecution. The bill also amends the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 to ensure a nationally consistent approach to the response and to management of risks arising from COVID-19, and to better deal with concurrent emergencies that are not COVID-19 but which might arise during the period of the COVID-19 response. We believe this legislation is needed to appropriately continue our response to the unique and unprecedented challenges of COVID-19. Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.





Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Madam Speaker. National called for level 2 safely and sooner than later. We wanted lockdown, it was justified; the lockdown extension wasn't. We've been pleased to see New Zealand open up more, and I know how pleased New Zealanders are to see that and to see that that is going to happen.
Having seen a low number of COVID-19 cases with a lot of people out of work isn't success; it's a thousand people going on the dole each and every day who are suffering in our country. The focus of our country has to be on turning to save jobs and getting people back to work. Having flattened the curve, let's not flatten our economy; let's combat the deepest recession in a generation. We need a strong plan to get out of the economic hole that we are in. Indeed, we believe that the Government and its really single-minded focus needs to be on saving those jobs. A big part of that is trusting New Zealanders—as we open up, trusting New Zealanders in their businesses and their workplaces all over New Zealand, but, I would also add, and critically when it comes to this bill before Parliament, trusting New Zealanders in their sports clubs, their shops and cafes, their churches, and their places of worship; open them up.
So for all those reasons—that sense of getting back to work, of creating jobs, of saving jobs, of trusting New Zealanders in their workplaces but, more widely, in our society—we fully support opening up to level 2. Indeed, we believe that every day it is for our Government—the Government of New Zealand—to strongly justify the restrictions that they have in place over New Zealanders and, where there isn't good rationale, to reduce them. Our Government—this Parliament—should trust New Zealanders, unlock our country, get us going, and get us working again.
That said, it's with regret that I say we have, on this side of the House, in the National Party, real concerns with this bill. You'll hear from other members of National about, I am sure, civil liberty concerns—concerns with our freedoms as a people that have been long fought for—in the speeches and contributions. I want to simply place on record my concerns in two areas, really, but four for completeness: funerals, tangi; churches or places of worship; enforcement; and the length of time that this bill—or law, as it will, I think, become—applies for.
Before I get to those, could I just say this: this bill, in coming here, has had very limited scrutiny. There will be, as it becomes law, no select committee. It's a case of, on this side of the House—I don't know about the support parties in Government—us having it for less than 24 hours. I think it was Geoffrey Palmer who lamented this Parliament being the fastest lawmaker in the West. Dare I say it, to the members opposite, in recent times we have got it wrong; passing things that we didn't even know we were passing. So the room for error in this bill, I suggest, is incredibly high, given the legal complexities.
Funerals: I have had many messages—I would say in the dozens—from New Zealanders nationwide on the issue of funerals and tangi; from the Deputy Mayor of Invercargill to a family in the North, and many a funeral director. Simply put: it's not right that people at level 2 will be able to come together in restaurants, at shows, at movies, on the sports field, watching sports, in malls in more than 10, but they will not be able to do that in a controlled environment of a funeral home or church for a funeral. This outcome is not kind, and, in fact, it's inhumane. I could read New Zealand some of the emails that I've received that I think would take a brave person not to be upset by. But let me personalise it in my situation, where I have an elderly father who is 86, and I know that in our family there are six siblings, there are six partners, there are 20 grandchildren—including three of my own children—who would want to be at the funeral of someone who shaped our lives in such a profound way. Yet, under this law and the powers being given to the Minister of Health—in fact, really, the Prime Minister—that would not be so.
On churches and places of worship, whether it's pressie, whether it's New Life, whether it's a mosque, or whether it's a Sikh temple, really it's the same simple point. David Parker has crafted a law and the Cabinet has crafted polices that mean that we allow dozens on a sports field or to watch a movie, and yet we don't allow them to come together with appropriate rules to worship their god. I say that's not kind, it lacks humanity, and, even given the gravity of this situation, it's just not right.
Whether it's Marie from Whanganui, who said to me, "When rugby has been deemed an acceptable activity—30 people up close and personal—why should I be banned from attending a mass in my church where social distancing and contact tracing would be very simple for about 50 people at a time?", or Natalie, who said, "For many people, our faith and practise of it is the most important thing in our lives. To brazenly disregard the importance of churches and put their necessity to function beneath the opening of other far less important things is unbelievable. In her comments yesterday the Prime Minister stated that religious institutions are places where people come for fellowship, for community, and to socialise."—Natalie says—"I never attend my church for fellowship, community, or to socialise; I only go to adorn and offer sacrifice to God, which is not only a fundamental right but an obligation."—she goes on—"I would still go even if I was the only one left in the pews."
I acknowledge that, in fact, the words of these things that I talk about are not in the bill, but they are the policies of Cabinet and they're the polices that, through this bill, the Minister of Health will implement. I say one final time: they are not kind; they are inhumane, and they should not pass this Parliament, even given the seriousness of the situations and the need and the desire to loosen up at level 2.
We've seen some changes to this bill coming in Supplementary Order Papers, in amendments that we've seen from Mr Parker—and we appreciate that—on the issues of enforcement, although, I dare say, my colleagues will nevertheless raise some of those issues. Length of time—I, again, acknowledge that whilst the bill says two years, the Minister is changing that, and we appreciate that, but, again, I think you'll hear some views from my colleagues on that and on the wider civil liberties issues. That's because the powers in this bill given to the Minister and the police are in a way that we've never seen in a non-wartime situation, I dare say, in this country, with very few checks and balances, if any.
I'm pleased to see New Zealand open up more. I want to see us save jobs. But I say trust New Zealanders—Prime Minister and David Parker, you're not doing that with this bill.





Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I rise to speak to this legislation as the Minister of Health who will have the responsibility and the privilege of eventually acting within it, and—as one who has had many conversations with the Hon David Parker, who has carefully drafted this legislation—to really take into account what we now know about this virus and the situation we find ourselves in as a country, in a situation where we have gone hard and we have gone early, where the risks have been diminished, but the risk has not passed.
The existing legislation that we have acted under as we have combated this disease is based on an emerging situation, on an emergency situation, and on a crisis, and it is fit for purpose in that new and emerging structure. It has put us on a very stable footing for our response. Now, as we have succeeded as a country in really combating this virus through the efforts of all New Zealanders, who have come together to unite to fight COVID-19, we have the benefit of some time to consider how, when we're operating under a lower-level framework with a diminished but not destroyed risk, we can have bespoke legislation that ensures we have the powers necessary and desirable to ensure the best possible response to this virus for the health and wellbeing of all New Zealanders.
We have taken a very precautionary approach. It has served us well as a country. I want to thank Minister Parker for his leadership in this area, for his taking on the responsibility of making sure that we, as a country, have legislation that is up to the minute and that actually is based upon a good, firm understanding, in so far as the scientific community has it, of the risks that present to us. Let's not forget that six months ago, we did not know of this virus. Only in late January was human to human transmission confirmed, and since that time, in New Zealand, we have put up a remarkable response. We have set up a contact tracing system that has national direction and that is consistent across the country. It has resources at the centre that simply did not exist before. We've put $70 million into public health. We've set up a national distribution system for personal protective equipment (PPE), because previously it was the responsibility of NGOs and private providers to source their own PPE in accordance with their own health and safety plans. But we determined that it would be important to have a national distribution centre to keep our essential service workers safe, and we've set up a testing regime which compares incredibly well to other testing regimes around the world and sees us with the lowest positivity rate of any using the polymerase chain reaction with reliable data, next only to Taiwan.
Now, as that situation emerged, as the evidence changed, and as we came to better understand the virus, we have had to respond quickly, and under the existing legislation that has been possible. And it's true that our understanding of the virus continues to emerge. So I would push back on some statements made by the Leader of the Opposition that minimise the risk. We do better understand this disease, but we don't completely understand this disease, and it is important that we continue to take a risk-based approach, underpinned by the legislation that we have.
He raised the issue of mosques, temples, and churches, and raised a concern that people would not be able to assemble in numbers greater than 10. I have to say that taking the decision to limit those gatherings to 10 people at this stage was one of the most difficult decisions that I have faced as a Minister during this time. I know that the Prime Minister has expressed a similar view, and I have had that feedback from Cabinet colleagues. It was not easy, because we know of the human tragedy that surrounds many of these situations, where families have not been able to grieve in the way that they traditionally would.
It's difficult at any time to face grief and loss, and as myself, a funeral celebrant, I know that people choose in those situations, and expect, to physically comfort each other. What we have seen overseas, sadly, is that in those situations, people have come together, and transmission of the virus has occurred and there has been further tragedy. In New Zealand, our transmission has, in different public situations, been a challenge through this period. We did not want to see people grieving face the double jeopardy of potential further grief because in these situations, where people physically comfort each other, there was risk of any transmission.
We hope this situation will not continue for too long, because we do seem to see fewer and fewer cases. But as we begin to open up, as we open up our economy again, we want to be sure that we are putting the safety of New Zealanders first in these situations and ensuring that we continue to keep moving forward so that we can continue to open up and have a more normal, safe engagement with one another in a controlled way that respects what we now know about this virus.
In this legislation, as the Minister of Health, I will be required to have regard to the advice of the Director-General of Health about the risks of the outbreak or spread of the virus, of the nature and extent of measures and whether they are voluntary or enforceable, and how we can best address those risks. I will have consulted with the Prime Minister, with the Minister of Justice, and with other Ministers, as appropriate, before making any orders under this legislation.
It is appropriate to the different footing that we find ourselves on in level 2 to have legislation that is looking forward to a situation where it may not be that burning emergency that it was in the first place but where those risks are still present, where we have legislation that is designed and debated in this House, in this Parliament, across the House—the chance for a robust debate about the legislation that will underpin our response as a country. It is appropriate to have the Opposition have their view in this debate about the legislation that will shape our response going forward. [Interruption] The Opposition respond with perhaps sarcastic comments. The alternative is not to have this legislation and not to have this debate, and I don't think anybody would think that was appropriate when we had the opportunity to have a wider debate, to consult with legal experts, and make sure that we had the best legislation in place going forward.
We are very, very fortunate in New Zealand to be in the position we're in, and I do want to take this opportunity to thank, on the international day of the nurse, all of our nursing staff, in particular, but also all of our professionals across the health system, who have responded so well. It is a privilege to lead the health sector response and to have had such success. I think the results speak for themselves as to where we find ourselves now, and that is due in no small part to the response of the general public and their willingness to make sacrifices to make sure that we're in the position we're in now, and it's also due to the fine work of our medical professionals.
Now, it is important, though, for all of us that we step forward and not back, and so that is why in these situations we continue to take a cautious approach. We do not want people gathering in numbers of greater than 10, and even when in a premise that may hold up to 100, they will be separated. So, for example, in a restaurant, a booking will not be for more than 10 people. These are to preserve the gains that we've made and to lock them in, to make sure that we can keep moving forward and keep opening up our economy.
We only have to look to Europe to see the situation they are in, where they are in lockdown in many countries and continue to be in very restricted environments. That is very damaging to their economy, but not only are they facing economic damage; they are also facing decimation in their populations, where this disease continues to have tragic consequences.
In New Zealand, thanks to the efforts of New Zealanders and thanks to the public health response and quick action—going hard and going early—we are in a privileged position to now consider legislation that will take us forward and underpin our continuing fight against this virus. I commend this legislation to the House.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): In my previous intervention in this House, I gave the Government a commendation, and in doing so we were reflecting on a process of a very speedy but thorough select committee process for two important pieces of legislation that are now back before this House just on seven days from its first reading and will be passed into law this week. I talked about the World Bank parliamentary forum that I attended, where there was growing concern around the world about what were described as weak democracies—so-called democracies that pushed through State intervention in people's lives without the appropriate scrutiny of Parliament. I find myself in the situation of going, within an hour and a half, from commendation to condemnation for this piece of legislation—both in its process and in its executive overreach. I would go so far as to compare the Prime Minister to Rob Muldoon. She is Rob Muldoon with slogans and kindness. I'm old enough to remember carless days, wage and price freezes, reducing the road speed limit from 100 kilometres to 80 kilometres per hour—
Hon Member: Supplementary minimum prices.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —that's right, SMPs—by an executive that rode roughshod over this parliamentary process. Even they pale into comparison with the influence and executive fiat that is being exerted on this country by this bill. I am, frankly, astounded that a Government that purports to be open and transparent, to be kind, and to give the country, the public, the credit for the amazing work that they have done still increases further and further into their freedoms and their lives.
Let's be very clear: if there was a question about whether the level 4 and level 3 lockdown was legally allowed under section 70 of the Health Act—and that is a question yet to be answered—then there's no doubt that the sort of influence that the Government wants to have in level 2 is not. So if the Government wants to act in this way, it does need to pass legislation, but, as I said in my previous intervention, that is the very time when this place matters most, when the rule of law matters most, and where changes to that law need to be carefully thought through, well considered, consulted on, robustly debated, and definitely not rushed through.
Now, the Minister of Health, very clearly, says there is haste—understandable, but this Government has had three months. I think this Government did get legal advice that said that there was a question mark over their ability to act at level 3 and 4, and, clearly, they wanted to continue to impose themselves on New Zealanders' lives under level 2 in a way that was entirely inconsistent given what we heard about what level 2 would look like, and so they're going to pass that bill. But not even the Minister of Health knows his own legislation, because he said in his speech that he will have to consult with the Director-General of Health. Actually, the bill doesn't say that; it says quite the opposite. At subclause (2) of clause 9, on page 5, when making a section 11 order, "Nothing in this section requires the Minister to receive specific advice from the Director-General about the content of a proposed order or proposal to amend, extend, or revoke an order." So he doesn't need to consult the director-general, and not even Dr Clark knew that.
Hon Dr David Clark: Have regard to any advice.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: So now we have—well, he says he doesn't have to have regard to it, which means he can ignore advice. Well, that's actually pretty consistent with the pattern that we've seen over the last few weeks.
Hon Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member is mischaracterising my response, and I'm not sure what remedy I have for that.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Well, that's a debatable point; so members can debate those points.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: So they don't have to take the advice of the director-general, they don't have to have an epidemic notice, and they don't have to have a state of emergency. If Dr Clark and the Prime Minister believe that the freedoms of New Zealanders should be curtailed, they issue a notice. That is the classic case of executive overreach.
The Attorney-General talks about how we are now legislating for social distance. We have got to the point where we are going to make a law about how close I can get to members of this House. Why didn't they go further? Why didn't they make a law about sneezing into your sleeve or washing one's hands for 20 seconds? You think I'm being flippant? That's where we've got to, and what that says to me is the Government doesn't trust Kiwis.
Kiwis have done this. New Zealanders have done this. We have knocked COVID down—and it's true it's not out, but there is an expectation that we get back to something of normal, because the health risk pales now in comparison to the economic asteroid that's about to hit this planet, and it's going to land directly on top of New Zealand. It's going to be ugly, and it's happening already. The Minister shakes his head. Well, good luck selling that to the country when there are hundreds of thousands of jobs lost.
It wouldn't be so bad if anybody could understand what their intentions were, as the Leader of the Opposition said. We can have a rugby game—and it won't be just 30 players; it'll be 60 to 70 players, coaches, referees, and medics. They can play, they can run around, and they can bang into each other, but they can't go to the bar and have a beer afterwards, because we couldn't trust them to do that. My daughter will be mixing next week with her schoolmates at school. She can't wait. But the 14th birthday party that she was arranging for this weekend is going to be unlawful under this legislation when it's passed. We can go to the shopping mall—with hundreds of people, potentially, if there's three malls connected together as it is in George Street in Dunedin—to buy the engagement present or the wedding present for the loved one, but we can't go to the function wherein we'd be giving them that present. As Simon Bridges said, the ability, the freedom, the fundamental constitutional right of freedom of worship is now less important than the right to go to a cafe or a shopping mall. That is an affront to New Zealanders.
Not only are we considering these aspects of intrusion into our lives; we are not giving the New Zealand public an opportunity to have their say—even in a short period of time. Frankly, that's an insult to their intelligence, it's an insult to this House, and it makes New Zealand one of those weak democracies that I heard described at the World Bank parliamentary forum.
None of that—none of that—is intended to dismiss the risk the Minister of Health articulates, but I ask this: when? When does this end? We're going to be like this until a vaccine is found. The "weeds on the lawn" metaphor that the director-general used is going to be with us probably for another 18 months. Are we really saying that this is going to be New Zealanders' lives for the next 18 months, and, if so, why not give them a say on that? Why not give them the opportunity to say, "We can be trusted. We know what social distancing is. We know what close contact is. We know what good hygiene measures are, whereas we didn't pay as much attention as we could've before it became apparent that this was a serious virus."?
I finish with these points about the Attorney-General's comments about the Opposition's inconsistency in its positioning. I don't believe there's any inconsistency. We were too slow to shut our borders, we were too long before coming out of an extreme lockdown, and we are too distrustful of the public in legislating for level 2. I'm sad about that. I'm sad that at this stage in the process the National Party cannot support this bill, because we want this to be a team of 5 million but it's the Government that is racing off in a direction that we cannot support, curtailing the freedom of New Zealanders without their right to have their say. Unless there are material changes to it, which will be signalled, it will be difficult to support this subsequently.





Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, what can I say? I'm quite astonished and gobsmacked. I listened to that member's earlier speech and it was characterised by reason, gratitude, even lauded and applauded officials and the Government for the act that it had taken in supporting that legislation. Now we have this bill before the House, which is the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill—a bill which I and my party, New Zealand First, believe is absolutely essential if we're to get through stage 2 and back to normality as quickly as we possibly can whilst minimising a spike in infections and a re-emergence of COVID-19.
If one is truly as concerned as that member is about the state of the economy, jobs, people who stand to lose their jobs or who already have lost their jobs, businesses—and I noticed a lot of rhetoric of late; people talking up their great concern for small business. I didn't actually see it in their time in Government. I saw a greater devotion and interest to large corporate businesses like Skycity with all of their pokie machines, like Chinese donors of large amounts of money. I saw a lot of focus on big corporates, but I never once heard the type of rhetoric that I'm now hearing emanating from the Leader of the Opposition about what I would cynically even characterise as belated concern for small business—nine years belated.
I have to say also—and I do need to address these points because they were made in that member's comments—he's moved in his own words from commendation to condemnation. I get that; that's the job of the Opposition to call it as they see it. But then he went on to exemplify his criticism of the Prime Minister and this Government with some rather caustic comments about a former Prime Minister of the National Party. In fact, the Prime Minister who's most revered as being a patriot, a nationalist, a strong-minded firm leader who knew what he stood for—
Brett Hudson: Here we go. New Zealand First is defending the memory of Rob Muldoon.
Hon RON MARK: —knew what his party stood for, was brave, no wilting flower, no lily. A man—and Brett Hudson, I'm just astonished. I have no doubt that Mr Hudson will later on take Mr Woodhouse aside and give him a bit of country language, actually, about Robbie Muldoon and what a hero he was to many, many National Party people. In fact, I voted for Rob Muldoon. As a soldier, I admired his leadership, I admired his strength and courage, and I admired the fact that he could make hard calls, regardless as to whether or not everybody agreed with them, he made—
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Yeah, but he didn't ride roughshod over the parliamentary process.
Hon RON MARK: He didn't ride roughshod? Well, Mr Woodhouse, that's completely contrary to what your Hansard records you as saying. So what we are seeing right now played out in the House is the confusion that the Opposition's been displaying for the last eight weeks—absolute, total confusion. The question really is where can they make traction in the hearts, in the minds of the public on a 21-26 percent poll? That's the real challenge that's facing them. Unfortunately, it's manifesting itself in this ridiculous debate that we're all being subjected to right now and are no doubt going to be subjected to for a number of hours until this very worthwhile, very necessary piece of legislation is passed, which I have to remind people has a sunset clause in it.
Now, extraordinary times—I used to say it to young men that I was mentoring, young women, both when I was in the military and when I was operational, when I was running a small business, employing staff. Sometimes life has a habit of smacking you in the face with something totally unexpected that one is not prepared for. One might have—in the late hours of the night when philosophising and debating and discussing—talked about a pandemic and what the effect might be on a country, on a region of the globe, maybe even on the planet itself, but no one takes these conversations seriously at the time, and then it arrives. I can simply say this: extraordinary times require extraordinary measures to counter them. I don't think there's any disagreement in the House on that.
The question is how far does one go, and to keep oneself aware and alert to the fact that these measures have a finite period of time, and then we must get back to normality. But if we are to do the things that Mr Woodhouse wants: go to the pub—he wants to go to the pub. He wants to have a bit of a knees-up at home and have his mates around—that came out; it's in the Hansard. Blame it on the daughter, blame it on the rest of the whānau, but Mr Woodhouse wants to go to the pub—he's made that very clear. We all probably want to get back to, sort of, normality and socialising with our friends and our mates and our communities. We most definitely want to be back in our rugby clubs, back with the kids at Saturday morning footy and netball—we want to be doing those things—but the surest way of ensuring that we can't or that we end up going back into lockdown at stage 3 or stage 4 is to be rash and to not factor in those things that we need to do to ensure that the gains we have made this far are cemented down and not lost. And then people can go to the pub until whenever.
I'm one of those people who worries about the next thing to hit us, and, I guess, with a security head on, and I'm pretty sure Gerry Brownlee—given he's probably the most effective Minister of Defence that that party's had over its nine years in tender—thinks about these things as well: the "What are you going to do next time?" But right now we're faced with the situation we face. Police do not have the powers, and we've deduced that we need to strengthen those powers—the enforcement powers—so that they can do the sorts of things that they need to do: so that they can enter premises to direct people to stop activities.
I get a little confused when I hear people complaining that the Government's not done enough to stop an upsurge in parties over the last weekend. Well, this bill, when we get down to level 2, will ensure that the police can do something about that, because no one wants those breaches to go unchallenged, not dealt with—that is very clear. And yes, there are some extraordinary powers in there: that they can enter a private dwelling house without a warrant, but that's only if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the people have gathered there in contravention of the order and entry is necessary to give a direction to cease that activity. I would like to think that a party that's setting itself up to run a very strong law and order campaign in September would agree with that; would back the police as they've said they would; would agree that the police, in these circumstances, need the power to act and bring to an end illegal gatherings or gatherings that are likely to jeopardise the health, the safety, the wellbeing of their own whānau, of their own community, of their own neighbourhood, and there, from that, the nation's as a whole.
I think that, addressing the questions from Mr Woodhouse about the Government doesn't trust the people—holy heck. I have sat in Cabinet, I have spent Sundays reading masses of Cabinet papers where provisions have been put in place to assist small businesses and the commercial sector in a way that is historic—we've never seen anything like this. I mean, if I think about Rob Muldoon as being a leader that Mr Woodhouse doesn't like from the National Party, I do wonder about Ruth Richardson, because Ruth Richardson's approach to harsh times was completely the opposite: slash and burn and bury the economy.
This Government's chosen not to follow that pathway, and it's been a high-trust model that's been leaned on at every turn, with money being made available for employers that they could draw down on immediately to pay wages of their staff. We actually hear that some of them have simply used that money to pay redundancies. Well, we've always known—and I know that our Government and the Cabinet and Prime Minister have always said—this is a high-trust model. We're facing extraordinary times. We needed to act with speed. We needed to get money into the hands of private business owners, employers, to help address what was coming, and we're doing that again with even more assistance to small business. We are where we are right now, looking to go to level 2, because the public of New Zealand, in the main—in the overwhelming majority—have responded well.
Of course, like every family, we have our one or two, don't we, and we've got to deal with that. We have to live with it; we've got to deal with it. This piece of legislation will help us deal with those miscreants. But, in the main, we are in the position now because we have trusted the people and they have done what we always knew they would do: they've responded magnificently. But do we want to burn up the gains? Do we want to find ourselves going back into level 3? Well, that's an Opposition call. Fortunately, they're not on the Government benches so they don't get to make that final decision. Kia ora.





Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): That was an interesting contribution from the Hon Ron Mark—some of it I agreed with, the vast majority I didn't, because when a Government chooses to put a piece of legislation into place that proposes an exception to civil liberties, then there has to be a clear definition about why that exception is being put in place. This bill doesn't do it. Everyone knows that we have had a lockdown and that it has prevented some of the extraordinary numbers that were in various models from ever coming anywhere near being correct. That's because people, by and large, voluntarily complied. It's because people who own businesses—and let's be clear, when you talk about businesses, you're talking about jobs, and people who own those businesses decided that they would comply. Then what we saw, effectively, was a voluntary commitment to try to beat this COVID-19 virus.
There have been questions in recent days about, well, what was the legality of what happened? Was it right for the Government to do this? Did they have a legal right to do that? Well, that's going to be played out over a little more time to come, but it's interesting to note that this bill starts on page 1 with "The bill establishes [a] standalone legislation that provides a different legal framework for responding to COVID-19 over the next two years," and it then goes on to say that it will apply at whatever level we might be at over those two years. That, I think, really answers the question about the legality so far, and that, in turn, highlights the trust that New Zealanders have exhibited, the willingness that New Zealanders have exhibited, to get on top of this thing. So going to level 2, I would have expected that we would see a far more liberal arrangement than we're seeing here—far more liberal. These people aren't silly. They know that social distancing is a good idea in the current circumstances. They know that sharing hard surfaces with one another does mean that you've got to clean between them at various times. They know all that, they don't need to be told the housekeeping of how to behave appropriately at a time when these threats exist.
So we have several concerns about this bill. One is the sunset is far too far out. Two years—two years we could be at level 2 all the way through. Now, I don't think public tolerance would actually take any Government that far. That's up for the Government to determine. We will be putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that we hope will make a difference to that that means it can be reviewed at a much more frequent opportunity. We hope the Government is considering what has been discussed in briefings today.
We're also very concerned about the issuing of section 11 notices. So the bill doesn't prescribe anything particularly, beyond enforcement, but it does make it possible for the Minister of Health—who has to go through a consultation process that means, in actual fact, the Prime Minister determines what is in a section 11 notice. A section 11 notice will have the prohibitions in it: no more than 10 people at a funeral, no more than 10 people at a wedding, no more than 10 people at any other public gathering, only a few people in cafes unless seated and single-table service, same in restaurants, and, eventually, in bars. Everyone might wonder why, when it's so easy to determine that actually you are a tavern and therefore you can open this Thursday as opposed to a bar and have to open next Thursday, Thursday week—what's the reason for that? Well, I think it's found in the schedules, because they have to take a week to print the enforcement notices that are going to be served on all these places at various times for these minor breaches.
While Mr Mark says, "Well, you know, we have trusted New Zealanders, and we've got to back the police, we've got to make sure that we support them in their work."—don't put them in the invidious position of having to deal with New Zealanders in the sort of petty ways that occasionally we've seen over the last four weeks. I think what I saw at Sumner beach in Christchurch two weekends ago was appalling—absolutely appalling—and I think if anyone expects that to be a shining example of how the police are going to deal with these powers when it comes to New Zealanders, then they're deluded. I worry about that. I feel for the policemen on the beat, feel for the guys in the cars, and all the policewomen as well, who have to do all that difficult work. But they're being put in an odd position, and I think it's a bit unreasonable for that to happen. So I don't like the infringement regime. It's too tough. It should be that there is some kind of an expectation that there'll be a lead-up process before the so-called enforcement officer gets out the book and writes the ticket.
So then we come to enforcement and who can enforce it. As the bill is written at the moment, then we should take Police Commissioner Coster at his word and expect that various gangs around the country could be presaged into becoming enforcement officers because apparently it was OK what they were doing: blocking roads, stopping New Zealanders going about their rightful business. So we don't want to see any of that sort of thing coming into the enforcement regime. We do want to see that the people who have that enforcement responsibility are responsible, that they are in some way linked to the Crown and, therefore, have a chain of responsibility that can be looked at.
I worry, too—particularly when it comes to the hospitality industry—that what we're seeing here is the construction of an effective local alcohol plan applied to the entire nation. I think that's quite a potential danger. Let's be very clear: while the Prime Minister has said that there was a great deal of work done with the Hospitality Association, the reality is that there was one of those consultations where they were told what's happening and expected to agree. A Minister who I won't name actually told them, "Don't worry, so long as there's a bowl of chips on the table, you'll be able to open." That's totally in contravention of the current alcohol laws. So it just shows the degree of understanding that's gone into this thing from those who have been party to putting the bill together.
So on those three points, the sunset clause will have an SOP; on the section 11 notices, we'll have an SOP; and on enforcement, we'll have an SOP. I only hope that maybe they're trumped by the Government being smart enough to know that they haven't got everything right in this particular bill.
Now I want to come to the whole issue of what it's doing to the psyche of the nation. I do worry about that. I think the symbolism of not being able to attend friends', relatives', and very, very close loved ones' funerals is a big problem. I think it's heartless, it's cold, and it is nowhere near kind. I think, similarly, for many people at a time like this, where there is uncertainty—no one knows what the next year or so is going to bring for this country. We're a trading nation. Mr Mark, let me tell you, sir, when it comes to looking after the big export businesses, the people who hang off those big export businesses are the small businesses that are the majority employers in this country. So don't kick us for having an interest in our export markets. And by the way, have a talk to your leader, because I don't think he's doing us many favours with our biggest export market just at the moment.
Let me just say this: when people start to get so particularly and individually hurt by the circumstances that they see around them, then I think we've got a problem. So I would urge the Government to make some kind of a statement beyond just that it may be changed in two weeks' time, to actually come out and say what the intentions would be. The big thing that's missing all the way through this is the lack of information for anybody to plan. Now, the Government might say, "Well, because we didn't really know what's happening." Well, the Government has a duty to be at least slightly optimistic about the future and to put out a plan that people might be able to hang off and rely on, and we haven't seen it. I know that there will be redundancies in the next week because some of the people who are trying to plan the future for their business cannot see that future, have not heard a lay out in front of them that they can rely on. This is not a good bill.





Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I rise in support of this bill. I want to start just by providing some perspective. I'm sure that many New Zealanders have watched what's happened around the world. For many of them, they will have friends and whānau who live in other countries. I have a number of friends and family who live in the United States and in other countries, but particularly in the United States, where I have friends who work in hospitals as health professionals. I just have to express my intense gratitude for everything everyone in New Zealand has done to get us to this point, because it seems, frankly, like a miracle to my friends and family in the United States who are looking at thousands of deaths every day, and in some cases now, front-line health workers who are otherwise young and healthy people have contracted COVID-19, been extremely, seriously ill, and even died from it.
The economic impacts of the pandemic in the United States are no doubt going to be far greater because the virus took hold, because they are going to spend months, if not years, in a situation of responding to that. Of course, an intolerable loss of life on top of it, on top of those job losses. So when I look at our situation here in Aotearoa New Zealand, I'm incredibly grateful that our Government acted early, went hard. We no doubt got a little bit lucky that we could see what was happening in other parts of the world before it took hold here. A huge thankyou to the team of 5 million who've gotten us to the point that we're at today.
But of course, this isn't over, and I would express some caution to everyone who is really looking forward to getting out and about. We don't want to have to go back to level 4. We don't want to see an outbreak happen. You know, in other countries like South Korea, in the Victorian state of Australia, and now in Germany, of course, we have seen a slight rebound in cases following a loosening of restrictions. So that's why it is so very important that the Government follows the very best health advice when determining what the rules for level 2 are and how coming out of level 3 into level 2 has to happen in a different way than the way we went into it.
This bill, I think, is absolutely necessary to ensure that all New Zealanders will benefit from the period of lockdown that we've already been in, and will benefit from being assured that the rules will be able to be enforced. Even if the vast majority of New Zealanders embrace these rules and want to stop the spread of COVID-19, it would only take a small number who ignore the rules to cause an outbreak that could quite quickly become very serious and cause us to have to move back to a stricter level. So, of course, the vast majority of New Zealanders support the actions that have been taken thus far. I think they will absolutely respect the rules in level 2, which are not at all arbitrary but absolutely informed by what is going to prevent the spread of the illness.
I have heard some concerns expressed about the limitations on certain types of gatherings like funerals or in bars, but, of course, there are very, very good reasons for why there are the limits on numbers in those types of gatherings as compared to, say, sitting in a cinema. It has to do with the way in which people engage with each other. I heard this from Dr Siouxsie Wiles last night. I was on a panel for the Aotearoa Town Hall online and this very question was raised, and particularly about the importance of tangi—the cultural importance of it—and was that taken into account. I thought the explanation given made a lot of sense, from a scientific perspective, which is that, you know, when you're sitting quietly in a cinema, people aren't talking to each other, and that it's that talking and being in close proximity that allows the droplets to spread the illness. So that's why certain types of—you know, if you're gathering at a bar and there's a lot of noise and you're trying to speak at a high volume, it's much more likely you're going to spread droplets to other people. That's why so many of our clusters were related to a bar and to weddings. Those types of events have been responsible for the spread of the illness, here in New Zealand as well as overseas. So there is a logic to it.
I'm very confident in our Director-General of Health, and I'm very confident that the Government is listening to the very best advice to ensure that New Zealanders are safe from the spread of COVID-19. Of course, that is the best way to protect jobs and the security of incomes into the future, to limit the spread of the illness, because those countries that have not had strict lockdowns, who have had bigger outbreaks, are feeling the exact same economic impacts that we are feeling here in New Zealand. Over time, it will be worse because they won't be able to get back to life as normal as soon. So that's where we have a huge advantage here, on our island nation, of potentially being able to eradicate the illness or significantly prevent the spread to the point where we can return to life as normal sooner. I certainly hope for that.
In order to do that, we need the confidence of all New Zealanders, and New Zealanders need to know that other people in their communities are respecting the rules, and that the Government can take action if need be—without being in a state of national emergency—to ensure that those rules are being enforced. I think there is a real logic to having infringement regimes so that we're not simply limited to criminal penalties and a criminal prosecution, which would be very much over the top. But we need some way of enforcing and ensuring that small minority of people who might disregard the rules, that we have some way of ensuring that they play by the same rules as everyone else, so that we can have the maximum benefit as a country in terms of limiting the spread of the illness, protecting the health of our loved ones, and, of course, being able to return to work and have some certainty around jobs and incomes as soon as possible.
Of course, the Green Party would always prefer that there would be a select committee, even a very short one, and we would've liked to have seen that. But we also understand the need for urgency right now, given the move to level 2 at—was it at midnight on Thursday morning or 11.59 Wednesday? So recognising that this is a very, very short period of time and that there was a desire to move back to level 2 sooner rather than later, then we can understand this. But one thing that gave us a lot of confidence is that the exposure draft was provided to legal academics and actually quite a wide variety of people and perspectives to ensure that that feedback could be incorporated into the bill before it's passed. We take great assurance from that.
Another issue that was raised by Gerry Brownlee just a moment ago was the two-year sunset clause. Of course, that would've been something that would have concerned us greatly as well, but my understanding is at the committee stage we'll be moving to a reconfirmation every three months, as long as it's needed. Of course, the specific rules around the level will change based on the very best evidence.
I completely understand that many New Zealanders and, indeed, members of this House have expressed concern that we don't know what is going to happen and that the Government can't tell people with perfect certainty what will happen. But I think that most people would agree that the Government has been very, very clear in communications, has given people the confidence to move into level 4 and then into level 3, and that as soon as we have the best information we are communicating that in a way. Of course, in a pandemic situation with a previously unknown disease, it would be impossible for us to provide absolute certainty to everyone about how it's going to play out. We have to make decisions based on the very best evidence of how many cases there are, our ability to contact trace, our ability to contain things.
I have to say that speaking to my friends and family around the world, everybody has been incredibly impressed and envious of the situation we have here in New Zealand, because, certainly, we are in a much better position than the vast majority of people in the developed world. I just feel incredibly grateful that we had the time and the ability. It's really a bit of a shame to hear the attitude from members on the other side of the House who now seem very intent on picking a fight and demonstrating their strength. But I think that, ultimately, New Zealanders can see that compared to pretty much anywhere else in the world, New Zealand is in a really good position. If we continue to work together—if we continue to work together—we will have the very best outcome for our country. Tēnā koutou katoa.





Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, sir. I thought the Hon Julie Anne Genter was about to enjoy 12 of her allocated 10 minutes. Let me pick up on the comment that she's just made, suggesting that the Opposition is spoiling for a fight—or words to that effect. We are fighting for trustworthy, law-abiding, hard-working New Zealanders who need to get back to work. That isn't putting up petty opposition; that is making a statement on behalf of New Zealanders who are suffering in a whole range of different ways. When he spoke at the start of this debate, the Attorney-General, the Hon David Parker, was quite right to highlight the economic cost of delaying a move from level 3 to level 2. I don't think anybody wants to do that. Businesses and employers throughout New Zealand have been telling us that for weeks. We have all heard stories of how much hardship many are suffering. You only need to talk to our neighbours as they go past us in the parks, or on walks down the street, or as we contact businesses in our own electorates to know how difficult it has been for them. Livelihoods are at risk—we need to get back to work.
But the crucial point is that a move to level 2 is not dependent on the passage of this bill. The Minister of Finance has spoken before of New Zealand's high-trust model, and I heard the Hon Ron Mark, when he spoke a moment ago, also use that term. Well, this bill undermines that approach and sends a message to church worshippers—and when I say that, I'm talking not just about those in Christian churches but those who worship in synagogues, in mosques, in Sikh temples, Buddhist temples, Hindu temples, all sorts of places of worship in our multicultural country—that they can't be trusted. That's the message that's being sent to them. In particular, that message is being sent to funeral attendees, to families who are eager for long-overdue reunions, particularly with elderly relatives who have been missing their grandchildren, missing their children so desperately, and we all know people like that. I send my love through this message to my own mother, who's in a retirement village, because, like thousands of New Zealanders, I haven't been able to see her for a long time either, and I hope she may be watching now.
But it sends a message to all of us that we can't be trusted, and that, of course, is utter nonsense. It's not founded in any evidence. It's insulting, and, in the case of funerals or those who wish to be with the dying within their families and extended whānau, it is utterly heartless and cruel. I've been inundated by messages on this particular topic today, and I want to acknowledge to those who may be watching just how many emails, how many phone calls, there have been to my electorate office, messages on social media, and so forth I have received from worshippers who are absolutely distraught at being told that even under level 2, they will not be able to resume worship in their chosen church or place of worship. I have 100 percent sympathy with them. I am utterly supportive of their aspiration to be able to go back to worshipping responsibly, as I know they all would do. So let me put on record this party's absolute commitment to advocating for them. They should be trusted to do that responsibly. That failing, at least, in this bill must be rectified, and I hope that the Government is listening. I hope that we will see a change to that effect later on this evening.
I was particularly moved by a constituent who rang me last night to tell me about the death of his elderly father and the fact that they had planned on the assumption that when moving to level 2 this Thursday they would be able to have a funeral bordering on normality—obviously, no hugging, still having to observe physical distancing, but at least with members of the family and close friends of the deceased able to gather together, because mourning is such an important part of the grieving process and of the healing process. It was only a fortnight ago that the Prime Minister spoke about what level 2 would look like, and she said at that point—and this is what so many churches and others have been relying upon, including those who have been thinking about funerals in recent days—that level 2 would include gatherings of up to 100 people. So they planned accordingly. Many have made arrangements to travel accordingly, only to be told now that can't happen. Well, that is heartless, and more, it's inexplicable. They do not understand what changed over the last fortnight—why, when it was going to be OK a fortnight ago to have a gathering of that nature, did we suddenly find just yesterday that it would be down to gatherings of no more than 10?
Then, when the Leader of the Opposition spoke this afternoon, he put it into sharp perspective, because he pointed out the absurdity of allowing 30 rugby players, plus a referee, to be on the field, in very close physical contact. I defy you to find a way of playing even touch rugby without physical contact, or, say, 50 or 60 cinema patrons, all appropriately spaced in a cinema—that they can do that but 11 people cannot attend a funeral, even spaced out, as the Prime Minister repeated several times in her address yesterday. That's not just illogical, it's insulting, and, as I say, it's utterly heartless.
No one disputes that the risk hasn't passed. We all know that we must continue to do our bit. But New Zealanders have shown that they have been doing their bit, they can be trusted to do their bit, and as long as the guidelines are fair and well-articulated, they will do their bit, because they've shown us that they are doing their bit. That does not justify the passage of a Draconian measure. In fact, what it does is engender disrespect and contempt for the law, which is more likely to lead to problems than it would if they were trusted more. This bill jeopardises that particular public support and understanding, and I think we should all be concerned that that public support is being put at risk by this particular measure. We cannot afford to allow contempt, complacency, arrogance to creep in when we've done so much hard work, and now, as we hear in that well-worn cliché, we must lock in the gains. This bill, as it is currently drafted, does not get the balance right, and we need it to be right. As an Opposition, we want it to be right. We would have worked with the Government if only they had reached out to us to get it right.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry to interrupt the member, but it's come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and for the benefit of those who may not have heard the debate before the adjournment, the National Party is unable to support this bill. We do so largely because we are concerned that the Government hasn't got the balance right on the issue, and they certainly haven't got the process right.
But I do want to make the point that, sometimes, reaching a position on a bill is very challenging. It's not as if you just think, "OK, well, the Government is going to put this up, so we'll say the opposite," Life is seldom that simple, and it's particularly challenging sometimes when the options on both sides of the argument contain many unappealing features. I'd like to think that all members of this House would have grave concerns about any measure that, effectively—and very significantly—curtails the civil liberties of New Zealanders, and that, of course, is a key feature of this.
So we in the National Party didn't reach our position lightly. We gave it as much consideration as we could in the very short time we were given in order to consider the measure. I was making the point just before the adjournment that we would have been willing to work with the Government to get this right, because, as a country, we need to get this right. But, unfortunately, the Government hasn't reached out to anyone. Not only have they not reached out to us in the Opposition; they have decreed that there will be no select committee process. So, whereas they could have been hearing from legal academics, from those with expertise in these areas of public law, from the police and others, and from all the commentators who usually have much to say on this topic, they have not heard from them, and they have not instigated a select committee process—even if it had only been for half a day. I submit to you that we could have produced a better bill, but instead, unfortunately, we've been shut out of the process, ignored by what looks to be an increasingly arrogant Government. Some will have seen the report over the last few days that this is a first-term Government showing arrogant third-term-itis—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.





KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to make some brief remarks on this bill this evening. I want to acknowledge some of the remarks that have come through, both from this side of the House and from the Opposition. This bill is being passed under urgency. We are foregoing the typical process by which we all agree good law should be made by, and we are doing so because of the particular circumstances we find ourselves in both nationally and globally.
There are three particular grounds of irony I think I want to speak to briefly, in the contributions that I've heard from friends across the House. My good friend the member for Ilam, he addressed this House about the legal grounds for which this bill is (a) being passed now, and he addressed the grounds by which the lockdown has been in place over the last six or seven weeks. He says that we shouldn't be passing this bill because New Zealanders should be trusted yet at the same time decries this Government's position because there was absolutely no legal authority on any standing grounds by which we've been under the lockdown for the past six weeks. It's an absolutely ironic position to put to this House.
What the Opposition—and, indeed, what this side of the House—have sought is absolute certainty and clarity at all stages. Now, as we transition from level 4 through to level 3, by which we've had very clear grounds—well, we say we've had very clear grounds, the Solicitor-General say's that we've had very clear grounds, and, indeed, many academics have said we've had very clear grounds by which this lockdown has operated. When we turn to level 2, we accept that there is going to be a much more liberal environment by which we will be operating in. For the certainty of all of us, it is important that we're all very clear of what those rules will be during this very odd time.
Now we come to the issues around transparency. We hear the Opposition decry time and time and time again throughout this afternoon: there's been a lack of transparency. Indeed, my good friend Mr Macindoe just said right then in this House, "We have not been reached out too. We have been locked out." Well, he will know, and we will know, that they indeed were provided in good faith, in order to ensure that this House could hopefully come to a consensus position on this bill—they received a draft. They have been provided the opportunity to feed back that information. That same draft has also been provided to many legal academics, of which we're very grateful that they have fed back into this piece of legislation. We can expect that there will be Supplementary Order Papers tabled this afternoon to help ensure that this very bespoke, fit for purpose legal framework is right.
I now want to come to the use of urgency, which the Opposition again have decried and decried in this House this afternoon. Isn't that again an irony? In 2011, it was the Rt Hon David Carter, I think, who made the observation that that Government had spent a quarter of that year sitting under urgency—that side of the House. They passed bills like the national standards—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, in the minutes left, come to the bill.
KIRITAPU ALLAN: It's very important, Madam Speaker. This sets the context by which the Opposition—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Come to the bill.
KIRITAPU ALLAN: —have made significant contributions about our use of urgency.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Come to the bill.
KIRITAPU ALLAN: That side of the House used urgency to introduce 90-day trials—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Come to the bill.
KIRITAPU ALLAN: —Auckland super-city, increasing tobacco tax, and the "Hobbit" legislation. This side of the House is using urgency for a very significant bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, but I have said to the member: come to the bill. You don't ignore the Speaker. You have half a minute left. You come to the bill.
KIRITAPU ALLAN: This side of the House is using urgency in this House in an absolutely unprecedented time—in a time when those forebears of the Westminster system envisaged that we would indeed use such a use of power, in a time when urgent legislation is needed to be introduced because we are living through a global pandemic that nobody could have anticipated. So I commend this bill and the Attorney-General for his work and his team's work on this incredible piece of legislation done in such a short period of time.





Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. My goodness, that was an eye-opener, wasn't it? Look, I'm very concerned about this bill—I'm very concerned about it. We've had a situation where we have been in this country in a state of lockdown for around four weeks—sorry, two months. Sorry, what am I talking about?—seven to eight weeks is what I should have said, sorry. In that time, we've had people die. We've had people who have got terrible diagnoses of illness, who have not been able to undertake their treatment. I have, in fact, a brother-in-law who has an awful diagnosis and I have not been able to visit him—he's been part of my life since I was seven—because he lives in Hamilton and I live in Auckland.
I think it is an awful state where New Zealanders have been asked—not just asked but had demanded of them—that we do all the things that we're told to do and then we do those things, we do exactly what we're asked to do, and then it turns out that this level 2 COVID response that we're now being told we're moving to suddenly needs legislation when, strangely, levels 3 and 4 seem to not need this sort of legislation.
Hon Chris Hipkins: There was a state of emergency.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That's, of course, as Mr Hipkins wants to say—the other levels needed it because there was an emergency. Well, I guess that that is an acknowledgment that we are currently not in a state of emergency. Nobody extra was diagnosed or announced today to have COVID-19.
Last year, I'm assured, around 850 people died of the winter influenza; no doubt there'll be other people this year with the same. COVID-19 is clearly not winter influenza; it's obviously a very prolific disease once it takes hold, and we are fortunate to live in a country with borders that happen to be oceans, and that means that people can't just come into the country with the disease unless the Government or the border control lets that happen, and that's exactly what has happened. When I heard the Minister of Health—the poor, poor man—David Clark, lowest ranked member of Cabinet and supposedly with the top job, having to tell us today that the Government had gone hard and early in its response, it is simply PR spin spun by a master communicator, who is his boss. This country did not go hard and early. It went actually pretty weak and slowly, and that's what happened. There was no need whatsoever, no need at all, for this country to allow COVID-19 to come in here.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the member to come to the bill.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: And then we are coming to the point of enforcement. Who is going to enforce these new rules that we're being asked to rubber-stamp in the dead of night, going rushing through Parliament after—what?—seven weeks or eight weeks of lockdown, and suddenly it has to come through in one day? Well, there are going to be people called enforcement officers. Now, who are these enforcement officers? Who are they?
Well, apparently, according to the bill that I have read and made notes on myself, they are people that the Government's decided should be enforcement officers. I understand that the Government has a Supplementary Order Paper, which is, in other words, yet another amendment to the bill that's rushing through now, which will mean that they will generally be people who currently work for Government agencies. They will be able to go into every business, every premises, everywhere except a dwelling house, and they're not allowed on the marae without warrants. The police, however, will be able to go on to marae and into my dwelling house and your dwelling house and everyone else's dwelling house, if they suspect you're having more than 10 people over for tea. Now, this is ridiculous.
We are getting into a situation of a police State, and what is the point of this? This is to stop COVID-19, except actually I think we've pretty much worked out that COVID-19 came into the country. Other people are not being allowed into the country with it, without quarantine, as we're now told is happening. So where is it all coming from? We have a few clusters left and New Zealanders are being told, "You've all done very well, you good little boys and girls, you children." that we're going to speak to like that, as the Prime Minister is wont to do. "You've all been very good, but we don't trust you." That's what this bill is about. The Government is taking the powers of the director-general and giving them to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health. That is a disgrace. They're politicising COVID-19 and using it to tell everyone what to do.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a split call?
David Seymour: It doesn't have to be.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is Labour putting up a speaker?
Hon Members: No.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of this bill to its first reading. The reason ACT supports the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill is very simple. It's about the rule of law, and the rule of law matters because if it means anything to be a New Zealander, it is to live freely under democracy and the rule of law: to be able to send representatives to this House to make laws that are clear, that we can read for ourselves and understand what the law is. Having the rule of law protects the weakest people in our society because they can see it written down and it applies equally to every person. It's especially pertinent at the moment because we have had a terrible taste of what it is like to live in New Zealand for those few weeks without it. We descended into the most horrific hysteria where people threw apart and threw away the most basic regard for the rights and dignity of individuals.
Let me give you an example of what I mean. Let's just call them Vivian. They wouldn't want to be named. They're an older couple who were walking out in the eastern beaches of Auckland. Why? Because the hills of Remuera are hard on their knees. They were resting on their own chairs that they had taken, and they were not only harassed by members of the public but also by the police, and they were in tears. They got in touch with me to ask, "How is this possible? Have we not any rights?"
Then there's the story of Jack Lum, the guy who runs the greengrocer that has been in place in Remuera for over 70 years, told by some officials that he could open and then told by a policeman in plain clothes that he must shut down with no notice and he couldn't even trade out the day. Well, Jack tells me it takes 500 man-hours to get the store going again, and at his age, he's not sure if he'll get it going again. The crazy thing is that just across the road, Fruit World Greenlane continued to operate. Jack was told that he couldn't operate because he's near a supermarket, Remuera New World. Well, so is Fruit World Greenlane next to the Countdown of the same name.
Then there's the story of Bjorn and Lucy Reymer, who bravely came and told their story of having a miscarriage: Lucy sobbing alone, left with a box of tissues in an empty room in the hospital; Bjorn left out in the car park with no rights to be supporting his wife at the most tragic of times. I could speak all night about the horrific—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'd like it on the bill.
DAVID SEYMOUR: —events that have occurred in a time when we did not have the rule of law, when people could not go and read on a piece of paper what their rights are. That's why this bill, debated by this Parliament, no matter how improperly, is a massive improvement on what we have seen in the weeks gone by. We cannot afford to revisit a kind of kind police State where New Zealanders were more eager to dob each other in to the Government than support them in questioning their Government.
But, unfortunately, I can only support this bill to the first reading, through this urgent process, because it has some real problems. I can understand the Government going through urgency. I won't relitigate the issues that got us here, except to say that it has been four months—actually, nearly four and a half months—since it became clear to countries such as Taiwan that there might be an issue. The idea that this has all suddenly happened and the Government has to rush Parliament through urgency now is a poor reflection on the preparedness of the Government. But, no matter, we're here, and we have to rush this through urgency so we can get to level 2 lawfully and quickly—understood. But what is an issue is that this bill lasts for two years. The objective, if we want the bill to be done democratically, should be to get it passed now and have Parliament review it as soon as possible. I have an amendment on the Table on Supplementary Order Paper 494 that says it should only last one year. That is enough time for this Parliament to come back and make this law properly.
Brett Hudson: More than enough time.
DAVID SEYMOUR: "More than enough time.", I hear from Brett Hudson.
The second issue with this bill might be that the powers issued under section 11, I think it is, are so wide ranging, but I think it's worth pointing out that those powers are clearly judicially reviewable and the Minister has gone to some effort to make that pretty clear in the way the bill is written. So, yes, there is almost no constraint, according to this bill, on what an order could mean. It could mean you'd have to close down, stay home, don't meet someone, don't do this, don't do that, or don't bring a thing in or out of the country or in and out of an area. All of that is true, but it is very clear that this is judicially reviewable, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act states that such an order can be made only in a way that is proportional to the objective and does not unduly override the rights of New Zealanders according to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So we'll give that part a pass.
But then we come to this issue of the Director-General of Health versus the Minister of Health. Quite rightly, the bill seeks to transfer powers that really have been exercised by the Director-General of Health, an unelected civil servant, to the Minister of Health, somebody that the voters, the people of New Zealand, have the opportunity to vote out. Who knows—in that particular instance, they just might. But the problem is that the bill is not clear on the division of powers between the Director-General of Health and the Minister of Health. It says that if the Minister makes a public health directive, then that Minister has to consult with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice. They've got to be sure that they're doing the right thing. They have to give 48 hours' notice. That's all proper.
The director-general can issue one, albeit for a region. They can issue it for a month and they can keep renewing it indefinitely. So there is a way of exercising the same power that completely circumvents the Minister of Health and the Minister's accountability. I have Supplementary Order Paper 495 that sets out amendments that would change that, and say, "Yes, if something is particularly urgent, the director-general can issue a 48-hour notice." That is the notice period that the Minister of Health has to give. Within that period, if the Minister agrees, that Minister can go through the proper accountability procedure and issue a more permanent notice. That would be the right way to maintain democratic accountability and nimbleness of response: one job for the director-general, one job for the Minister of Health, and no overlap. I urge members to support my amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 495.
Finally, as the Hon Judith Collins mentioned, we have these enforcement officers, and I'd love to know who the Minister has in mind, because to me it sounds like it could be WorkSafe employees coming into your business, but it could also be that the director-general could decide that one of these community groups running a road block could be enforcement officers with all the powers of the State. That is terrifying. So, I have an amendment—or, ideally, we'd amend it to get rid of that and the police could enforce the law, because that's their job and they have proper safeguards, such as the Independent Police Complaints Authority—that would say that at the very least, a person acting as an enforcement officer, first of all, has to give the person their rights: "This is how you complain about me, and these are your rights under the law.", because, remember, this is all about the rule of law. The director-general has to consider those complaints, because otherwise we've set up a whole new class of people who can go around, tell you what to do, shut down your business, fine you, and there's no complaint or accountability mechanism whatsoever. I can't think of any other agent of the State that doesn't have an accountability mechanism.
So, it's critical for the rule of law that this legislation is in place. It should have been introduced to this House weeks ago, if the Government was on the ball, but here we are. Let's have a debate and let's make it better so that people can maintain their rights and freedoms under this law. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on this, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. I just want to set on record, just for background: National called for border controls ahead of action from the Government, it called for quarantining ahead of action from the Government, it called for us to go into lockdown, to flatten the curve, ahead of the Government's actions. Likewise, it's also called to exit that harsh lockdown sooner, both because of our understanding of the severe curtailment of civil liberties but also the impact on lives and livelihoods, with thousands of people losing their jobs and businesses going out of business. But we understood the need, and we supported the Government when they came to make that move. Along the way, we have questioned some of the lawfulness of some of the actions under that lockdown. Partly, that is our job, but, more importantly, if a cornerstone of a democracy is the freedom of speech, similarly, an equal cornerstone is the Government not only upholds but follows the laws that every other citizen of the nation is expected to follow. In fact, in situations like this, it is even of more importance that every action of the Government is lawful, as the laws stand.
Quite frankly, not only the provisions in this bill but some comments we've heard tonight, including the contribution from Kiritapu Allan, suggest very strongly, just as the public suspect with the withheld Crown Law advice, that actually the Government also believe that there was at very least a grey area, if not, in fact, an absolute unlawfulness. Nowhere is that more evident than in the lockdown threat of compliance prior to 3 April, when a subsequent health notice was issued. This is all relevant because it gets to why are these enforcement powers in this bill required—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Then relate it.
BRETT HUDSON: —which I'm going to do right now. What became clear from the Hon Chris Hipkins' comments—which was there's no state of emergency, but there is today, but it's going to run out shortly—is a very clear signal that the risk profile heading into alert level 2 does not support the continuation of a state of emergency or maybe even an epidemic notice. What they're saying is they're unable to continue what they've claimed is lawful, but that the powers under section 70 of the Health Act, the enforcement powers under section 71, and the powers under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act—they're saying they'll no longer be able to rely on those because they can't claim an ongoing emergency or epidemic.
If that were the case and they had the need to apply constraints to civil liberties across the entire nation, the answer is not to create a completely new framework and set of rules; it's to address the provisions of the epidemic notice of the Epidemic Preparedness Act and the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act to ensure that the conditions, the risk profile presented under what they have arbitrarily called level 1 and 2, is accommodated for under the existing legislation. It is not an excuse to create a whole new set of powers which enable them to completely ignore the law as it stands and the powers and limits on the powers that are unlocked under an epidemic notice or, indeed, under a state of emergency—because that's precisely what they're doing with this bill. The giveaway, too, for the public to get concerned about—and they do have a reason to be very concerned about—is that what they've put on the tin is saying this bill is necessary to enforce provisions under level 2, except that the provisions apply under any level.
Now, I'm sure some legal expert will be able to say there are some provisions under section 70 of the Health Act or under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act which aren't mirrored in this bill. But for New Zealanders who faced lockdown every day for what amounted to six weeks, the rules that required them to principally stay at home, that limited what they could do for exercise and where they could do it; the rules that limited what businesses could open and how they could open, those rules all exist in the new bill and they can all be applied at any alert level that New Zealand happens to be at. This is not about powers for level 1 and 2. This is powers for levels 1, 2, 3, and 4, which do not have any necessary regard to the existing legislative frameworks, principally the Epidemic Preparedness Act, or, indeed, the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. They've created completely new law to give themselves the same sort of powers they wanted, because they don't believe they had the lawful authority they needed, either prior and certainly now.
They've made it worse, because one of the safeguards—because unquestionably, to the extent that the authority was lawful under the epidemic notice in the state of emergency, there were enormous powers to curtail civil liberties, and powers of enforcement. But the balance on those was that they were not directed by politicians, by Government. They were directed by apolitical heads of departments. The Director-General of Health issued health notices; the Director of Civil Defence Emergency Management made directions under that Act—not politicians with political agendas. Well, they're flipping that completely on its head in this bill. They turn it round. The director-general's powers are shrunk, but the Minister of Health, who has to consult with the Prime Minister, effectively, has all those enormous powers for all levels of COVID alert level. They have completely turned around and politicised this pandemic. They have made the administration of it and the enforcement of it a political exercise that is wholly wrong.
On the matter of urgency, too, just before I move on to the enforcement officers, I would contend that when a Government is seeking such wide-ranging curtailment of civil liberties, that is exactly the wrong time to push that through: under urgency. It is the wrong time. That is the wrong time to push this through: under urgency. But here we go, steamrolling through, in a few hours.
The third area I'd comment on is this idea of enforcement officers. Now, we saw in the public domain, over the course of the lockdown, a number of community groups around the country stopping citizens in their vehicles and demanding personal information. These public citizens had no warrant. They had no legal authority. We believe that, unquestionably, those checkpoints were unlawful. The Government told us the roads weren't closed, so the powers of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act weren't brought to bear, the Health Act wasn't brought to bear, but the Land Transport Act certainly was, and that requires an enforcement officer with a warrant to legally stop or direct traffic on an open road or, indeed, to demand personal information.
Well, under this bill, the Government—because it is, effectively, the Government running the show under this bill—will be able to authorise anyone they like to undertake those sorts of activities: to walk around, checking up on businesses and closing them, to be demanding private and personal information from people who might have been stopped by a constable but are then handed over to the citizen with a special power to be an enforcement officer, to demand that information, and with the threat of issuing an infringement notice with a penalty of $300 if that person, that otherwise member of the public, decides themselves that that person that they are addressing has contravened a rule in their mind. That is a travesty. The police are the principal enforcement agency of the Government for domestic compliance. It is them and them alone that should be authorised, particularly in situations where civil liberties have been curtailed, where people's freedoms have been abridged. It is the role of police to undertake the enforcement of those rules.
This bill is a complete separate right of a set of powers which can be exercised at the whim of a Prime Minister, maybe having regard to what they're told, but not having to follow advice they're given. The whim of a Prime Minister, the Government through the Minister of Health, can, basically, constrain any and all civil liberties of any class of New Zealanders or, indeed, the entire nation, and they can subcontract the enforcement of those conditions to anyone they like. This is not us.





KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I won't take too long to speak in support of this, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. [Interruption] I thank Mr Bridges for heckling at the back—get used to it, mate. Look, the point is that we are here to pass a bill that needs to pass, and I think most people at home will recognise that. They will also recognise that the National Party haven't had many opportunities to make a point. Those they've had they've squandered, and yet they've taken the wrong tack on this.
This bill will provide the law necessary for alert level 2. Instead of providing constructive ideas on what that could mean, they've talked about alert level 3 and alert level 4 with lots of ifs, buts, and maybes. This Government, however, is getting on with it. We're passing laws that need to be passed so that we can stamp out COVID-19 and we can get our economy back on track. I know what's going to work: it is a team effort. It's not whinging, it's not heckling from the backbenches, it's not coming up with all sorts of conspiracy theories; it's cracking on and doing what needs to be done.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Noes 56
New Zealand National 55; Ross.
Bill read a first time.





Second Reading
Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I move, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill be now read a second time. 
Given that we've just had a discussion at first reading, I thought my contribution this time would be best to respond to some of the issues that are raised. I've noted that there have been two alternative propositions put by the Opposition: one is that it's inappropriate for the powers to be used by the Minister of Health rather than the Director-General of Health, which is the proposition that has been put by some members of the National Party. And the proposition put by David Seymour from the ACT Party has said that it's appropriate that it move from the Director-General of Health to the Minister of Health, because that's more aligned with democratic accountabilities and also, as David Seymour says, triggers some other judicial review rights that might not otherwise be as easy for litigants to pursue. I'm not so sure of that second point. But in respect of the first point, I actually agree with David Seymour. It's also a point that has been made by legal academics that this framework that was put in the Health Act many, many decades ago is actually now old-fashioned, and that the better view—
Hon Andrew Little: It comes from the time of Sid Holland!
Hon DAVID PARKER: I didn't know that, but before I was born. But in any event, I agree with David Seymour and with the legal academics that this actually is an improvement to accountabilities. The Hon Michael Woodhouse said that this meant that the Minister of Health didn't have to have regard to what the director-general does and could just make his own mind up. That's actually not correct. The bill requires the Minister of Health to pay particular regard to what the Director-General of Health says.
In respect of some of the issues that have been raised by both the National Party and the ACT Party as to the term of this legislation, which, in the version that has been introduced into the House, has expiry two years, hence—if not repealed earlier as a consequence of COVID-19 no longer being a problem—the Opposition says that that's too long a period. The National Party proposed a remedy for that whereby every 90 days Parliament has to pass a motion to extend it. They can extend it for 90 days, or they could actually extend it—unusually—for longer than 90 days, which might be necessary if we were coming up to an interregnum over the elections. David Seymour suggested another remedy, which was to make it a one-year sunset clause for the bill. 
On reflection, we've chosen the National Party remedy for those. We actually agree with both points, but only one remedy can be chosen. And so we've chosen to adopt the proposed National Party remedy and that will be coming forward in a Supplementary Order Paper. 
A point that was made by both the National Party and the ACT Party was that the ability of powers to be delegated beyond the police to other agencies was too broadly cast. That was a fair point also, and it wasn't the intention that this be widely cast. So the Supplementary Order Paper that we have laid on the Table adopts those recommendations as well. Again, we've actually chosen the National Party formulation of that, which was that we limit it to, effectively, Crown employees or people that are contractors to the Crown, rather than this idea that we were going to be delegating it more broadly. That's clear in the Supplementary Order Paper. I also want to reflect on one of the—what I think, with respect, somewhat misses the interconnectedness of enforcement powers with the ability to get to level 2.
We're taking our advice as to what we need in level 2 from the Director-General of Health. The Director-General of Health's comfort with going to level 2 depends on the enforceability of measures that we have in this bill. If we didn't have the enforceability of gathering sizes down to small sizes of 10 at the start—and we hope that that will increase over time—it may well be that the director-general would not have recommended that we move to level 2 at this stage. So the idea that these things can be completely separated is wrong. To a certain extent, if you're going to go to level 2 as early as we're trying to get there, the Director-General of Health requires more comfort as to our ability to limit the risk; if things do go as we hope they won't and there are some outbreaks, we want to minimise the spread of those. That's why he favours smaller gatherings over large for reasons that the Minister of Health described in more detail during his contribution.
In terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues and the power of entry, I do have a list of other warrantless powers of entry if I could just lay my hand on it in front of the papers that are in front of me, and if I don't get to it within my allotted time here, I'll come back to it in the committee stage. But warrantless powers are not unknown in New Zealand, but I'm obviously going to have to come back to that because I've put the page in the wrong place—
Hon Member: Search for them.
Hon DAVID PARKER: What's that? I need a search and surveillance warrant to find them. Yeah, I'm going to have to come back to that in the next part of the debate unless I turn them up as I speak.
It is an important point so I just thought I would try and find those. The warrantless powers include pursuant to the Arms Act, the Misuse of Drugs Act from memory, people who are being—where there is an offender at large. One of my colleagues was saying that, in respect of—
Hon Tim Macindoe: They're all offenders at large.
Hon DAVID PARKER: I beg your pardon.
Hon Tim Macindoe: They're all offenders at large.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Ha, ha! Thank you, I'll put that on the record. But it is true that it's not normal to allow a constable a right of entry on to private premises and that's why we are requiring it to be reported up the hierarchy so that there is a trail both for the police hierarchy but also for the public to see when this is occurring.
The Opposition say that this is a matter of trust. Actually, it's also a matter of maintaining public trust in enforcement and we have a concern that the social consensus around these measures that we still need because of the risks that there will still be under level 2 will degrade if people see others flouting these rules in a private situation with impunity. And in order to maintain that voluntary compliance, both privately and in public, and the social consensus that we need to continue taking care under level 2, we believe—we accept the advice that we've been given, that it's appropriate, that where a constable has reason to believe that there is a large gathering, that he can go into the house for that express purpose of seeing whether there is and if there is one asking it to disband. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd just like to start by saying that I was honoured to have been voted in as the chairman of a COVID-19 task force that was sponsored and put together by the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mohammed. It involves 70 countries and it has 12 representatives on the committee that I'm chairing. What's been very good is it's been a way of exchanging information, seeing what has worked and what hasn't in different countries around the world.
The big advantage that we had as a nation is our geographic location, we're isolated, we have a relatively small population that is spread out, we have a healthy population, and we have a very good health system. So we had lots of things going in our favour. 
The problem that we had—and although the Government continually gets up and tells us that they went hard and fast—is that we were too slow at the border; we didn't close our border quickly enough and we allowed the virus to continue to walk into the country. We were too slow to go to lockdown. Again, I go back to my colleague Brett Hudson that highlighted these things. These are on the record. We went into lockdown too slowly. Unfortunately, because we did delay on the border—
Hon Chris Hipkins: We were one of the fastest in the world.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: —because you did delay on the border, it put us in a position where, actually, the Government—we supported you going into lockdown, but you were put in a position that, really, your options were narrowed because we were too late at the border. 
So you really had no choice but to go into level 4, and we were very clear that we would support you in that. We suspended the Parliament and we've got behind you and we supported you as much as we can—including, by the way, offering to come back into the House to pass legislation to make sure that our enforcement agencies were actually acting legally. Right now in this Parliament, no one can get up and actually say clearly whether or not they were acting legally under level 4 and level 3.
The third thing that happened way too slowly was quarantine. We wouldn't quarantine at the border. We heard stories from all over the country, and finally the Police Commissioner himself in front of the COVID-19 committee, chaired by the Hon Simon Bridges—
SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the member. The member's been running for over two minutes now; he's going to now start talking about the bill before the House, not the history of the pandemic.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This does relate to the bill, because it relates to the powers contained—
SPEAKER: Well, you better get there quick.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: —within the bill. One of the powers contained within the bill, which is a severe overreach by the State, is the fact that police officers are going to have a power to enter a private dwelling without warrant. I can tell you now: I'm proud to have served for 14 years in our New Zealand Police service, one of the finest police services in the world that enjoys enormous public confidence. What this Government has done is introduced a bill to the House—and, unfortunately, most of New Zealand won't find out about this until probably weeks later—whereby they're going to give police officers—the State—the ability to walk into your home without a warrant if some information comes to them or if there are too many cars parked out on the street. If it meets the threshold of reasonable doubt, it gives them the ability to walk into your home. 
I can tell you now from my experience as a police officer that sometimes just a house burglary can be the worst type of offending against someone, do you know why? It's because they feel like it's a gross violation of the one place that they should feel safe—the one place that they have the right to be able to say who or who doesn't come into their home. This is what the Minister has done: he's put law-abiding Kiwis that are going about their everyday business in a situation now where they could have the State walk in their front door, into their house, to check on information that really can't be measured, to see whether or not they're being compliant.
I can tell you now, the other thing that's been driven out of this committee is very clear: Government, if you do not retain the confidence and the trust of the people of New Zealand, it doesn't matter how many laws you bring to this House, they will choose not to be compliant. I can tell you one thing: we've moved into level 2; back home in my own electorate—in fact, I did a social media post on this—on the Saturday it was very clear that most Kiwis who had been compliant, had done what they had been asked to do, had moved themselves into level 2. There were more people out on the streets. There were more people out in recreation areas. They had moved themselves into level 2. The Government, in my view, had seen that and understood that, realised that they'd waited too long, realised that they'd pushed it too far, realised that they were starting to use up that goodwill that's been given to them throughout this lockdown.
By the way, we do have a job on this side of the House; it's to hold the Government to account, and we do that for the rest of the country. It's not always an easy job; it can be pretty thankless. But we've found ourselves in a situation right now where even our own journalists, our own press gallery, if they decide to stand up, if they want to hold this Government to account, all of a sudden there's a massive backlash against them. Well, you know what? It's actually time that we started to hold this Government to account a bit on these decisions and not just be told everything and taking it. Like they said, "We've got enormous goodwill, just ignore them, we don't have to respond, we don't have to put Ministers up." It's an arrogance that's dripping from this Government. 
Hon Member: Just dismiss.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: I'd be very—yeah, what was it? "Just dismiss"—just dismiss them. By the way, you're eating into goodwill from this side of the House, because, me personally, I wanted to support the Government and I did support the Government. We wanted to do that in a good way to make sure that us as a nation emerged in the strongest possible position with the least harm done; we have not done that. The harm is coming—in fact, the harm is here right now.
So we can't support this bill. I want to acknowledge the Attorney-General, and I want to acknowledge the fact that he has taken a call and he has addressed some of the issues that we've put up. I want to acknowledge and thank him for that because they're important ones. Things like getting the rules right, because I can tell you another thing that went wrong in the first two weeks: we had four pieces of official information that were being put out to the public, and all they wanted to do was comply—they wanted to make sure that they were sticking to the rules—but there was deep confusion created because they were getting three or four different messages coming from different parts of the Government. We want to have clarity around what the rules are. We don't think that it is humane. We think that people are suffering enough. We think that if someone's lost a loved one, that grieving is important for everyone, regardless of what culture you come from—that grieving is important for everyone; people coming together.
Trust the public. The good thing about level 4 and level 3, I think, is that it's at least allowed us to learn those basic concepts around hygiene and social distancing and being more aware as a nation. That's a very good thing. I acknowledge the Government. We've flattened the curve—that is a great result. Moving forward, to bring legislation into the House like this that basically tramples over the rights of law-abiding Kiwis in terms of that they will now have the State walking straight in through their front door—and the irony of this situation is quite simply this: when we were in level 3 and level 4, although we questioned the powers because we felt that was important, and it is important in a First World country and democracy where civil liberties are held and protected. It's important that the Government is always acting within the law, it's important the agencies are.
I had many serving police officers come to me, saying that they were very concerned and very uncomfortable with what they're doing because they didn't join the police to not have the powers to actually know what they were doing. They felt deep discomfort with it. Then we had the Police Commissioner come in front of the committee, and he said, "Oh, well, we'll let those checkpoints run because we want to avoid a protest." Every rule in the book was being broken. If you want to undermine public confidence in a world-class police service, that's the quickest way to do it. Now you're going to tell them to go out there and start policing the community that you're relying on for their goodwill. If New Zealanders decide that they're not going to maintain level 2 restrictions because you've run out of goodwill, it doesn't matter how much legislation you pass, it doesn't matter how many police you recruit, it doesn't matter if you put the defence forces out on the street—it is not going to make one iota of difference. You have to maintain public confidence.
Anyway, thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for your forbearance and for allowing me to take the call. Thank you.





Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Mr Speaker, the fundamental question, listening to the debate across the House, that is before us now is whether we need a COVID-19 alert level 2. Because, listening to the members opposite, we should simply declare victory now and say that it's all over and that everything should go back to the way that it was before. I remind members opposite that we had fewer cases than we do now when they started to call for New Zealand to go into lockdown. And, at the time, Simon Bridges stood in this House and said better to be cautious; better to be criticised afterwards for being too cautious and moving too quickly than have a massive outbreak in New Zealand and then regret not having taken further action. And yet, that is where we're at now. So we've got more cases now than we did when they were calling for us to go into lockdown.
And so, if we don't have a COVID alert level 2, which is what this bill enables, then, effectively, what we will be doing is we will be saying that we're willing to tolerate the risk of another big spike in cases and then all of the sacrifice that New Zealanders have made—
SPEAKER: Order! I regret having to interrupt the member, but I just want to remind Messrs Penk and Mitchell that people are not meant to be sitting in adjoining seats at the moment. I know that someone's moved some of the name tags around. Thank you.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —and all of the sacrifices, socially, personally, and economically that New Zealanders have made would have been in vain, because we would find ourselves back in the position that we would have been in if we hadn't gone into lockdown in the first place. We need only look around the rest of the world to see what the consequences of that are: thousands of people dying, lockdowns where there is seemingly no end in sight, which is what other countries around the world are facing. New Zealanders can all be incredibly proud of what we have achieved as a country over the last seven weeks. Dare I say it, seven weeks ago, when we stood in this House and we debated whether or not to have the lockdown, Simon Bridges was right. He was right when he said better to be cautious than have regrets later on if we don't go hard enough early on. We are in the same position now. Level 2 is about making sure that all of the gains that we have made don't disappear with a spike in cases.
If you listen to what the members opposite are arguing, they are saying that there should be no further curtailing of liberties—that people should be able to do whatever they want to, that life should get back to normal. Well, actually, that puts the country right back at square one again. COVID-19 is still with us. We are still having positive cases coming through the testing. So we still need to have very good public health measures in place if we are going to avoid going the way of those other countries.
We reset the clock with our lockdown, but COVID-19 has not gone away; it is still there. Therefore, the level 2 measures that this bill enables will help us to lock in the gains. It will help us to make sure that we don't go backwards. It will help us to give New Zealanders confidence that they can re-engage in their lives, consistent with good public health provisions, and that our country—ahead of the Australians, ahead of so many other countries that are looking at lockdowns that will last much, much longer and be much, much harsher than ours—New Zealand is in a very good position. We shouldn't squander it; therefore, we should pass this bill, we should move to level 2, and we should lock in the gains that we've made.





Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House has just fundamentally misrepresented the National Party's position on this bill.
SPEAKER: Oh, careful.
Hon TIM MACINDOE: The National Party has not suggested for a moment that all of the risks have gone, that there is no need whatsoever to have any restraints. And then the Leader of the House went on to suggest that this bill is necessary to enable New Zealand to move into level 2. Well, that is absolute nonsense. This is not the first time that we will have been in level 2, for a start. And the most important thing to note is the fact that despite what he was trying to suggest then, we are now on a sharply downwards trajectory, having made significant changes, to our considerable cost as a nation, but for the gains that we are now so proud of. So this is about ensuring that we move into a level 2 where the nation can get back to work, resurrect as many livelihoods as possible in a safe and appropriate way, and that's what we are supporting. We're not suggesting for a moment to forget about the last few weeks and just go back to life as normal. We can't do that. No one has been arguing that; certainly not on this side. 
Now, ordinarily, as those who are watching or listening at the moment will know—and there are a number of people who do follow Parliament regularly—we would, in a second reading debate, be focusing on the work of the select committee. We would, as members of the select committee, be traversing the opinions that we heard both in written and oral submissions from those who chose to have their voices heard on this particular bill, and we'd talk about the questions that we ask. We'd talk about the advice that we received from officials. And we're very well served in our select committees by our officials. 
We have a very fine Public Service, and I wonder if I could just take this opportunity very quickly to thank the public servants throughout the country who have served us so well during the lockdown. I think in particular of Sam and Alma, the electorate officials who have been wonderful in the way they've responded to the many emails and calls that they've received from electorate MPs and other MPs and our office staff, and I want to thank them; those who have worked in the different Government departments who have responded to the many concerns—in many cases, very distressing concerns—we have brought to their attention. I think of Michael Appleton in the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and what a fine public servant he is. I shouldn't probably name them—there are too many to name—but I want to say thank you to all those public servants. I know they've worked so hard. We heard the huge pressure that the Ministry of Social Development was under as they were working on the wage subsidy applications and all sorts of other things. So I did want to make that point.
As I say, in a second reading we would normally have had the opportunity to reflect on what happened in the select committee and how that process would enable us to improve the bill. Well, here we're having a second reading where there hasn't been any select committee process. Apparently, the Attorney-General did advocate for one, so I hope that we're going to hear why it didn't happen. Was he overruled? Did he change his mind? But whatever the reason was, we haven't had the opportunity.
Now, we recognise the fact that when you're dealing with a bill under urgency, you don't have a lot of time. But even if half a day had been set aside for that purpose, we would then have had the opportunity to hear not just from submitters but also from legal academics, from people with expertise in public law, from commentators in the media and elsewhere—all of whom, along with the officials, would have increased our understanding of the issues, sharpened our ability to hone in on what needed to be done to recommend to the House and to the Government how this bill could be changed. But, of course, we have been denied all of that opportunity. So in the absence of a select committee process to report and consider, the second reading debate, I assume, will have to just try to ascertain what the Government's thinking was, what processes they've been through. And it is fair, I think, therefore, to look back on their management of the issue to date in order to ascertain what it is that they think they now need to do. 
Well, the Hon Michael Woodhouse said earlier, and he was quite right, that the National Party had called on the Government to take all sorts of action well before they did. And the Leader of the House was talking a moment ago about the things that the National Party had urged seven weeks ago, and we don't resile from any of that. I'm proud of the fact that we called on the Government to shut down our borders well before the Government did, that we called on them to effect appropriate checks of those who were coming across the border. We called on them to instigate an appropriate testing regime, to provide more personal protective equipment across the country wherever it was needed. So those are the sorts of issues that a level 2 period still needs to be aware of. We don't want to throw any of that away. All responsible New Zealanders wish to continue to lock in the gains. It's a phrase we've heard a lot recently, and I don't know of a single New Zealander who doesn't want us to build on where we've got to, where we're at, to continue to ensure that New Zealand has a proud record in dealing with COVID.
We know that the threat will be there for some time to come. So this bill is the Government's attempt to suggest, presumably, the only way that the issue can be dealt with, but it leads to dreadful anomalies. It leads to some appalling constraints on civil liberties which cannot be justified. And others have mentioned, including myself in particular, our deep distress at the impact on tangihanga, on funerals, on worship in all religious traditions, not just Christianity, but Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, you name it. We're a very multi-cultural country and all those places of worship are now being told that only 10 people will be able to gather for worship under this particular bill, despite the ridiculous anomaly that contact sports with much greater numbers of people will be possible, that much larger numbers of people will be able to go to the cinema, that they will be able to gather in restaurants, and if they are large restaurants—which will have much larger numbers of people. So if nothing else changes in the remaining stages of this particular bill's passage through the House, could I urge the Government to think very carefully about that unfair constraint that is being put on our places of worship and, in particular, the devastating, cruel impact it's having on those who are preparing for the funerals of those whom they love.
I mentioned a constituent earlier who's in this position. He had expected that with his father's funeral on Thursday, many members of the extended family and friends would be able to gather together—obviously observing safe physical distancing, which they would have done, but in a way that would have helped with the healing process that comes through mourning together. And now they're in this awful position, as are so many other New Zealand families, of being told they're not going to be able to do that under level 2. 
There is no good reason for that. I'm going to continue to hammer it because nobody has yet justified why that should be so. Of course it's natural to want to hug somebody at a time of distress, but people should be trusted to understand that that wouldn't be possible at a funeral under level 2. But to suggest that they can't be trusted and therefore they can't even get together is outrageous, and we continue to object to that very, very strongly.
I may have been distracted earlier when the Attorney-General was speaking in his second reading speech. I hope that he will make clear whether—and it's ironic because he is the Attorney-General—there will be a section 7 vetting of this particular bill under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
Hon David Parker: There has been.
Hon TIM MACINDOE: There has been?
Hon David Parker: Yep.
Hon TIM MACINDOE: And has the Minister been the judge and jury in his own particular issue?
Hon David Parker: No, no.
Hon TIM MACINDOE: Right. OK. Well, I'm pleased to hear that assurance, because New Zealanders do respect the rule of law, as David Seymour was suggesting earlier, and they are concerned when some people take the law into their own hands. And one of the things that is a concern arising under this bill is the possibility that vigilantism and undesirable intimidatory tactics by, say, gangs, as we have seen in some pockets of New Zealand in recent weeks, will effectively be condoned because of the wording of this legislation. Now, for an elderly couple who are legitimately going about their business—say, going to the shops or off for a short trip to the beach or whatever—to be stopped by pretty intimidating young, strong people who are, effectively, telling them to go back is a very frightening experience, and that must not be allowed to happen.
We are therefore seeking a very clear assurance from the Government in the remaining stages of this particular bill that only Crown agencies such as the Police and Customs will be permitted to carry out—





SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I am now going to issue a general warning to the House that the bill being debated is the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. It is a bill I have read, and members have to attach their comments to what is in the bill, or matters very closely related to it. I want to say that I've shown more tolerance than I felt like, but won't from now on.





Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Seniors): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to address the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. There are certain powers inside this piece of legislation that are required for the country to keep moving forward down the alert levels. The majority of New Zealanders understand the need for those powers. The majority of New Zealanders over alert level 4 and alert level 3 have followed the instructions for the betterment of the nation, and—as the Minister for Seniors—they've done so to protect those who they love who are over the age of 70. They have seen some New Zealanders flout those requirements and put the "law abiding"—was the phrase that was used by Mr Mitchell—at risk. 
There will always be among us some of those who wish to push the boundaries. These boundaries and the powers that have been placed inside of this bill were placed there under the direction and advice of the medical profession, of the Director-General of Health. They are to keep us moving back to what is a post-COVID environment where we look out for each other. But I don't know a single member in this House that would stand and say that there has ever been a time where every single citizen has obeyed the law. Therefore, the very reason why we have police or people who enforce the law is because we know that that will be so.
The Government is shifting this legislation now, and they're doing it under urgency—and the Opposition knows this. The Opposition has placed many pieces of legislation, when they were in Government, under urgency—one, for example, to actually sell off trees that had fallen in a storm, I remember very clearly, to foreigners at the time. But the purpose of this legislation is that we are going to alert level 2 on Thursday. We don't want to go back up to alert level 3. For the majority of New Zealanders, they must have the confidence that this House has provided the appropriate legislation and powers to ensure that those who will put their communities at risk by not following the simple requirements that are outlined in the legislation can and will be dealt with.
So there's no point to going on much more. New Zealand First will support the bill because it's a practical, reasonable, and responsible outcome to the circumstances we are in, and the time frame is the time frame created by COVID, and the advice around health, and the calls from businesses in New Zealand, calls from the Opposition to get us to alert level 2 as quickly as possible, and the calls—
Chris Penk: You don't need this bill at level 2.
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: No, Mr Penk, but we need the legislation to ensure that all of us are protected under an alert level 2 situation. That is the purpose of the legislation. We could move to alert level 2 on Thursday and then we could have parties, as we had seen under alert level 3, that put people at risk. I cannot believe that that is what Mr Penk and the Opposition are asking us to do. I cannot believe that the Opposition is advocating for a free-for-all at alert level 2. I cannot—I cannot believe that that is what Mr Penk is advocating for.
Chris Penk: Don't be ridiculous.
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: But Mr Penk apparently is shouting out across the House to say that we do not need this legislation, so I'm not quite sure how he juxtaposes those two statements. New Zealand First will support the legislation.





Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand and rise to speak on this COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. There's no argument from this side about the "what"—the what we need to do to get the country back into a place of normality, where people have normal lives, kids go to school, people go to work, but what we are arguing on this side in regards to this bill before the House, as you so rightly said we should focus on, is the "how". It's how we do that. And that's the reason why we're having a debate. That's the reason why we are called Her Majesty's loyal Opposition: it's because we speak on behalf of a nation to question and query—there's no question about our role and responsibility.
So for the other side to turn around and say they should have a free pass, we know that that's not the case. We just heard from the Hon Tracey Martin where she said, "This bill is fair, it's reasonable, it's considerate, it's responsible." I would say it is all of the opposite. In my speech I want to outline, in particular, the reasons why it's not the "what" that this bill should do, which is that we should go into level 2; it's the "how" that this Government intends to take us which I believe will be a real concern to the people of this nation, to the citizens.
When we are voted into Parliament, it is because of two simple words: trust and confidence. The people of New Zealand will give the governing body of the day their trust and their confidence. We've seen trust and confidence, and this bill addresses the issue of us moving to level 2—they have trust and confidence and we've seen that. Yes, the nation has rallied behind to get us out of a pandemic situation of great concern. But the concern that we are in now is that when we head into level 2 that trust and confidence, I believe, is now getting to the point where it's now starting to wear thin. When New Zealanders begin to hear and see the "how" that this Government is declaring how they will do that, there are some real concerns for us.
Inside this bill, one of the areas in the explanatory note talks about "The measures in the bill take account of the particular characteristics of COVID-19", but the concern that we have here is that it says: "such as its contagious nature and potential for asymptomatic transmission,". In other words, it's the possibility of, not the evidence of, that I believe is what this is saying in this bill. I know, you may be a little bit surprised about that, Mr Speaker—
SPEAKER: I certainly am.
Hon ALFRED NGARO: —but that's how I interpret that part of it. So to me there is some ambiguity here already factored in this bill that I believe needs clarity. But when we talk about this ambiguity, I want to go over to page 2 of the bill in the explanatory note. There's been a lot of conversation about the aspects of the imposition that this places. I know in the House many people have talked about probably some of the most critical times in people's lives, and, in particular, around tangihanga, around death, and around funerals. My point in this conversation, this debate, is that I want to talk about trust and confidence.
Now, I have before me a document in which there was an engagement into the community—a document that was engaging with the funeral directors, that was engaging with different iwi, different groups that were there, those of the clergy, those who partake as those in taking these funerals and so forth. There's plenty of documentation, there's plenty of evidence to show that there has been a working out. It clearly states here in this document—at level 2, for instance, it talked about the issues around marae, it talked about tangihanga, and inside of that there was an indication that there would be no more than 100 people present. In particular here, I want to read from this, "already iwi and hapū have been adapting tikanga and kawa to keep our people safe. This has also extended to tangihanga." So I want to say this: why is it that when it came to the trust and confidence of the people of our communities in Aotearoa New Zealand, and, in particular in this case, to our Māori community, who were saying that they been consulted, they have contributed, they have put plans in place; they could not be trusted—they could not be trusted. We've got teachers that, come next week on Monday, there will be 30 children in a class. They have been trusted to handle their affairs and to accommodate for the changes of safety inside that classroom. Schools will have from 350 to up to 1,700 children. Principals and management staff have been trusted that they will ensure the safety and the health and the wellbeing of those children. We've got supermarkets that now have aisle etiquette, waiting lines of 2-metre distances. We've got sanitisers. We've got restaurants that will go back eventually next week, with waiters and waitresses, with 100 people that could gather in a facility. We have trusted them to have a plan to ensure the health and safety of all those that enter, yet we cannot trust those who have been consulted, those at the heartbeat of the situation in the most difficult time of mourning and grieving, where people have lost a loved one; we cannot trust them. We cannot trust those to be able to accommodate for that. 
That is one of the issues that we take offence to which is in the bill. It talks about that on page 2, it talks about that at the bottom of the explanatory notes where it clearly states this: these powers "can be expressly exercised in respect of classes of people, businesses … other activities … weddings [and] funerals", and that's what I'm speaking to in this regard.
I want to appeal to the Māori caucus of Labour and those that are across there. This has come not just from those who are consultants and academics; this has come from iwi leaders. This has come from other people who've clearly stated: "Trust us. Trust us." They've accommodated. They've changed in tikanga and kawa. Why is it they have not been trusted to accommodate for one of the most difficult times in their situation and their lives of their community? I think that's a grievous issue too.
I want to go to, again in the bill, and I want to point to and highlight this issue here on page 3 under "Enforcement", and, in particular, what it highlights in the second paragraph: "To enable enforcement of the measures in orders, the Police are given a power to enter premises, including private dwelling[s] and marae, without a warrant"—without a warrant. I want to ask the question to the Attorney-General: why were marae highlighted here? And if it was highlighted, then what evidence did he use? What basis did he do? I know, because I've spoken to some of those Māori leaders—by the way they were consulted—and here's what they did say but was not listened to by this Government: "There is neither a general Treaty clause nor any obligation to have regard to the Treaty or its principles at any point of decision making or performance of functions under this Act."
So I say to the Māori caucus that are over there, are you rolling over on your bellies to get tickled and say this should just go ahead? This is not correct. This is not right. They've been consulted, they gave their views, and, you know what, they haven't been listened to. They haven't been trusted. Nowhere here in this bill—and I look forward to the Attorney-General answering this, but in the first reading, why was it not included? This advice was given prior to this bill being presented. Yep, that's right; it's come as a Supplementary Order Paper. In other words, it was an afterthought. You had to correct it because if you'd done it at the start, when the information and consultation was given to you right at the beginning, then you would have put it straight in. I would say this—
Hon David Parker: The member misunderstood; that's what's happening.
Hon ALFRED NGARO: Well, the Minister may be saying there's misunderstanding, but I'm reading right from the people who were consulted, the iwi leaders that were consulted. It clearly states here in clause 4 that "the purpose of the Bill is to support a public health response". That's in the bill where it's recording that. However, again, it clearly states here that Māori are affected by this because they haven't been consulted directly with this bill. So to the Māori caucus on the other side: where are you? Where is your voice? Why are you not listening to your community? And again, the word marae was put in there. Here's what the Māori leaders are saying: "It's like a stigma that has been created, and a level of untrust to the Māori community.", because, if it was—again, here's the evidence. Here's the information that was supported prior to an SOP—prior to a Supplementary Order Paper. What's the SOP for? To correct what hadn't been put there in the first place. That's what an SOP is there for.
There is a real concern. To the members of the public that are listening here, it's not the "what" that we should do, which is to have a piece of legislation taking us into level 2, but it's the "how" this Government is going about it. There is no trust and confidence. When they've gone out to engage and to consult, the community have given them advice. Funeral directors have talked about this. Those that are part of the clergy have talked about this. They've shared their advice, their thoughts with them, and, again, they have not been trusted. You can trust the teachers, you can trust the supermarkets, you can even trust the restaurateurs, the cafes, and the pubs, but you can't trust a funeral director whose role of responsibility is to be there at the grieving and the most difficult time in people's lives.
I've heard it said by an epidemiologist: "Fear is a very powerful stimulant. In the right way it will guard and protect, but with the wrong means it is all about power and control." This bill here is simply about one thing: using the stimulant of fear for power and control of this nation and of its people.





JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. I just want to take it up a level and acknowledge the really huge sacrifice that the country has been through over the last few weeks and the profound impact that is going to have on us as a country for a very long time to come. I want to reflect back that a sense of anxiety has lessened on the whole, and we're seeing this in terms of some of the feedback from surveys. People were really, really anxious as we were going into level 4 and deeply worried about their own safety. We were hearing that on a regular basis, and how that has reduced over time as we've seen the numbers shift from going up so dramatically to coming down to the point where we are now. That's been because we've all worked together to be able to achieve this, and it is a significant achievement for us as a country, and I really want to acknowledge everyone's efforts to get to this point. 
Over this period of time, we've been supported by the Health Act and the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act to enable our police system as well as our ministries to be able to act to ensure that the guidelines were kept to, to be able to keep all of us safe. But the advice that we've had is that, actually, that is less certain going into level 2—that the legal framework does not support the enforcement that we may need. Let's hope we don't need it, but, actually, I've seen parties happening not that far from me, and the need for intervention from the police, and that's been in a situation where there are really high levels of anxiety. As we hope that that anxiety continues to decline, there is an increased chance that people will relax to a point that they act inconsistently with our collective interests. We need to have the tools to be able to intervene to ensure that our sacrifice wasn't for nothing and to ensure our safety into the future, and that is what this piece of legislation is about.
Of course it's not ideal that this is not going to a select committee. Of course all of us would want that to happen, in the ideal circumstances. I suspect there is still an understanding that this has been a rapidly evolving situation and that we are moving into level 2 on Thursday and we need to get that legal certainty before we do. That's why the Green Party accepted the proposal of having an exposure draft go to the Opposition and to key experts: to be able to get that feedback to ensure that we were having those broader sets of eyes and perspectives to make amendments which will be debated in the committee stage. We've seen some really good feedback come through that process, and changes, I understand, will be happening, and that gives us a level of confidence with this.
I also do want to recognise, on a principle level, those concerns about the powers that are in this legislation. People are right to be very conscious of that. This is not something any Government or Parliament should consider lightly. Warrantless entry into dwellings is a significant power, and it needs proper scrutiny. This is the reason it's in here: because we are in exceptional circumstances, and this is what we've been told in terms of—
Nicola Willis: What's wrong with a warrant?
JAN LOGIE: Because the warrant may just take too long to be able to ensure. 
I will just say that what's happened with this is that they've been confined to situations where police have reasonable grounds that a gathering is occurring that breaches the rules—so it's not limitless—that has been brought in, and that they may only enter the premises if it is necessary to direct people to disperse. It is not a broad power for warrantless entry. 
I think that's really important to note, because, if you think about that—they've got reasonable grounds in terms of people not abiding by the conditions of level 4 and they believe they need to disperse people—that's a safety issue. In the context we're in at the moment and what we've been through and what we're heading into, we need to be putting safety first. It's a simple principle.
I'd also point that the bill is structured to support a graduated approach to different breaches of rules that we are supportive of, and that the purpose includes a subsection that states that the enforceable measures in the bill are there to support voluntary measures. It includes an infringement regime which allows a non-criminal pathway for offending. We hope that that will be supported by warnings, which is what we've been seeing in the practice up to this point, but it gives the police and enforcement agencies further options in terms of intervening so that things don't escalate unnecessarily. 
There are significant democratic checks on the orders made, including being referred to the Regulations Review Committee and a necessary confirmation vote by Parliament if they are to last more than a month or two, and the bill also has a sunset clause of two years. This is not a piece of legislation that has been drafted lightly without consideration of the seriousness of this issue. If we are considering the safety of our country, though, what we've been told is that we need those powers to be able to intervene and to have this legal certainty to be able to support that action. 
I just can't understand—with some of the Opposition views coming through that I've heard, saying that this just isn't necessary to move to level 2 and we don't need this legislation—how anybody could consider that that is responsible or reflective of the huge sacrifice that's been made and the efforts that are going to be required to protect the gains from that sacrifice. The Greens are supporting this legislation.





CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): This is a COVID cluster in the other meaning of that phrase. Not many of us are very familiar with emergency powers legislation. By its very nature it's not something with which we are usually familiar—that's the whole point.
The basis, uncertain as it is, of what we have had so far is challenged by the very notion—as we keep hearing from the Government benches—that we need this to go into level 2. As Mr Macindoe has already said, we have already been in level 2 before. If this is a tacit admission from the Government that there was no legal basis from that then I'd rather that we had that conversation openly and honestly, and on a basis on which we can understand whether, in fact, such a piece of legislation as this is indeed required. And I note that legal academics have raised the question—I don't want to mischaracterise their position by stating it as anything other than a question—about the legal basis for what we have endured so far, but it's a fair question. 
It's a question too that, implicitly, the Epidemic Response Committee has asked. The request for the advice that had been provided—I think I'm safe to say that I don't anticipate that that is going to be forthcoming; and, of course, we could spend a lot of time talking about the spurious use of legal privilege, but I won't do so, I've got to maintain tightly on the bill. But it's really important to understand, by way of context, for all those who are following this debate at home—perhaps struggling to understand why a piece of legislation should be needed to authorise level 2 that was not needed for level 4 or level 3, or, before that, level 2—and I can only say that I share their bemusement, because the Government's position on this is entirely illogical. 
If the Government believes that the current arrangements are not legitimate then it should say so and we can get on with making a set of arrangements in this bill. But if it is already legitimate for level 4, before that level 3, level 2, then, of course, this is not needed at all.
So why the rush? Well, I think the explanation is surely that the Government genuinely believes that if it doesn't pass this piece of legislation in the next 48 hours, we won't be able to go to level 2 at one minute to midnight this Thursday, which as I say is an extraordinary notion and I cannot believe—I genuinely can't believe—that they would stand up in this House and maintain that. And to mischaracterise the National Party in Opposition as saying that we are somehow arguing for the need for level 2 to be implemented as a matter of reality on the ground is fatuous in the extreme.
A New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vetting of this bill is sorely needed. I think I understand from an exchange that took place earlier that has been produced. I haven't seen that. It may or may not be available, I don't know. The bill I've seen now for less than 24 hours, so I'm trying to get my head round it as best I can in this, the second reading speech. Ordinarily, of course, a second reading speech focuses on what happened at select committee. Well, we all know there's not going to be that opportunity, because the Government knows better than to bother to listen to those except the select few to whom it has already released the exposure draft. 
Well, I don't think we should have much confidence that the rules that are going to be proclaimed by fiat are going to be particularly easy to understand or follow. We've got such absurdities as funerals and weddings having a more restrictive basis, not less. Just to clarify if you're listening at home and you're tuning in trying to make head and tail of this, it will be more restrictive to be at a funeral or a tangi or a wedding than it is to go to the restaurant on a Saturday night with your friends—provided that your friends are suitably grouped into 10 people or more—because, of course, a virus knows the difference between a group booking of 10 and a group booking of 11 within a mass of 100 warm bodies.
The rights and freedoms touched upon by this bill are absolutely considerable. And this is the point, of course, about the need for a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act discussion even; if not a formal document showing that the Attorney-General and others have turned their mind to whether the rights and freedoms are constrained in a manner that is justified in a free and democratic society, then at least for some justifications more meaningful than those we've heard tonight would be really, really helpful indeed. 
So just to be clear, then, two wrongs don't make a right. If the current regime does not have a sound legal basis—and I leave that question open, genuinely, I would like to know the answer—then surely it doesn't make sense or remedy the situation to have a different regime that's also lacking in its lawfulness or democratic basis. And so on that note I want to touch on a few of the specifics within the bill to the extent that I think New Zealanders are being sold very badly short in terms of what the Government is proposing for itself.
First, in the general policy statement of the bill itself it states that restrictions will be able to be applied that and I quote, "do not rely on powers provided by a state of national emergency". Well, it's one or the other, surely. If the Government wants emergency powers, then there should be a state of national emergency. And if there isn't a state of national emergency declared by the Government, then it shouldn't be seeking and applying emergency powers. This is an extraordinary disconnect, and, as I say, I genuinely can't understand how they can be so brazen as to set out in the explanatory note to such a reach for power as that.
Again, you know, we read about a modern and consistent set of rules being the recommended practice by legal academics and others. Well, if we could see the legal advice on which they're relying, that would be a really good start to understanding whether that statement is to be relied upon. 
The bill, again by its own account, gives power to set enforceable measures. Authorisations by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Health are two ways by which that can happen. I don't want to unduly personalise the matter, but the Minister of Health himself has had—let's just say—"confusion" in relation to rules that have been set at the previous alert levels. And the point is not whether the rules were or were not followed by a particular person; the point is that there was considerable debate for at least two or three days about whether the rules had been followed or not. And this is the person—and again, I don't mean this in a way to target Dr Clark, but any person whose judgment is to be relied upon to this fundamental extent is being given more power than he or she should be given in any democracy worth the name.
In my remaining time, I want to talk about, again, the sophistry associated with statements such as the bill, again, by its own account, being consistent with existing legislative conventions. Well, what's consistent with existing legislative conventions is legislation. And if this Government were to come to this House more frequently than it's currently proposing at two-year intervals or perhaps as little as three months, which, of course, is an improvement, then that would be helpful, indeed. But legislative conventions also include such safeguards as a select committee process, not passing everything in urgency within 24 hours or so, being subject to a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet, and so on. And of course, the fundamental nature of this bill, it's not legislation that we are agreeing on as a House of Parliament about what the rules should be; we're agreeing a set of rules that say that the Government can agree the rules—or actually not even the Government; specific Ministers within the Government. So even Cabinet, for all its imperfections, isn't all going to get to have a say, and I wonder if New Zealand First have worked that out yet. 
The power to make orders under the bill—again, I think we should all be worried that they're talking about exercising expressly certain orders in respect of classes of people; certain businesses; other activities such as sporting events, weddings, funerals, etc. And of course, it's this kind of anomaly that we're having to deal with at the moment. A word of advice to any temples, churches, synagogues, mosques, and so on: I recommend that you serve some food at your gathering—perhaps, you know, bread and wafer as communion. Call yourselves a restaurant and you can have 100 people. 
Finally, on the subject of enforcement, others have touched on the power to enter premises being afforded to police without a warrant. This is a very dangerous situation, and I say that not with any disrespect to our police force, but rather precisely because I have huge respect for our boys and girls in blue. I don't think they should be put in the invidious position that this legislation is, effectively, asking them to be placed in by the Minister of Health or the Prime Minister, and so on. 
And my final question—and I very much look forward to having a conversation with the Minister in the chair at the committee stage of the House—is whether this legislation that's before us now is intended to displace the equivalent existing powers that have been exercised, for example, under level 3 and level 4 under the Health Act and the civil defence legislation. So many questions and we've got very little opportunity even to ask them, let alone have them answered. It's deeply disappointing and, as I say, a COVID cluster in at least one sense of that phrase.





Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and speak in the second reading of this bill. I will address some of the questions raised by the previous member, Chris Penk. He raised at one point the question about whether there had been a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. I can let him know that there has, so that piece of process has been done. It is accessible, so I encourage the member to look at that. He also questions whether the existing legal framework was adequate or whether, in fact, the current regime has a sound legal basis. It does. And he questions whether the purpose of this bill is to design one. Because it doesn't. It explicitly says—and I do encourage him to read the bill—in the explanatory note, paragraph 1, "That single broad policy is to establish a fit-for-purpose legal framework for managing the unprecedented circumstances of the COVID-19 epidemic in a co-ordinated and orderly way, even if there is no longer a national state of emergency. To this end, this Bill establishes standalone legislation that provides a different legal framework for corresponding to COVID-19 over the next 2 years or until COVID-19 is sooner brought under control."
To put that another way: essentially, it's saying that we have the powers we need for responding to an emergency in the area of health, to respond in a situation where a crisis emerges. Those powers exist—an undescribed crisis—and so those responses have happened. Now that we have the opportunity, over time, to have a more specific piece of legislation for this particular disease and for our response to it, it seems fitting and appropriate, firstly, that the whole Parliament can debate it, so that we can have the Parliament's agreement to the framework that underpins the decision making around our country's response to this virus. And it also makes sense to have legislation that was not designed for the immediate crisis but that is designed for an ongoing management situation, and therefore can be more fit-for-purpose. That, indeed, is explained in the explanatory note, in paragraph 1, of the bill.
But for those who have just tuned in to the debate, as well, it's also true that there has been much said about funerals that I have heard in the context of this debate. And I have to say, as a Cabinet, certainly, my experience—and I've heard the Prime Minister also talk about this, and other Cabinet Ministers—limiting the number of people attending a tangi or a funeral is one of the most difficult decisions we've had to make in the context of COVID-19. Grieving for the loss of a loved one is an incredibly intense and difficult human experience, and people in those situations do tend to want to physically comfort one another. That is the reality of the grieving process. As a funeral celebrant myself, I've been involved in many funerals and, of course, have observed the way in which we do comfort each other in these situations. Overseas, sadly, we have seen situations where people who've come together for the purpose of grieving—in funerals where they have gathered there has been spread of COVID-19 and then there has been further, subsequent, tragic loss. And so that is not something we ever want to see in this country.
We have made an in-principle decision that we should not have gatherings of more than 10 people unless, of course, there is more than 10 people in an existing bubble—but that restaurants won't take bookings of more than 10 people, for example; that funerals and tangihanga will be restricted in physical presence to 10 people. Of course, there are other practices in place which are more common these days, where also these services can be broadcast via social media and other means, video-recorded and watched as well. That will be some comfort to people, though, it has to be said, it will still be incredibly difficult for those people in that situation. That is why we do want to examine that and lift those restrictions as soon as we have confidence. In another cycle of the virus we will re-examine it. We do want to loosen those restrictions as soon as we safely can.
I think the important thing here is that as a country, many people have made sacrifices through the existing time of level 4, and we want to lock those gains in. We do not want to see people go through unnecessary suffering. We want to lock in the gains and move forward together.





NICOLA WILLIS (National): Mr Speaker? Oh, sorry.
SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. No, it is a National call, so I call Nicola Willis. Thank you. I'd be a bit impolite, really.
NICOLA WILLIS: National welcomes alert level 2. We accept the need for a legal framework for enforcement of the requirements under level 2, and we share New Zealanders' sense of the collective achievement that together, our compliance with restrictions under level 4 and level 3 has allowed to occur: our low transmission rate. And we share the relief that we have been spared some of the worst that we have seen occur overseas.
But we in National are also very alive to the growing sense of concern and, frankly, despair, by too many who have been unevenly impacted by these restrictions and who fear they will go on for some time to come: businesses, but not just businesses, families with relatives who may die soon, families unable to visit their loved ones to spend time with each other at times of grief. And we on this side of the House feel a sincere and solemn duty to scrutinise the bill before us today with that in mind, but also in mind of the social contract that New Zealand has had over these past seven weeks that we will accept restrictions on our freedom where they are proportionate to the risk that we face.
With this bill, there are questions that we have of principle, of process, and of how it will be applied in practice. We do not think that the broad-ranging powers granted to the Government in this bill are proportionate or justified under level 2. I accept that New Zealanders may listen to me tonight and say, "Well, that's what you say about the bill, but I think I'll just believe the people on the other side." So I want to quote for you what the Ministry of Justice said in their report, which they provided to Andrew Little, assessing the consistency of this bill with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: "The Ministry of Justice acknowledged that this bill places unprecedented limits on rights and freedoms of association and movement." The ministry went further; at paragraph 38, they say, "Together, the potential requirements that can be imposed by orders under clause 10 of the bill could, if applied to their fullest extent, impose arguably the most extreme and significant limitation on New Zealanders' ability to go freely about our daily lives as has occurred in modern New Zealand history." So we must not underestimate the significance of this bill and its reach, and, therefore, the role we as an Opposition must play in our parliamentary duty in scrutinising it.
So what are the issues of principle at stake? Well, first of all, this is a stand-alone legal framework that grants extensive powers to the Government to issue orders broadly as it sees fit. There has been argument on the other side that there are sufficient safeguards here. Well, the safeguards imposed simply require that the Minister think there is something to prevent and that the Minister of Health agrees that that is the case.
The powers have been created in a process of extraordinary haste. We saw this bill at 5 p.m. last night—all three readings today; no select committee process, despite a recommendation that there should be one; no prior engagement, despite National's gesture of goodwill that we agree that a legally enforceable framework is needed and are prepared to work with the Government on it. The signs of haste are all there. Today, the Minister introduces a 23-page Supplementary Order Paper amending problems in this bill, and the Minister argues, "Oh, we didn't have time for a select committee process." Minister Parker, we have been in lockdown for seven weeks, and you should have envisaged that level 2 would come one day and be prepared with the legislation needed to enforce it. I do not accept that a select committee process is not needed.
The context here is that we did know that level 2 would come one day, and the Government did not prepare. In practice, we already have reason to be concerned about the arbitrary and contradictory way that orders may be imposed under this bill. We have spoken in this House of funerals and the grief that can't be shared by friends and family. The report by the Ministry of Justice doesn't even acknowledge the freedom to worship as a potential issue of right. The issues of enforcement of warrantless entry—
SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to continue supporting this bill through the second reading in the hope that we'll see some useful amendments at the committee stage to come.
I couldn't help but notice, as I was waiting to speak, the Minister of Health moving about the Chamber and speaking to the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Attorney-General, coming within half a metre of their faces as he spoke. The most interesting thing was I watched you watch them, and I thought I must say to the Speaker that I hope he'll reflect on that experience when deciding whether every member can sit in the House and be here for the Budget on Thursday, because there would appear to be an inconsistency. But I'm sure you will think about it carefully.
When it comes to this bill, there are a couple of issues that need to be considered and further examined. Normally, of course—and other members have said this—we would have had the first reading six months ago and a select committee would have consulted the public and issued a report, and we would have got all sorts of feedback. In this truncated, urgent reading we've gone straight from the first reading to the second. I have had some feedback from a former member, Marama Fox, who just texted me, "Bro, this is outrageous." I certainly think that there would be people within Māoridom, as she has said, who would have wanted to have that kind of feedback.
One area where I think it would be important to examine the bill is where it says that there are classes of people. I read clause 12. It says that these measures can be put in place in relation to generally all people in New Zealand or to any specified class of people. That's incredibly unusual because we're so wedded to this idea that the law applies to people equally in New Zealand. So the idea that the Government can single out classes of people—and I can only imagine in the context of COVID-19, they had in mind, perhaps, older New Zealanders. I don't know what the Minister for Seniors thinks—
Hon Tracey Martin: It's in reference to enforcement officers.
DAVID SEYMOUR: —but I have to say that the idea that a class of people can be singled out to have measures imposed on them is something that's quite worrying. I think we need more explanation from the Attorney-General, from the Government side, why it's possible to single out, you know, a class of person to have a restriction put on them, because that I find quite worrying. Tracey Martin has been heckling throughout, for people who can't hear, saying that that's about the enforcement officers. Well, that's certainly not my reading. It says that they can impose measures and they apply in relation to people, generally to all people or any specified class of people. So Tracey Martin is heckling away, and I think she's read it wrong in her claim that I have.
Hon David Parker: Which clause?
DAVID SEYMOUR: The other area—clause 12(1)(b)(i) is the one I'm referring to for the benefit of the Attorney-General who's now joined in the conversation here.
I also say that the issues raised by Mark Mitchell around the ability of constables to enter a house because people might be having a party—well, you know, warrantless searches have been very tightly circumscribed. When we redid the laws for the SIS and GCSB a few years ago—and that was a time when there was a lot of cross-party cooperation, and Chris Finlayson led that very well—what we said was that we would have a very finely graduated escalation where the judge would have to be involved, and if there was to be some sort of urgent action, it was retrospectively validated. I do wonder if this ability of the police to enter a private house to break up a party because they think there might be too many people there is really a properly proportional response to a COVID-19 party. It seems that that's excessive.
So I leave those two thoughts as we progress through this urgent legislative process. It's critical, if we're going to do this fast, that we get it as right as we can. I see the Attorney-General getting some advice now, so hopefully we'll hear a bit more about that in later stages. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. There will be fewer restrictions under level 2, and we are well aware of this, but those remaining still need to be enforceable, and that is the purpose of this piece of legislation we are now debating. We don't want these narrower controls to be relying upon a national state of emergency. So this new law will recognise the central role of health factors and the measures that we need to take to acknowledge the fact that we have saved lives in New Zealand by taking the measures we have taken to date, and we must continue to do so in order to make sure we do not yo-yo back and forth to higher levels of warning as we have seen in other countries who have not followed through with the downgraded levels.
This new law will also provide that the Minister of Health become a decision maker in the advice taken on board by the Director-General of Health. It will also provide for economic and social factors to be taken into account in determining appropriate measures. The vast majority of New Zealanders do want to do the right thing, and they do comply because they know that it is within their best interests to do so.
During my time in lockdown, one of the things that I undertook to do was make a number of phone calls to those in the community within the Hutt Valley who may have needed extra support, particularly those in the over-65 group. And in that group—
SPEAKER: I want to thank the member—
GINNY ANDERSEN: I did call him. I did call you, Trevor.
SPEAKER: —for having concern for her local constituents.
GINNY ANDERSEN: And in that group, there were a number of concerns raised. But the point I would like to make here is the main concern was those New Zealanders that were making sacrifices, that were staying inside, that were changing their lives—the thing that worried them the most was others who were not. They felt that it was unfair that there could be a group—
SPEAKER: I'm now going to ask the member, despite her generosity, to start speaking to the bill.
GINNY ANDERSEN: Sure. So the point of this bill is—I was making my way to the point, Mr Speaker—that the regulatory backup provided by this new law allows us to address the behaviour at alert level 2 that is particularly harmful to that public health objective that we have laid out right from the start and to demonstrate to those who are complying voluntarily that non-compliance will not be tolerated. Non-compliance is a real risk to the wellbeing and the safety of New Zealanders. So it is important that this bill provides for the enforcement to enable a quick response if there are situations—whether that be a business that's not abiding by the social distancing requirements or whether that be a congregation of people in a party setting. There are a number of different responses that police have been required to attend, and it's important that those abilities to enforce a strong public health response are enabled by the law, and that is exactly what this bill does.
New Zealanders need to be commended, and we have been commended internationally for our amazing ability to band together and to fight back against COVID-19. And we have largely done that. But the time has now come for some of those temporary measures to be made permanent as we move through the final stages and make sure that we are safe in an ongoing way. It does concern me that members of the Opposition do not see the merit and the benefit and the public good in ensuring that we are safe and that we do not put ourselves in positions of spreading COVID-19 unnecessarily. While the vast majority of New Zealanders abide by this, we know that some are not, and we want to make sure that those instances are minimised as much as possible.
I would like to conclude by acknowledging that this legislation is designed for the ongoing management of a situation that has been unprecedented within New Zealand's history, and that at this time we need to acknowledge that a new framework is needed that is not relying upon a national state of emergency. It provides a good framework that is able to operate to ensure New Zealanders are safe and that we can continue to live our lives at a new level of freedom without putting at risk those around us. I commend this bill to the House.





SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. No one in New Zealand wanted COVID-19, no one in New Zealand asked for it, no one in New Zealand could have predicted it, and no one in New Zealand wants to see it flare up and spread through our communities again.
Over the last eight weeks, we've seen New Zealanders at their best. They've stayed home, saved lives. New Zealanders have done the right thing fighting COVID-19. People in my electorate have done the right thing: staying home, saving lives. We're proud of how we've done as a country. I'm proud of what we've achieved. I feel a sense of national pride, which I know is felt deeply across our country. We're proud of what we've achieved. We're proud of our front-line health workers. We're proud of the fact that we have not seen significant numbers of fatalities from COVID-19.
However, New Zealanders are also proud of our values, we're proud of our democracy, and we're proud of our freedoms. We don't give up our freedoms lightly: our freedom of movement, our freedom of association, our freedoms to gather and meet with like-minded people, our freedom to start a business and to work hard to make a living, our freedom of religion and to worship or not to worship, our freedom to mourn the loss of a loved one. This bill cuts to the heart of those freedoms. Yes, we know that we must give up our freedoms in times of a national emergency to unite to achieve a common goal against a common enemy: COVID-19. We know that this may need to be done for a temporary period of time, but we don't give up those freedoms lightly and we don't give up those freedoms permanently. When we do give them up, we don't give them up without some level of proportionality. This bill, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill, is not a proportionate response to COVID-19 and the threat that it provides.
I'd like to focus on a number of areas. Firstly, in highlighting how this bill is disproportionate to New Zealanders. This bill is one of the most extreme pieces of legislation to ever come to this Parliament. Under clause 11 of this bill, the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister will have the ability to substantially affect every area of New Zealanders' lives: the ability to refrain people from associating with specific people, to enforce physical distancing rules, to prohibit gatherings of specific kinds in specific places in specific circumstances, require isolation, prohibit things from entering or permit the entry of things into any port or place. The impact that this bill has on our society is extreme. I go back to the point I made at the start: we understand that we give up our freedoms temporarily, but we don't give them up permanently and we don't give them up without there being some form of proportionately.
When you have such extreme legislation in place which gives such extreme powers to the Government, there is always a risk of those powers being misused. We only need to look at what has already been announced by the Government over the last week in regards to what level 2 will mean to see that these will be misused. You can look at the examples of weddings, of funerals, of tangi, of church and religious services which last week were told could have a maximum number of a hundred and now are being told that they can only have a maximum number of 10.
I'd like to read a letter that I received today from a funeral director in my electorate who said, "We currently have in our care a well-known local gentleman whose family visit most days to sit with him. They were hoping level 2 would allow them to hold a farewell at the club in honour of him; now they're having to rethink this due to the level 2 announcement. This is one of many families from varying cultures in our care that have been waiting for level 2 to hold a service. They feel let down and confused as to how to move forward." 
This is not only an unfair change to the rules, it's not only a misuse of the rules; it's an inhumane use of the rules and it is an untrusting use of the rules. New Zealanders have been told to be kind; New Zealanders have been told that the Government trusts them to make the right decisions; but now, when it comes to level 2, we're being told: "No, we don't trust you to hold a funeral and to physically and socially distance at that period." We've heard speakers argue and say, "Well, you can go to a cafe, a restaurant, a cinema, a school, and we trust you there, but we don't trust you at one of the most important moments in life, which is actually death, a moment of grief, a moment where people come together to remember their loved ones."
I come also to the area of church and religious services, and these have also been limited to 10. My colleague Nicola Willis mentioned the consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Ministry of Justice advice and how this advice didn't even touch on the freedom of worship under section 15 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I quote section 15: "Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either [publicly] or in private." The advice didn't even cover that fundamental right, and I find that abhorrent.
I'm not ashamed of the fact that I'm someone who goes to church every Sunday. We've done the right thing: we've held our church services on Zoom, as have many other churches up and down the country. They've had live streams on YouTube, they've played their part. Most churches aren't big churches in New Zealand. Our church only has 50 people. We won't be able to meet this Sunday under these new rules, as will many other churches across New Zealand. These rules go to the heart of what it means to be a Kiwi, and I find it abhorrent. 
It comes down to, then, the enforcement of these rules—and I find these provisions extreme. The powers in this bill, under clause 20, give enforcement officers the ability to enter any premise and close it at any time. It gives powers to the police to enter any premise, anywhere, at any time, to ensure that people are following the rules. They could enter your home. They could enter your business. They could enter your most sacred place. Your home, being your castle, at any time is no longer sacred under this legislation. And then the ability to fine you and potentially imprison you. Those are all powers which this bill has.
Lastly, I come to the area of safeguards, because when Parliament puts in place legislation with such extreme provisions, the question has to be: where are the safeguards? Where are the safeguards in this piece of legislation? Well, it has a two-year time limit. Two years. This piece of legislation will be in place for two years. I understand the Government is looking at making that three months at a time; however that is still an extremely long period of time. This Parliament will have the numbers, without the Opposition having to be part of that, to extend that three-month period every single time.
This bill has a number of occasions where it says the Minister must have regard to any Government decision on the risk and consult the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and any other Minister that the Minister of Health thinks fit. "Have regard to", "consult"—those are words which are so weak that you could drive a bus through them. The Leader of the Opposition is not required to be consulted. When we go through a time of national crisis, we should do that together and we should have both the Government and the Opposition playing an important role in that. This legislation does not provide the Opposition any single area where it can have influence over the decisions which are made by the Government, or the powers.
I heard David Seymour speak about the ability of the judicial review. Judicial review is available, but how much does it cost to take a case to court? You hear people on the Government benches constantly talking about the cost of justice in our country, and now they're saying that if you want to stand for your freedoms, you've got to take a case to court under judicial review. Where are the freedoms, where are the checks, where are the balances in this piece of legislation?
So this is not a proportionate piece of legislation. I oppose it alongside my National Party colleagues. Thank you.





KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): This is the final speech of the second reading, and it's incumbent, I think, to provide a couple of brief observations in respect of the debate that's been had in this reading. We've just heard from our colleague from Papakura—
Simeon Brown: Pakuranga. 
KIRITAPU ALLAN: —Pakuranga, my apologies—who gave an impassioned speech about the limitations on rights. I think, therefore, it is very useful to refer to the section 7 report that has been prepared by the office of legal counsel and referred to by my friend Nicola Willis across the aisle. Just prior, she made a brief reference to paragraph 38 in the section 7 report, and to that extent she talked about how the summary was that this particular bill may impose arguably the most extreme and significant limitations on New Zealanders' ability to freely go about our daily lives as has occurred in modern New Zealand history. She concluded her remarks at that point. 
Now, we know that in a debate as significant as this one, it is very important that New Zealanders who are tuning in to understand what is being debated in this House and what legislation is being introduced understand the full advice that has been provided to this House. So I will, therefore, read the next part: "Nevertheless and despite the potential degree of these restrictions, the bill may be consistent with the Bill of Rights if the limitations are necessary and can be justified in a free and democratic society." 
The office of legal counsel did an analysis on an array of the freedoms and the rights that are bestowed upon us within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. They assessed peaceful assembly, freedom of association, freedom of movement, freedom from discrimination, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, the liberty of the person, and the right to justice in civil proceedings. The key consideration that he had to turn his mind to was whether or not the limitation can be justified, and in making those very clear observations about the extent to which this bill does impose—as has been stated in this House—some of the most extreme and significant limitations, the finding was that these limitations can indeed be justified on the basis of what it is that this bill is going to address, which is the rapid spread of COVID-19. 
That is the rapid spread of COVID-19, and now, in this House this afternoon, we are debating whether or not we introduce a public health response and whether we can provide the full, bespoke legal framework that is required for our country to adequately respond to a once-in-a-lifetime public pandemic, and this legislation enables us to transition to alert level 2 with that framework being in place. Whilst there have been some impassioned speeches given in this House this afternoon, I do note that it is interesting that our friend Mr Penk, who revels in his legal abilities—it was an interesting remark that he made after an impassioned speech on the rights and limits that would be placed on freedoms, which was that he hadn't actually turned his mind to this particular piece of advice that is sitting on a website for all of us to find. 
So look, from this side of the House, we understand the gravity of what is being asked of New Zealanders, and we have at every stage been aware of what is being asked of New Zealanders. But, sir, at this late stage in the night, and with that look upon your face, I can only say we commend the bill to the House. 





A party vote was called for on the question, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 64
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.
Noes 56
New Zealand National 55; Ross.
Bill read a second time.





In Committee
Part 1  Preliminary provisions
Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): As I mentioned in my second reading speech, we have had some good suggestions come forward from members. I think the most important of them is to require this legislation, effectively, to be refreshed every 90 days, which was a suggestion from the National Party, similar in effect to the request by the ACT Party that the final expiration of this be one year rather than two. The position that we've landed in the Supplementary Order Paper is that every 90 days Parliament has to pass a motion that it be extended for another 90 days. Parliament can choose a longer period if it wants, and it might want to do that around the time of the election if there was risk that Parliament wouldn't be resitting within that 90-day period, but we have that extra level of protection put in. That's an amendment made by Supplementary Order Paper 497, shown in a tracked-changes form on the floor.
The other significant change which I'll mention now is to limit the range of people to whom an enforcement power can be delegated to Crown agencies—so like Customs, for example—and Crown contractors. But ordinary people cannot be delegated too if they're not part of the Crown. I'm sure other issues will arise during the committee stage, which I'll respond to as they arise.
Chris Penk: Mr Chair.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I call—I was going to call Chris Penk, but he sat down.
Chris Penk: I will defer to my colleague.
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I will give the call instead to the Hon Michael Woodhouse.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm not even sure which microphone I'm using—there we go. I appreciate my colleague's deferral. We are on Part 1 of this bill, and I have two—one's a comment and one's a question, I guess. I haven't been privy to the discussions between the National Party and the Attorney-General's office in respect of an amendment to clause 3, but I would note that if the relevant period is described as the longer of the following of a period of 90 days after the commencement date or the period specified by a resolution of the House of Representatives, the likelihood is that the first review of this and resolution by the House may not take place until November, which is actually six months away. And so the Attorney-General may want to clarify what the intention is in respect of the first period of the following—the passage of this Act and a resolution—and whether the House will have an opportunity to consider that resolution before the 52nd Parliament rises for the 2020 election period.
The second question I have is in relation to clause 4—the purpose of this bill—because I think this goes to the heart of the concern that I certainly have and that members of the public have expressed to me. When we have an epidemic notice or we have a state of civil emergency, it is because there is a material risk that an event will arise or has arisen that requires the powers of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. This bill is designed to provide powers, effectively, when those conditions aren't met. But I note that in paragraphs (a) and (b) the words "prevents" and "avoids" are being used. Now, it says "and limits the risk of, [an] outbreak" or "mitigates … the actual or potential adverse effects of the … outbreak". But the words "prevents" and "avoids" means that we can be in lockdown from now until a vaccine is found, because it's only when a vaccine is able to be administered to the public that we can prevent and avoid the actual or potential adverse effects of the COVID-19 outbreak. This is, essentially—the powers we are giving to the Crown, the executive, are to hold us in a state of perpetual fear and emergency and a response to that.
I've got to reflect, actually, on where we were—[Bell rung]
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Michael Woodhouse.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That's all right. I think I understand what's happening there, Mr Chair.
We have moved an awful long way from when the director-general and the Minister of Health assured us months ago that jumping up and down in a mosh pit for two hours with someone who was positive with COVID does not constitute a close contact, but, if I get in the lift in the parliamentary precinct with one of my colleagues for 10 seconds to go from the first floor to the third floor, that's now somehow prohibited. Have we got to the point where we are in a state of perpetual existential fear?
David Seymour: Depends what the member's doing in the lift.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yeah, well, touché, Mr Seymour. That's now on Hansard.
The point I'm making is that if we are going to pass a piece of legislation to prevent this happening, we're always going to be in a state of preventing it from happening and, therefore, we're always going to be in a state of perpetual partial lockdown, and I think it's really important that the House understands whether that's what the country is going to be faced with for, potentially, the next 18 months, because I am as aware as anyone of the potential for the catastrophic effects of the spread, the unfettered spread, of COVID through New Zealand. But I also, actually, want to believe the Minister of Health when he says he's on top of contact tracing, he's on top of testing. And, remember, the case definition for testing for weeks was you'd have to be nearly on your deathbed with respiratory distress, a fever of 38 or higher, and a number of other sequelae before you'd even get a swab up your nose.
Now we are testing just about everybody with a sniffle—fair enough. If we're doing that, do we really need to take these Draconian steps to prevent or avoid?





Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Dealing with the two main points that the Hon Michael Woodhouse raised. The first was: will there be a resolution before the election? In practice, yes. If Supplementary Order Paper 497 is adopted by the House, then clause 3(1) says that the "Act is repealed on the expiry of [the] relevant period if no resolution is passed", and then the relevant period is defined in subclause (2) to be "the longer of the following: (a) …. 90 days [following] the commencement date or … (b) any other period specified by a resolution [in] the House". Unless there is another resolution before then, there will be no other resolution. So you're left with subclause (2)(a), which means it has to be done within 90 days, and 90 days from tomorrow is July-August—August isn't it: June, July, August; 15 August—but it would expire during the interregnum. So we will, in effect, have to make sure that we're covered during that period of the election, and, if we didn't bring a resolution to the House before we lifted, the legislation, would risk expiring during that period. So that would be our intention to do that—to bring a resolution.
In respect of the member's second point, referring to the purpose clause, the member's correct in his description of the purpose as listed at clause 4(a) and (b). I would then note the purpose is further expanded at clause 4(c) to require that the public health response "is co-ordinated, orderly, and proportionate;", and the words—"proportionate"—are important. And they are then, effectively, brought forward into the form of order that the Minister can make under section 11 orders by clause 9(1)(d). Clause 9(1)(d) says that the Minister, before making the order, "must be satisfied that the order is appropriate to achieve the purpose[s] of [the] Act.", which includes proportionality. So if we had low levels of infection, as we do now in New Zealand, and low levels of cases, it would not be proportionate to take New Zealand back to level 4, for example, and that would be—
Hon Michael Woodhouse: You wouldn't be doing that under this Act. You'd be doing it under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act.
Hon DAVID PARKER: No, in the future we would be doing it under this Act.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Really?
Hon DAVID PARKER: We would be. Officials can correct me if I've got that wrong. We would be doing it under this Act for the future.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Not a section 70 notice under the Health Act?
Hon DAVID PARKER: It would be done pursuant to this Act. It would still be a section 70 notice under the—sorry, section 11 notice instead of a section 70 notice, and it would be done under this Act. But, unlike the current power, it is actually explicitly exercised now by the Minister, and the Minister has to be satisfied that he's achieving the purpose of the Act at clause 4, which includes proportionality.





Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Attorney-General for that explanation, and I would just make two points, if I may, before the gong. Firstly, I'm aware, actually, and I appreciate the Minister drawing out clause 4(c), because the obligation is required to be "co-ordinated, orderly, and proportionate;". They are entirely appropriate words, except there is a very widespread view, one which I share, that the current proposed level 2 provisions are neither coordinated or proportionate—not coordinated, in the sense that we can have cafes and bars open but not churches. I'm going to instruct my friends at the St Patrick's Church at Macandrew Road in Dunedin to call themselves the St Patrick's Tavern from Sunday, and they might be able to get 99 people along to mass. I mean, they are serving bread and wine, so I'm sure they'll meet their host responsibility under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.
I'm already concerned that this isn't coordinated. I'm certainly concerned that it's not proportionate, and those are things that are left to the discretion of the Minister to exercise his or her value judgment in respect of that, and that's very difficult to do anything about except by resolution.
I'll have more to say—
CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry to interrupt the member. It has come time for me to leave the Chair.
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)