THURSDAY, 14 APRIL 2022
The Deputy Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
KARAKIA/PRAYERS
DEPUTY SPEAKER: E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kuīni, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.
[Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the Queen, and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]





MOTIONS
Matatini—50th Anniversary
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) (remote): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Te Matatini.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: I move, That this House recognise the 50th anniversary of Te Matatini ki te Ao International Māori Performing Arts Festival, that it acknowledge its incredible commitment to showcase Māori excellence and bring Te Ao Māori together, celebrate its extraordinary contribution to the revival of te reo Māori and tikanga, and thank the thousands of performers, tutors, organisers over decades who have enriched the cultural identity of Aotearoa.
Motion agreed to.





BUSINESS STATEMENT
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 3 May. In that week, the annual review debate will conclude with appearances from a further six Ministers. Other legislation to be considered will include the second reading of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill, and the first reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill. Wednesday, 4 May will be a members' day.
CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you to the Leader of the House for that update. I'm aware that members are particularly interested in a bill called the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill. I understand some Ministers regard the bill as having been passed already, but it is in fact at select committee, and I was wondering if the Leader of the House would indicate if the Government would be giving priority to the passage of that bill when it comes back from committee.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): It very much depends on the shape of the bill when it gets back from select committee. In cases where bills don't need further amendment, they tend to be easier to progress. Where the select committee doesn't bring the bill back to the House ready to be passed and further amendments are required, then they tend to take longer.





Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wonder if the Government's had sufficient time to chew the cud on the Organic Products Bill, which, of course, reported back from select committee 13 months ago.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): It does remain on the Government's legislative programme, but at this point I can't give the member a firm timetable for it.





PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced. 
Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
CLERK: Petition of Brian Webb, requesting that the House pass legislation that makes it mandatory for all political parties to work together to deal with national emergenciespetition of Greenpeace Aotearoa, requesting that the House urge the Government to impose sanctions on and immediately freeze the assets of every Russian oligarch until Russia withdraws its military invasion of Ukraine.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.
I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General: Tertiary education sector; what we saw in 2021. That paper is published under the authority of the House.
Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK: Report of the Health Committee on the petition of Samantha Edmundson report of the Pae Ora Legislation Committee on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Billreport of the Primary Production Committee on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading.





ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Research, Science and Innovation
1. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: What action is the Government taking to support innovation in the aerospace sector?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research, Science and Innovation): Last week, I announced the Government is supporting Christchurch aerospace start-up Pyper Vision to develop a solution that could help make fog delays a thing of the past, in offering a solution to a multibillion-dollar problem. Pyper Vision's solution uses drones to dispense a safe, water-absorbing, and environmentally-friendly product that soaks up moisture in the air and clears runway fog so that pilots and air traffic controllers can operate safely. The development of Pyper Vision's technology will be supported through the Government's Airspace Integration Trials programme, which supports the safe integration of autonomous aviation technologies into our existing transport system.
Jamie Strange: Why is the Government supporting New Zealand's aerospace sector?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government has a vision for the New Zealand aerospace sector to be a diverse and inclusive sector that is thriving; supporting tens of thousands of high-wage jobs. The sector will be safe, innovative, and productive, with aerospace activities actively contributing to achieving our environmental goals. This could be a multibillion-dollar industry that leads the world in disruptive aerospace technologies, yet has low environmental impact, and could enhance sustainability across the New Zealand economy.
Jamie Strange: What else has the Government done to support New Zealand's aerospace sector?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Airspace Integration Trials programme was established in 2019 with Wisk, a leading international advanced aviation company, to support the trialling of autonomous passenger aircraft in Canterbury. Since then, the programme has received strong interest from both domestic and international companies, despite the impacts of COVID-19. The programme has now grown to have eight industry partners developing autonomous and remotely-piloted aircraft across a range of areas, including environmental monitoring, conservation, agriculture, cargo transport, and medical deliveries. 




Question No. 2—Climate Change
2. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister of Climate Change: Does he stand by the position he took in Parliament on 31 March that we do not need to reduce the national herd size, or the position he took on One News on 12 April that we do need to reduce the national herd size? 
Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Yes. 
Mark Cameron: Why did the Minister change his position regarding herd sizes so abruptly in the space of just two weeks, and how can farmers have confidence in this Government when Cabinet Ministers are flip-flopping on their livelihoods? 
Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, in answer to the second part of the question, as I've said before in this House, that member needs to have more faith in New Zealand farmers and in the agricultural community. Farmers up and down the country have been reducing their emissions and increasing their profitability for a number of years. 
Mark Cameron: Has the Minister asked his ministerial colleagues about expediting methane mitigation technologies—which the Minister stated that the Government has invested roughly $200 million into over the past decade—to avoid slashing herd numbers and farmers' bottom lines? 
Hon JAMES SHAW: In the member's question there, he equates a drop in productivity to a drop in the bottom lines of farmers, and, actually, what the research shows is that farmers can actually increase their profitability whilst reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. That is the frustration with this particular debate. What the debate needs to focus on is the reduction in agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, rather than a really simplistic debate about the methodology that you might take to get there. 
Mark Cameron: Does he believe that reducing herd sizes is a wise decision when New Zealand's agricultural sector feeds approximately 40 million people globally—roughly eight times our population—and contributes to global food security? 
Hon JAMES SHAW: Farmers themselves are actually the ones who are amongst the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. The report that came out earlier this week demonstrated that the intensity of weather events, including droughts—that of course affect our agricultural sector—are increasing by about 15 percent as a result of climate change, and also that the frequency of those events is increasing by about 20 percent. That in itself cuts farmers' bottom lines more than anything. 




Question No. 3—Finance
3. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does the Minister agree with Treasury forecasts showing inflation will outstrip New Zealanders' wages this year, and does he agree with Infometrics Chief Forecaster Gareth Kiernan that "The high cost of living and unaffordable housing threatens to create a brain drain over the next two years"?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): As I said in the House yesterday, I agree that those are Treasury's forecasts for the June 2022 year. As I also said yesterday, this is the only year in the forecast period in which inflation outstrips wages. As to the second part of the question, the rising cost of living is a global issue. I note that this week US inflation hit 8.5 percent, while the UK saw its inflation rate rise to 7 percent. We do recognise that many New Zealand families are finding it tough as Omicron, the resulting supply chain constraints, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and the general effect of the pandemic drive up prices around the world. That's why we have acted to ease the impact on households, for example through the cutting of the fuel excise duty and also the big range of measures we brought in to support those on low and middle incomes. This will make a far greater difference to New Zealanders than the Opposition's tired response of tax cuts for the most wealthy. In terms of Mr Kiernan's statements, I would note that the Reserve Bank is expecting net migration to increase to 24,000 over the next couple of years.
Nicola Willis: Is the Minister aware of a range of forecasts which show inflation in New Zealand forecast to be much higher than inflation in Australia, with ANZ forecasting we will hit 7.4 percent, while Australia will remain below 5 percent; and if he has seen those forecasts, how does he explain them?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Economic forecasts range for what will happen, both in New Zealand and Australia and around the world. What we do know is that the New Zealand economy is in a strong position to be able to manage the challenges of 2022, with low debt compared to other countries in the world, a quicker return to surplus than many other countries in the world, a lower unemployment rate than many other countries in the world, and annual average growth over 5 percent.
Nicola Willis: Does the Minister share the view of a growing group of economists that the soaring cost of living, record low consumer confidence, and plummeting business confidence means New Zealanders can expect their economic fortunes to worsen in the next 12 months; and if not, why not?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I've said a number of times in this House, I understand that 2022 will be a challenging year for many New Zealand households. That's the reason why this Government has invested particularly in low and middle income families, to make sure that they do have the resources that they need. We also understand that this is a global issue, and when global organisations like the IMF and Standard & Poor's congratulate New Zealanders on how they have made it through the pandemic, and the economic performance of New Zealand, that is something that we can at least be pleased about in this challenging period of time.
David Seymour: Does the Minister stand by his response to my question in the annual review debate whether the Government had overdone fiscal and monetary stimulus leading to excessive inflation, "It's always easier in hindsight."?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No doubt many issues are easier to deal with in hindsight. What I am proud of is that this Government stepped in to support New Zealand businesses and households to make sure that people stayed in work, so that we've got 3.2 percent unemployment. I'm pleased that we stepped up to support businesses through things like the Small Business Cashflow Scheme, the Resurgence Support Payment, the wage subsidy. These were things that helped New Zealanders get through the pandemic, and, at the other end of it, we have an economy that is recognised by the likes of the IMF as doing well.
Nicola Willis: Has he seen analysis by Infometrics chief forecaster Gareth Kiernan stating that, "Despite there being little rationale for further spending increases, growth in government consumption is still accelerating"; and can the Minister outline what specific steps he has taken to ensure all Government agencies are ensuring maximum value for expenditure?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question, it is worth reminding the member that, as a percentage of GDP, the spending that the Government has been doing over the last couple of years is very comparable with what the previous National Government did off the back of the global financial crisis. In fact, in 2009, as a percentage of GDP, National's spending was 34.7 percent; for Labour in 2020 it was 34.3 percent. For National in 2010 it was 33.8 percent of GDP and for Labour it was 31.7 percent of GDP. Governments from time to time face crises like this. It is important that we use the balance sheet of the Government to support New Zealand businesses and households.
Nicola Willis: Does the Minister continue to believe in the face of the cost of living crisis and accelerating inflation that it is prudent for him to add more spending to this year's Budget than any finance Minister in the history of New Zealand?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member needs to sort out her position because she has said on radio this week, I believe, that National would spend the same amount as the Labour Party. So she's criticising her own Budget proposal, which is to spend the same amount, but the one difference is that side of the House would do it through untargeted tax cuts; on this side of the House we are going to invest it in the public services that New Zealanders need.
Nicola Willis: Does the Minister consider it untargeted to ensure that middle-income New Zealanders squeezed by a growing cost of living and ineligible for Working for Families will get some tax relief in his Budget?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I consider untargeted is that people earning $180,000 a year would benefit the most from the member's proposals whilst those on the minimum wage would get two bucks a week. The National Party could start by actually supporting some of the things that lift wages like the minimum wage increase, like the 1 April changes that this Government proposed.
Nicola Willis: Does he agree with Westpac that "The March quarter inflation result is set to be another monster.", and what is the Minister's plan to support the Reserve Bank's efforts to put a lid on the cost of living crisis?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As all commentators are saying, inflation in 2022 is a challenge right around the world and I look forward to the member lecturing Boris Johnson and Joe Biden about their total failure to control inflation. This is a global issue. On this side of the House we'll continue to balance our fiscal policy to make sure we invest in health and in education and in housing and in transport—all the areas that the member's party ignored for nine years.




Question No. 4—Health
4. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of Health: What progress has been made in establishing the new health entities as part of the Government's health reforms?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): The Government is well on track to deliver the transformational health reforms needed to address the inequities in our systems and capture the lessons of COVID-19. We have been making significant progress while the Health Committee has considered the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill. The interim Health New Zealand and Māori Health Authority entities have boards and also have appointed chief executives. The transition to and preparation for 1 July this year is well under way and this includes the transfer of personnel from the Ministry of Health to Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority. Alongside this, there has also been a substantial engagement programme, featuring more than 500 meetings with community and workforce stakeholders, and a national roadshow to communicate the objectives and benefits of the reform. Considerable progress has been made on the strategic documents which will steer the new system. These include the Government policy statement and the New Zealand health plan.
Arena Williams: Why have some functions already transferred?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We've consistently balanced the urgent need to make the changes New Zealanders expect, while making sure the health system continues to function. It's important that the new entities are able to hit the ground running from day one. It's equally important that there is minimal disruption to day to day functions, including the ongoing response to the COVID pandemic. For this reason, transfer of personnel has already commenced; the aim is to ensure that the transition is as seamless as possible.
Arena Williams: What support, in particular, has the Minister seen for establishing the new Māori Health Authority?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I visit health services across New Zealand, I hear, time and time again, how important it is that the new system addresses longstanding inequities in health. Front-line health providers see this every day, and I've been overwhelmed by the support that I've seen for the authority. For instance, I note former Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Tau Henare, who said on 5 April that "This is the last shot at it, at fixing up some of the poor Māori health statistics. This is our one and only shot at fixing up what has been going on for the last hundred years." I also appreciated the open letter from more than 35 health system providers and organisations, including the Cancer Society of New Zealand, General Practice New Zealand, the New Zealand Dementia Foundation, and Hāpai Te Hauora, who stated "The establishment of the Māori Health Authority / Te Mana Hauora Māori is central to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and will help ensure everyone has the same access to good health outcomes." I look forward to the vital contribution the authority will make to our health system.
Dr Shane Reti: Has the Māori Health Authority veto been removed in the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill reported back today; and if so, why?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Māori Health Authority, in the original legislation that entered the House, never had a veto, and the member has the bill available to him to read over the long Easter weekend.




Question No. 5—Housing
5. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Housing: How many KiwiBuild houses were built in January 2022, if any, and is KiwiBuild performing to her expectations?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): As of the end of January 2022, there were 917 new KiwiBuild houses being built, and 591 have been contracted and are due to begin construction soon. These will be in addition to the 1,304 KiwiBuild homes completed to date. None were completed in January. I note that January is always the quietest month in the building sector, where builders typically and traditionally take a well-deserved break. So this is in line with my expectations.
Chris Bishop: Was her expectation of KiwiBuild that it would have built more than 1,304 houses since it began?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I notice the new spokesperson for housing for the National Party is taking the easy, classic, Lite FM line on KiwiBuild. He may not have noticed that there was a reset of the KiwiBuild scheme in September 2019, when targets were removed. KiwiBuild is performing to our expectations.
Chris Bishop: In light of that answer, can she confirm that her expectation is that KiwiBuild will have only built just over 1,300 houses around 4½ years into the programme?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I can and will happily confirm to that member is that we are happy with the record of 1,304 houses being built, 917 currently under construction, and a further 591 due to begin construction very soon over a 4½ year period. I will put that against the 100 affordable houses the National Party in Government delivered over nine long years.
Chris Bishop: Why has KiwiBuild only built 1,304 houses since it started?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Because the KiwiBuild programme had to start from a zero position of any Government support for the building of affordable housing. I point to the 100 houses that the special housing areas the National Party put in place delivered over nine years of Government.
Chris Bishop: How many houses have been built at Ihumātao, following the purchase of land there through the KiwiBuild Land for Housing Programme?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As the member well knows, the land at Ihumātao was not purchased for the purposes of KiwiBuild; it was purchased through the Land for Housing Programme. So there was never any intention of building KiwiBuild houses on that land.
Chris Bishop: Has she received any advice in recent days in how changes, either up or down, in the official cash rate—including changes of up to 100 basis points—may affect how easy it is for people to purchase a KiwiBuild home and service the mortgage on it?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Ours is a Government that is always committed to policy settings that will help first-home buyers, and have a steady programme of work—so on most days, I receive advice.




Question No. 6—Environment
6. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister for the Environment: How has Jobs for Nature supported regional communities?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Today, the Government announced another Jobs for Nature project to significantly scale up protecting whitebait spawning habitat īnanga in Northland. Whitebait numbers, sadly, are declining and it's important that we act now to restore habitat. The Mountains to Sea Conservation Trust will improve spawning habitats in 25 waterways across the Far North; around 20,000 streamside plants will be planted; kilometres of fencing, together with animal and weed control, will help restore the habitat for whitebait.
Rachel Boyack: How is Jobs for Nature supporting communities in the Nelson region?
Hon DAVID PARKER: In the Nelson region, Project Mahitahi is a collaborative programme between the local council, iwi, and community partners to restore the ecological health of the Mahitahi Valley forest ecosystems. It's a five-year project, which will plant around 125,000 plants, restore wetlands, and carry out pest and plant control. It aims to enhance water quality, reduce the spread of invasive plant species, and preserve rare indigenous tree species. It's another example of Jobs for Nature making a tangible difference.
Angie Warren-Clark: How is Jobs for Nature supporting regional communities in the Bay of Plenty?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Another Jobs for Nature project is backing the Accelerating Bay of Plenty Freshwater Improvement project, helping fence 174 kilometres, 450,000 native plants, and these steps will help protect the region's waterways and enhance biodiversity. Catchments covered in the project are the Pongakawa River, tributaries of the Waihī estuary, the Poraiti and Kaituna, Nukuhou catchments, and the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes. They're all experiencing high levels of contaminants from sedimentation and livestock nutrients, which is impacting on ecosystem health, swimming, and tuna. It's a great example of central and local government working together with private landowners and iwi to put the health of the waterway first.




Question No. 7—Health
7. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Yes. In particular I stand by the actions this Labour Government is taking to rebuild our public health system. We inherited a legacy of chronic under-funding, buildings left to rot, and the care available to patients having more to do with postcodes than needs. This Government is delivering record investment in health. We are building a whole new mental health system, we're making the structural changes that patients and the health workforce have been crying out for, and we're doing it all alongside a world-leading response to the global pandemic, which has allowed us to move to orange for the long weekend. "Orange", we're glad about that!
Dr Shane Reti: When he told media in November last year that he would deliver a recruitment campaign for ICU nurses, why are there only three ICU nurses in jobs more than five months later?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member once again has his figures wrong. So 93 applications have been received following the six weeks of the recruitment campaign that goes through to 30 June; 22 of those applications have been considered and have been referred to DHBs ready to make job offers, and three people have been put into work already.
Dr Shane Reti: Does he stand by his statement that employing only three ICU nurses after five months is "a good result, good progress so far"?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No. Sadly, the member once again continues his track record of getting his figures wrong. He's had to withdraw them once before—no doubt it will happen again. The campaign started in February and it has had 93 people lining up from around the world for it—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Sorry, someone is growling over this side. I don't know—order! I'm on my feet. I'm serious, OK? I can't even hear the Minister's answer. If I hear that sound again, that person might be leaving the Chamber. 
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I was saying, 93 people have applied and are now being actively considered; 22 have completed—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm pretty sure that came from that direction. Was that you, Mr Bayly? No? Yes, well, it did come from that direction.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I'll say this for the benefit of Mr Bennett, who seems to have a frog in his throat at the very least. So we've had 93 people now enter the system who are now being subject to vetting; 22 have completed the vetting, their CVs have been received, and they've been referred to DHBs ready to have job offers made to them; and three people are so advanced in the process that they are already working.
Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm that Treasury's recent rating of the ability of the ministry to deliver under his leadership as a D is the worst rating the ministry has ever had in its history, and when asked about the D by reporters, did he throw hard-working health workers under the bus when they reported "Health Minister Andrew Little was not exactly quick to defend the health system"?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I don't think the House can rely on that member's quoting of the thing. The reality is that we have had a ministry that has been tasked for the last two years to do an extraordinary range of things, not only to keep the health system running and monitoring it and doing its own commissioning and a whole bunch of operational activities but also to lead and manage our response to the COVID pandemic. That has put a lot of strain on everybody, and I think they can be forgiven for not being absolutely perfect in absolutely everything. But they've done a tremendous job in keeping New Zealanders safe and thousands of New Zealanders alive.
Dr Shane Reti: Why would anyone have confidence in a health Minister whose leadership is associated with a D for delivery to now deliver a complete restructure of the entire health system?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Very easily, because we are delivering, unlike that member and his party, who, in nine years in Government, when faced with a mental health crisis ignored it, when faced with faltering health services ignored them, and when they saw buildings crumbling ignored it. This is a Government that takes public health seriously, is making the investments, and is making the difference.




Question No. 8—Foreign Affairs
8. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: How many people have been supported by Operation Whakahokinga Mai to get from Afghanistan to New Zealand since September last year?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Since the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in August last year, the Government has successfully assisted more than 1,500 people to return to New Zealand. This total includes the nearly 400 individuals in the initial evacuation phase in August and the 1,182 so far that have been able to arrive safely to New Zealand. Operation Whakahokinga Mai was established after initial evacuation efforts were halted to help those in-scope that remained in Afghanistan to travel to New Zealand in such circumstances has been a real achievement and marks one of the largest humanitarian efforts undertaken by any New Zealand Government in recent decades. Many of these people faced grave risks under the Taliban. They have demonstrated great courage and resilience through this ordeal, and we welcome them here to Aotearoa. With nearly 90 percent of those we set out to assist now in New Zealand, winding down the operation is timely.
Ingrid Leary: What did Operation Whakahokinga Mai do to assist people to travel to New Zealand?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Operation Whakahokinga Mai at times numbered more than 100 public servants from several agencies and in several countries. As part of Operation Whakahokinga Mai, the Afghanistan Departure Task force within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) played a key role in facilitating travel documentation, accommodation, and flights for those eligible for assistance. Managed isolation and quarantine access and resettlement services were organised by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and were activated upon arrival to New Zealand. This was an intense operation for all those who were involved. The success of the operation was also made possible by the cooperation and hard work of many community advocates who engaged with the taskforce on a regular basis. I'm also grateful for the support from our partner countries, who played an important role in helping us to get our people safely from Afghanistan to Aotearoa. Due to the difficult circumstances in Afghanistan and the lack of commercial flights, the approach taken to support eligible people under Operation Whakahokinga Mai was unprecedented. This included extensive support for issuing visas, documentation, transit, and paying for flights and accommodation that went above and beyond regular consular support provided to New Zealanders overseas.
Ingrid Leary: How many eligible people are remaining in Afghanistan, and what support are you giving them?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: In the six months since Operation Whakahokinga Mai was established, we've managed to bring nearly 90 percent of those we set out to assist. This leaves less than 200 eligible people in Afghanistan. Of those still remaining in Afghanistan, some face difficulties in obtaining suitable documentation for travel, while for others it is not clear if they intend to take up the support to travel to New Zealand for a variety of personal reasons. By the end of April we expect around that 97 percent of eligible people will have arrived in New Zealand. That's why I'm signalling now the intent to wind down this operation, because on 29 April the Afghanistan Departure Taskforce will close and assistance, including payment for flights, accommodation, and third-country visas will instead be provided through relevant MFAT divisions. From 30 July onward, assistance will be provided on a case by case basis to those with exceptional circumstances preventing them travelling before this date.




Question No. 9—Immigration
9. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) (remote) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by his statement regarding doctors and nurses not being eligible to apply for the 2021 Resident Visa that "we still want you and we still need your skills in the country, and, when we return to normal residency settings, then they can apply"; if so, can he explain what the criteria of the normal residency settings will be to give the doctors and nurses the certainty they need to stay in New Zealand?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Yes. Under the broad and streamlined 2021 resident visa policy, we have already received over 2,500 applications from migrants working in health and aged care. Officials expect around 10,000 migrants working in health and aged care are likely to be eligible. There are some migrants working in health who may fall outside the criteria due to being students or working holidaymakers. If these migrants want to stay in New Zealand, they can apply for a work visa to ensure they can continue to have work rights and a valid visa. Under established residency settings, these workers will qualify when the category reopens this year. We are rebalancing our immigration settings with the intent of promoting higher skills and higher wages. These changes are likely to be to the advantage of migrant doctors and nurses.
Erica Stanford: Does he believe that these migrant doctors and nurses who are not eligible for 2021 residence will stay in New Zealand based on his advice that they should just wait for normal residence settings to resume, given he's not able to exactly say what these normal residency settings will be?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Those doctors and nurses are all most likely to have the ability to remain in New Zealand if they get themselves on the likes of an essential skills work visa. As I've said, the established criteria for residency are likely to mean these doctors and nurses are able to stay. As I say, we are continuing to work through the final parts of our rebalanced package, and they are likely to be advantaged by those settings.
Erica Stanford: Is the Minister saying that the residency settings will not change later this year when he reopens them from what they are currently, so those doctors and nurses will be eligible under current residency settings?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: If the member had listened to the answer to both my primary and supplementary question, I've said that they're likely to be eligible under the established residency criteria. We are looking at those, and when the skilled migrant category visa opens later this year—and as I said—the likes of doctors and nurses are likely to be advantaged by the new settings when we announce them.
Erica Stanford: So which is it? Is it that doctors and nurses will be able to apply for residence under the established visa settings for residents that exist now, or will they be new settings with new points and potentially new pay settings?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As I said to the member last week—which is the nexus of her primary question—we still want these people to remain in New Zealand. We need these skills. Under the current settings, they are likely to be able to stay. And as I said, under the proposed settings—and the principles around the proposed settings—they are likely to be advantaged by them. So their future looks good in New Zealand.
Erica Stanford: What does he say to Angela, an emergency department nurse in Whangārei who is looking to head to the UK because she has been in residence limbo for three years, is not eligible for the 2021 resident visa, and cannot wait any longer for the certainty she needs to stay here?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I would reflect what I've been saying to a number of questions that the member has been asking: if that person wants to stay in the country, they can continue to apply for a visa, and when the normal residency settings resume, once applications for the 2021 resident visa come to an end at July this year, then they will be able to—likely, shortly after that—apply for residency. The path is still open to them.
Erica Stanford: Does he think that saying that there will be a pathway to residence at some point in the future for these doctors and nurses is a better policy response than just granting them residence now under 2021 residence in order to stop them from leaving; and, if so, why are they still leaving?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: When the Government took the decision to introduce the 2021 resident visa, we were dealing with a macro problem of employers wanting to make sure they had certainty and the employees wanting to make sure that they have certainty. That will, as forecast, be eligible for about 110,000 people who will be able to get residency. The numbers around working holiday scheme or visa holders in New Zealand at the moment are about 4,000, so it's obviously a much smaller tranche. Those people within that tranche, who have the skills and the ability to stay on an essential skills work visa, can get a visa to ensure they can stay in the country, continue to work, and when the applications for the resident visa end in July of this year and the normal criteria for a skilled migrant category resume, those people will continue to be able to apply for residency.




Question No. 10—Workplace Relations and Safety
10. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Is he concerned that UNICEF ranked Aotearoa the third worst in the OCED for paid parental leave entitlements, and that working families face the most expensive childcare costs as a percentage of the average wage? 
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I acknowledge the report released by UNICEF and its conclusions on paid parental leave entitlements. I also note the report found that New Zealand achieves well in regards to the quality of childcare, in terms of child to teacher ratios, and in the qualifications of caregivers. I am proud that it's been Labour-led Governments that have led the way on the provision of paid parental leave, including its introduction in 2002 and its increase to 26 weeks in the previous term of Government. I do note that the data tables on page 26 of the UNICEF report are based on 2018 data. Therefore, the league table results do not reflect the increase to 26 weeks of paid parental leave, which only fully took effect from 2020. Our Government does continue to support young families through the provision of paid parental leave but also, recently, our doubling of sick leave entitlements, our Families Package, improvements we're making to the Holidays Act which will increase flexibility, and the upcoming winter energy payment. We always acknowledge that there is more to do. That's why we're committed to turning around the longstanding inequalities that some Kiwi families face. 
Jan Logie: Does the Minister think it's equitable that the proposed Income Insurance Scheme will provide payments of up to $2,511 a week for 28 weeks, while new families getting paid parental leave will continue to have payments capped at $621 per week for only 26 weeks? 
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: One of the features of New Zealand's paid parental leave scheme as compared to some of the jurisdictions that we're compared to in the UNICEF report, of course, is that our paid parental leave is purely taxpayer-funded. Many of the comparable schemes around the world are funded through a mix of employer and employee contributions. As such, while we are always keen to increase and improve paid parental leave provisions, we do have to consider the range of other priorities that there are to support families. We've provided a lot of that support this term and, as I said in my previous answer, we'll continue to look at what we can do, but we have to balance it against other priorities. 
Jan Logie: Does he agree we should be encouraging equity of caring responsibilities when it comes to pēpē, and if so, will he commit to additional leave entitlements for partners of people who have given birth? 
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As the member will be aware, partners are entitled to unpaid paid parental leave over that period. There is a difference, of course, between that and the entitlement to paid parental leave that the mother is entitled to. I have recently asked officials for advice on improvements that can potentially be made to the paid parental leave, and that is one of the issues that I'm willing to consider. As I said in my previous answer, we'll need to consider any investments in that area as compared to other priorities that we have to support working families. 
Jan Logie: Does he believe families are adequately supported when paid parental leave entitlements end at 26 weeks and the cost of unsubsidised childcare is 36 percent of the average wage, and 20 hours' free early childhood education (ECE) doesn't start until age three? 
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I'm enormously proud of the investments that our Government has made into high-quality and accessible early childhood education, and one of the things that the UNICEF report notes is that New Zealand has real strengths in this area. We are committed to continuing to improve the range of supports that we provide to our young families. Whether it's through paid parental leave, whether it's through the Best Start payments that were introduced by this Government, or whether it's through high-quality, accessible ECE, which we have put a lot more resource into, we'll continue with that work, and we'll continue to make sure that we make good decisions in the round to provide that support to young families. 
Jan Logie: What is the Government's response to the call from UNICEF to extend and align the end of paid parental leave with the availability of childcare, and to introduce national targets to increase the affordability of childcare? 
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As I've said in my primary answer, the Government does acknowledge and will consider those recommendations that are made. Obviously, my area of responsibility is in respect of paid parental leave. We believe that we have made a real difference with the extension to 26 weeks, and we'll continue to look at improvements that we can make to that scheme. 




Question No. 11—Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence
11. KAREN CHHOUR (ACT) to the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence: Does she stand by her statement, "The Government is committed to reducing, and ultimately eliminating family violence and sexual violence"; if so, why as at 29 March had she received no briefings on family or sexual violence within emergency and transitional housing?
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence) (remote): I really thank the member for her interest in our work to reduce and eliminate family violence and sexual violence, and my office will shortly invite her to a briefing to discuss it. In answer to the first part of the question, I do stand by my statement and am committed to reducing and, ultimately, eliminating family violence and sexual violence. Every instance of violence is one that I take seriously. In answer to the second part of the question, as Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence and Sexual Violence I am responsible for leading the whole-of-Government approach to substantially prevent, reduce, and address these forms of violence. I discuss issues like the member raised with my ministerial colleagues. What I already know is that we have issues in Aotearoa with these forms of violence throughout all of our communities. My focus is on implementing Te Aorerekura, a strategy to eliminate family violence and sexual violence, as a whole-of-Government response because everyone should be safe in their homes no matter where they are staying or living.
Karen Chhour: Supplementary?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm going to give the member an extra question. The part on the briefing was not to my satisfaction clearly addressed so the member can have one extra question.
Karen Chhour: Is the Minister aware of any statistics being recorded and compiled on instances of sexual and family violence in emergency and transitional housing?
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: It's an important question and any questions related to housing specifically would need to be raised with the responsible Ministers to discuss in their relevant portfolio capacities. As the Minister for the prevention of family violence and sexual violence, we know that inadequate housing and violence are interrelated issues and we cannot solve one without solving the other. Violence against women is a leading cause of housing insecurity and women are at a substantially increased risk of crime victimisation, including physical and sexual violence.
Karen Chhour: Will she commit to asking the police Minister to ensure statistics of instances of sexual and family violence within emergency and transitional housing are routinely recorded and compiled?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: In so far as the Minister has responsibility, the Hon Marama Davidson.
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: We know we do not yet have all the information we need about this longstanding issue. I receive advice and briefings relevant to my role leading the whole-of-Government response. Reporting of instances of family violence and sexual violence is primarily held by police and is provided in regular updates to me as part of the broader picture of violence across all of Aotearoa. We are working to evolve our understanding of these issues and bring together a collaborative learning system. This will enable us to have better, more robust data. We know right now that for many decades we have not had good data to be able to know the fullest and true extent of the family violence and sexual violence that is happening across homes in Aotearoa New Zealand.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister has addressed that question.
Karen Chhour: What action did the Minister take after it was reported that a young woman was referred by Work and Income to accommodation where she, "as the only woman there, felt intimidated by a group of men drinking alcohol outside her bedroom", and after telling her case manager she felt unsafe was advised to simply spend the day in a local library, just two days before she was raped in her bedroom?
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Firstly, it is an important question and should also be directed to the Ministers with the exact delegation responsibility, particularly for Ministry of Social Development processing issues. Notwithstanding that, as the Minister for the broader prevention responsibility of family violence and sexual violence in Aotearoa, I am aware and know that any instance of violence anywhere that it is happening is not acceptable and is not good enough for any of us in this House to accept. What I am aware of is that I am told by those responsible Ministers' officers, however, that there are clear communications and standards that have been put in place for all housing and social service providers to ensure that people know when and how to report any instances of violence. What I also know as the Minister for the prevention of family violence and sexual violence is we have work to do to improve the trust and increase the trust that people have across all of our services, including Government and NGO sector, so that people have better faith to be able to put their hand up for help and so that they receive—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has definitely addressed the question.
Karen Chhour: How can she ensure that our vulnerable people in emergency and transitional housing are being kept adequately provided for when there is no recording or collation of relevant data; and what is she doing about it?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Again, in so far as the Minister has responsibility—I've got some doubts about that but the Hon Marama Davidson.
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Well, again, that is an important question and should be directly relayed to the correct ministerial portfolios who are overseeing those areas of Government service. That withstanding, as the Minister for the prevention of family violence and sexual violence, I know that we need to improve all of our data and information systems, our robust reporting systems, and that is an absolute priority under Te Aorerekura, the elimination strategy.
David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope I can assist. The question was not about the Minister's responsibility for the provision of data; it was: what action is she taking in her portfolio as Minister, given that data is not available? Now, she didn't address that question at all.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe she did.




Question No. 12—Justice
12. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government supporting courts to operate safely during COVID-19?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. This afternoon, the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill will be read for a third time. The bill clarifies the ability of the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice to set and enforce safety requirements for entering the courts and some tribunals, it enables the judiciary to set safety requirements for selecting and managing juries, it confirms that legislative protections for the public and media to access criminal hearings are satisfied, proceedings are being held remotely, and entry requirements are in place. These changes are temporary, and will ensure the safe operation of our courts while the COVID-19 outbreak continues. The Government has heard the calls from the judiciary and the others working in the sector, so they can manage the COVID-19 risks in their courts.
Vanushi Walters: How have courts been able to operate safely while maintaining the right to justice, and will the courts safety bill help to maintain that?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Yes, the courts have been incredibly adaptive to the COVID-19 pandemic over the past two years. I thank the judiciary, the Ministry of Justice, and all the other practitioners in our justice system for their innovation, patience, and determination to maintain access to justice. Courts have increased their use of audiovisual links, and put in place several locations, where appropriate, to ensure people's court hearings can go ahead. The Government has also invested $50 million from the COVID-19 recovery Budget initiative to ensure challenges that have arisen because of COVID are able to be tackled. The bill supports the maintenance of access to justice, as the judiciary and the ministry can only set their requirements where reasonably necessary in the interests of justice, and to respond to COVID-related health and safety risks. 
Vanushi Walters: How will the courts safety bill support the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice to continue adapting to COVID-19?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: We want to ensure that the judiciary and the ministry can assess the requirements needed for the courts to implement them on the basis of public health advice. The changes in the bill are not prescriptive—it does not mandate vaccination or any other specific measures. What it does do is give the judiciary the ability to manage their courts safely and according to their judgment as the pandemic continues. The bill gives certainty to the Ministry of Justice and the judiciary that the decisions that they make in keeping their courthouses and rooms safe from COVID have a solid legal backing.





URGENT DEBATES DECLINED
Supreme Court—Extradition Judgment
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Brooke van Velden seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 an extradition decision by the Minister of Justice following a judgment of the Supreme Court. Under our system of Government, the decision of a court is not a matter for which any Minister of the Crown has responsibility, Speakers' ruling 202/3. The Minister of Justice's decision on this matter, which—Order! I'm on my feet, for those people talking. The Minister of Justice's decision on this matter, which has been reinstated by the court was made in 2016. The Minister has not made any further decisions on the matter. The urgent debate procedure is a means of debating matters that have occurred recently; it is not a means of debating matters that occurred many years ago or that might occur in the future, Speakers' ruling 205/3. Therefore, the application is declined.





BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Point of order, Mr Speaker. My letter about the urgent debate application was specifically not about the court making its ruling but about the fact that the court has now remitted that back to the Minister of Justice and asked the Minister of Justice to reconsider that issue.
Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't really need the help, but Chris Bishop.
CHRIS BISHOP (National): Isn't the point, sir, that there has to be a ministerial decision and there is no ministerial decision, so I don't see what the issue is.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, that's exactly correct and that was the ruling. So my ruling has been made on the matter. If the Minister were to make a decision, that might be considered debateable and it might have been considered debateable at the time the decision was made, but it was made in 2016.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would hope we're not going to debate this, Mr Seymour, so be careful. Point of order, David Seymour.
DAVID SEYMOUR: In the hope of being helpful, it's a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that's—no, no, no. That is definitely unhelpful.





APPOINTMENTS
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the Hon Chris Hipkins, and I encourage members leaving to do so quickly and quietly.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That pursuant to section 6(1) of the Environment Act 1986, the House recommend to the Governor-General that Rt Hon Simon David Upton be reappointed as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment for a term of 5 years, with effect from 9 October 2022.
Motion agreed to.





OFFICES OF PARLIAMENT
Address to Governor-General
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General commending to Her Excellency the alterations to the appropriations for the 2021/22 financial year in respect of Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and the estimates of expenses and capital injection for the 2022/23 financial year in respect of Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.
This is an annual event for the House of Representatives, and it is probably one of the earliest parts of the Budget process for next year in the sense that the Offices of Parliament are the first to get their budgets, effectively, if you like, confirmed by the House. It concerns the appropriations for our three Officers of Parliament, the Controller and Auditor-General, the Ombudsmen, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. It sets out any alterations to their appropriations for the current year. For every other Government department or entity, these are done through the Supplementary Estimates process, but the Offices of Parliament are handled differently, through this process. 
It also sets out the main appropriations for the three Offices of Parliament. They will ultimately be included in the Appropriation Bill that the Minister of Finance will introduce on Budget day. The process of having Parliament, effectively, confirm what they're getting before it's included in the Appropriation Bill maintains the independence of the Offices of Parliament, because it's not the Government that's setting the budget or agreeing to the alterations to those budgets for these entities; the Parliament as a whole does that, and it does that before the Budget is issued. So that's what this motion is all about. It helps to maintain the independence of the Offices of Parliament from the executive. 
So, briefly, just to canvass what the proposals involve. They have been examined by the Officers of Parliament Committee, which is chaired by the Speaker, and there has been cross-party agreement to the proposals put forward. The committee's report does explain in detail the proposals that are being put forward, but I'll just select a few of the key issues. The report of the Officers of Parliament Committee highlights the pressure that the Auditor-General has been under as a result of COVID-19. It's meant some of the audits have become increasingly complex and that audit revenue has been affected because there have been fewer staff available to do that work. COVID-19 has also increased the workload of the Ombudsmen. A large number of cases under investigation by the Ombudsmen relate to COVID-19 work. I know that—I'm one of the respondents to many of those cases. I also understand that the work of the Ombudsmen around the Protected Disclosures Act has also increased. The oversight of Oranga Tamariki will result in increased demands, and staff retention and office space have also been concerns, as they have been for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.
Finally, the three Offices of Parliament continue to provide excellent value for money, and they make a really important contribution to New Zealand's democratic systems of Government.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to, and Address agreed to.





COVID-19 ORDERS
Approval
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I move, That this House approve the following orders made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020: COVID-19 Public Health Response (Self-isolation Requirements and Permitted Work) Amendment Order 2022 (SL 2022/53), COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework) Amendment Order (No 4) 2022 (SL 2022/62), COVID-19 Public Health Response (Self-isolation Requirements and Permitted Work) Amendment Order (No 2) 2022 (SL 2022/63), and COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Amendment Order (No 2) 2022 (SL 2022/75).
Once more, I am asking the House to approve orders that have been made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. There's fewer of them this time—and, actually, these ones are more up to date than some of the others that we've been confirming previously. We're getting to the point now where the orders that we are confirming by motion and in the House are the ones that have been progressively removing restrictions relating to COVID-19, and so many of these ones still remain in force.
So if I go through the four very briefly: the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework) Amendment Order (No 4) made the changes to the face covering requirements that apply at the red setting, and that included removing the requirements around face masks for outdoor gatherings—allowing people to gather outdoors without having to wear a mask—and the vaccination requirements for students enrolled at registered schools when participating in extracurricular activities. Those changes were designed to ensure that vaccine mandates and vaccine passes weren't preventing children from fully participating in school life.
The COVID-19 Public Health Response (Self-isolation Requirements and Permitted Work) Amendment Order (No 2) 2022 reduced the isolation period for COVID-19 cases from 10 days to seven days. It also extended the period in which someone is not required to isolate again after they've had COVID-19 up to three months, so it extended it from one month to three months. So if you've had COVID-19 in the last three months and a member of your household gets it, you don't have to self-isolate again.
The COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Amendment Order (No 2) 2022 removed the requirements for unvaccinated travellers to enter managed isolation and quarantine facilities for travellers from specific countries to be considered at low risk of transmitting COVID-19 on arrival in New Zealand. I should clarify that: that last one removes the requirements for New Zealand citizens.
The Regulations Review Committee examined all three of the orders that I've just mentioned and didn't raise any concerns about them. They did express concerns about the fourth, and that is the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Self-isolation Requirements and Permitted Work) Amendment Order 2022. That's the order that authorised the Director-General of Health to exempt COVID-19 cases from self-isolation requirements whilst undertaking specific work or travelling to undertake specific work, and it authorised the imposition of any conditions on that exemption. This was basically the ability for people in a limited number of circumstances who may have COVID-19 to go back to work where the risk of them not being at work was greater than the risk posed by them going to work when they had COVID-19. It's a very limited provision, and actually I don't think it has been used—certainly it hasn't been used extensively—if, in fact, it has been used at all.
But the main concern of the committee was that that one may have actually gone too far; it may have contradicted the intention of the Act, which was to limit the spread of COVID-19. I thank the committee for being very conscientious, but I would note that the reason for the exemption was slightly different. So I am satisfied that there isn't an inconsistency with the principal order, and I did write to the committee explaining the reasons why I thought that. The amendment did sit alongside the permitted work scheme. It was drafted with enough breadth that the obligations and duties of the permitted work scheme wouldn't automatically apply to workers and their employers. I noted that the director-general can impose conditions for managing risk when exercising the exemption power. So, once again, I do want to thank, however, the Regulations Review Committee for the very conscientious and thorough way they have gone through scrutinising and considering these.
The COVID 19 Public Health Response Act has underpinned our response to COVID-19. It has allowed the Government to respond quickly as COVID-19 has continued to evolve, and it's allowed New Zealand to emerge with a strong economy and record low levels of unemployment, and also, it should be pointed out, one of the lowest mortality rates in the world, downed to COVID-19. Having said that, our use of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act is narrowing, and I do think that we are now in that phase where we'll be looking very closely at orders that have been made under the Act to ensure that where there is a need for any of the provisions in them to be preserved on an ongoing basis, they are transferred to appropriate legislative vehicles so that the House is in a position soon to either allow the Act to lapse or, in fact, to repeal the Act.
So we're working through that process at the moment. We're not quite at the point where we can do that with complete confidence, because, of course, we don't know what's around the corner. We don't know whether future variants are going to have to throw up a new set of challenges that we may need to respond to. But we certainly know that many of the tools that we have been using previously are now sitting in abeyance and are not ones that we are likely to be using again any time soon.
So our use of the Act is winding back quite significantly. Many of the dilemmas and challenges posed by COVID-19 are ones that we can address through more regular legislative vehicles, and that is something that, as a Minister, I am committed to wherever possible we can do that—because I think the extraordinary powers in the Act, whilst justified at the time they were passed, the further away we get from the emergency crisis that we faced at the time, then the less justified that is and the more we need to look to use more regular parliamentary processes, including all of the scrutiny that goes with those. And certainly I am committed to getting back to that point as soon as we're able to do that.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.





CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and can I just start my contribution by beginning where the Minister finished, which is in relation to the ongoing operation of the Act. May I say that Mr Hipkins may well go down as the first Minister in the lifetime of this Labour Government, or, indeed, Labour Governments in the last few times, to abolish portfolios and reduce the size of Government. That, I would say, is a good thing, because what we just heard from the Minister is that he is going to signal that we may well indeed replace, or at least repeal and replace, the public health COVID-19 Act, and we would welcome that on this side of the House. 
We look forward to engaging with the Government as that process continues. I think I'm right in saying that the next motion we have to pass to continue the Act comes, I think, in early June, so it's not actually that far away. So we may need a—
Hon Chris Hipkins: Probably one more, and then I think we'll be done. 
CHRIS BISHOP: Probably one more, he says—yep, that's exactly what I was thinking. We may need a short extension, but I just would encourage the Minister—and I hope the Government are thinking about this—that on a few occasions we've had to very quickly, rapidly pass extensions and amendments and things like that, and I think that if people were honest with themselves, they would accept that the process has been not optimal. I think the Minister is actually on the record as saying that, and I'd agree with him. 
So it would be good for the Parliament to have a bit of time to get its head around the various amendments that may be required. We, in the Opposition, are very happy to play a constructive role in that. A good amount of time at the Health Committee, I'm sure, with Dr Liz Craig and the Labour team there, will provide opportunities for National members to make a contribution. It's not always the case, but I'm sure she will do that. We would welcome the chance to do that, because I think it is true that we won't need the tools we have now, and we, on this side of the House, welcome some degree of normality returning to the place. 
Maybe it will be the case that when we do indeed repeal and replace the Act, the COVID-19 portfolio will no longer exist, and Minister Hipkins can go back to being just the Minister of Education and the Public Service, State services, Ministerial Services, and the Leader of the House, and all of the other portfolios. 
Hon Chris Hipkins: Don't dangle that in front of me—that's just mean. 
CHRIS BISHOP: "Don't dangle that"—well, indeed, it's not your call. It's not the Minister's call who is the Minister of various things, as, indeed, it's not my call what portfolios I have. But anyway, we move on. 
I do want to make a couple of points in relation to the orders, and I start, of course, by saying thank you to the Regulations Review Committee. When I was in sort of purgatory, I was on the Regulations Review Committee for three or so months, and it was a—
Dr Duncan Webb: Oh, don't disparage that. 
CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, that's a little bit mean. But when I had my time out of my current role, I was on the Regulations Review Committee. It's a great committee. They do a great job, and they're very well chaired by Chris Penk. It's got some excellent members like Rachel Brooking on the committee, and Vanushi Walters as well. It helps to have lawyers on the committee, I've found. But they do do a good job, and they've done a good job assessing all of these orders. 
I want to make a couple of points about a few of the orders. The first is in relation to—I've got to get the name right here—the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework) Amendment Order (No 4) 2022 (SL 2022/62), which is the one to do with kids' vaccination requirements in schools. There's been a bit of public commentary around this. I do want to say that I think we went too far as a Parliament, and the Government went too far, in extending some of the vaccination requirements to children in and around schools, and the order that we are approving, essentially, is an acceptance of that point. 
I, like many MPs in this House would have, have had correspondence with members of the public, raising what I would say were unfair applications of vaccine requirements in schools—13-year-olds finding it difficult to participate in after-school ballet classes, for example, or rugby practice. It was not so much cricket practice, but rugby was the one that particularly came to mind. You do just have to weigh up the costs and benefits and say, "Is there really a huge risk of young people participating in sport"—
David Seymour: Costs and benefits—what? 
CHRIS BISHOP: —"and do they really have to have vaccine requirements?", and I see David Seymour is saying, "Costs and benefits—what's that?', and I'm sure he's going to make a very similar point to me. I think this order is an acceptance of the fact that we probably went too far. 
The other point I would make is that the order and the various rules and regulations have had an impact on children outside of the classroom, because it wasn't just about kids participating in sport at school but also about general sporting activities in clubs, for example. Lots of kids don't just participate in sport and in the extracurricular activities at school and in and around the school grounds, but they also participate outside school as well in clubs and societies. It is definitely true that the vaccine requirement rules have had a negative impact on young people's participation in civil society, and I think that that was wrong. So we welcome this order. 
There are a few people out there who have said to me things online like "You know, the vaccine requirements—they've got nothing to do with the traffic light framework. They've got nothing to do with the protection framework.", and this order actually proves that argument completely wrong, because of course it is true to say that the vaccine requirements that have been imposed on some young people are to do with the traffic light framework. They're an integral part of the traffic light framework and, of course, we are now moving away from that, and we welcome that. 
The second point I want to make is in relation to the various public health response air border orders, which is in the interim report of the Regulations Review Committee. The Minister said something very interesting in his contribution. He said that this allows unvaccinated travellers to enter New Zealand without entering managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ), and he corrected himself and said that it's just about New Zealand citizens. Of course, that is the critical point, because just a couple of weeks or so ago, randomly, on a Friday night—and we're yet to get to the bottom of exactly why it was announced unobtrusively on the Unite against COVID-19 website without a ministerial press release. But a couple of weeks ago, the Government quietly changed the rules and said that unvaccinated New Zealand citizens were allowed to enter New Zealand. Now, we welcome that, but it only applies to New Zealand citizens. It doesn't apply to New Zealand permanent residents, of which there are a considerable number—thousands—in New Zealand. 
A huge number of people are New Zealand residents and they are prohibited from entering New Zealand unless they are vaccinated, and the Government's position, as outlined by the Minister on Tuesday in the annual review debate, was that there is legal advice that the Government can't discriminate against New Zealand citizens who are unvaccinated. The question is, therefore, is it acceptable to discriminate against New Zealand permanent residents who are unvaccinated—because New Zealand permanent residents can vote. Not all countries allow permanent residents to vote, but New Zealand allows permanent residents to vote, and there are extraordinary privileges given to New Zealand permanent residents. 
The Government position is that they cannot allow anyone other than New Zealand citizens to enter New Zealand if they are unvaccinated. If you are a New Zealand permanent resident sitting offshore right now, you have no right to enter New Zealand, and I just put it to the House that I think that is wrong. I do not think that is correct, and I tell you what, it is producing very invidious circumstances. 
I have been contacted by people offshore who are unable to enter New Zealand. They have got to the airport, they have been told differing pieces of information by the folk at MIQ, the immigration department, and the people who run the airlines—who thought they could—and they have actually got to the airport and got so far as to get to the boarding gate and have been told that they should turn around and go away, because they won't be allowed to enter New Zealand if they get on the plane, and the airlines don't want to have liability for the passengers. So that has happened. There are New Zealand permanent residents around the world who are trying to come home to New Zealand, and they can't enter New Zealand because they are not vaccinated. 
The weird situation is that up until a few months ago, they could enter MIQ because MIQ was for all, and that was OK. If you were vaccinated you could go into MIQ, if you were unvaccinated you could go into MIQ, and everyone was sort of treated the same. But there was a pathway to come home to New Zealand. Nowadays, MIQ's been done away with—this order does away with it; the one we're talking about—but if you're a New Zealand permanent resident, you have to be vaccinated to enter New Zealand, and I think that that is wrong. 
I think the way we are treating New Zealand permanent residents—these are not tourist visas. These are not international students. These are not even people on work visas of particular types—essential skills visas. These are New Zealand permanent residents. They can vote in New Zealand, they've paid tax in New Zealand, and the New Zealand Government's position towards them is "You have to be a citizen." Apparently, that's based on legal advice. I, for one, would want to see that legal advice. I asked the Government to waive privilege in relation to that legal advice. But I find that bizarre, and I think it's wrong. 
New Zealand permanent residents who are unvaccinated should be allowed to enter New Zealand in the same way that New Zealand citizens can. The current situation is disgraceful. Thank you. 





TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (remote): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on behalf of the Greens, albeit remotely. Hands are in the air. People—on Zoom, anyway—are acknowledging the work of the Regulations Review Committee, for poring over the details of these orders, and that's good. It's important that we put a bit of a lens over this because things are moving very, very quickly. 
I just wanted to reflect on the work that our health workers have been doing. They've been putting in the hard yards for the last couple of years, and just noting that Dr Ashley Bloomfield himself is stepping away. He's done some, you know, pretty amazing work with a lot of his team as well. When I talked to our workers, you can see the strain and you can see the stress. So I do appreciate the need to move fast as well, but I'm also concerned that it gets a bit messy and it gets a bit muddled, but that's just how it is when you're in the middle of a pandemic. 
We do hear a lot of people say, "Hey, look, let's get back to normal." But, for me, I feel like normal left the building a couple of years ago, and we're in a situation where folks are just trying to do the best that they can. I say this as a parent. I have major concerns with how this will impact our tamariki and our children and our schools as well. We often have schools kind of opening and closing—you know, what does that mean? Teachers are working really, really hard, and now there's this kind of expectation that they should be health workers as well. That's tough and that's messy and people are getting tired and all of that kind of thing, but I don't think it's a good reason to dump and run. I think it's more of a reason to actually dig down and get into the nitty gritty. 
Strangely enough, I tend to agree with some of what was said by the previous speaker about things being tricky and difficult, but I guess my response would be to instead of wiping your hands or going, "Hey, you know what? That's just too tough.", we should actually really think about how this will impact on those who are most vulnerable, and actually take a bit more time to actually do that. How will this impact immunocompromised whānau? How will this impact our disabled whānau? How will this impact on Māori and Pasifika communities, where the vaccination rates could be higher, and, particularly, thinking about it, with our tamariki as well? We need to have those new tools in place to make sure we do all the things that we can do to keep our communities safe as well. 
And just reflecting on the schools as well, making sure that we sort out the ventilation and filtration of our schools and workplaces. That's got to be on the agenda. We've got to make sure that we sort that out. We're lifting this, that, and the other; making sure that that's done is really, really important. Make sure that we get free N95 masks in schools as well. I think that's important as well, and, actually, putting a bit of effort into the vaccine roll-out as well. I know folks are working hard and doing that, but there is still work to be done as well. 
I'm just reflecting on some of these COVID orders as well. I agree with, as I was saying earlier, the impacts on children and stuff like that. It is tricky. But, as a parent myself, I'd rather do the tricky, you know, mental gymnastics about what this all means and keep my kids safe rather than just kind of stepping back and walking away from it. I'd rather look at it: "OK. What's the best thing? What's the best situation for our kids? What's the best thing for our tamariki, mokopuna? How do we support those that are supporting our kids?" How do we make sure that when our teachers are actually having to decipher all of these different rules and these orders and the speed at which they change they have that support around them to make sure that they can make the best decisions possible on the ground at the time, and all the different permutations of our school communities, and what that could mean for them as well? 
Then also getting back to making sure that we take care of our workers, take care of our healthcare workers, I was just thinking about this whakataukī, which goes like: ko to amorangi ki mua ko te hāpai ō ki muri [If things are done well at the back then things out the front are sorted.]—so making sure that we support our health workers, like when they come knocking on the door of Parliament, to make sure that they get better pay and conditions for all the stuff that they've been doing for all of us, that this Government actually pays attention and actually puts them to the front of the line. Because what I feel is often we hear a lot of noise but we don't hear the voices that we really need to listen to: immunocompromised whānau, our disabled whānau. Those people are at the front lines helping and supporting our families, particularly our front-line health workers as well. 
But, once again, thanks to the Regulations Review Committee for digging through the detail of this. That's my contribution for today on behalf of the Greens. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I want to wish you a very happy Easter, and in fact everyone in the House and up and down New Zealand. For those people of faith, I hope it's a time of special reflection for you, and for everybody who's enjoying a well-deserved long weekend off, it's a time for family, a time to stay safe on the roads and make sure that you find where the bunny left all that chocolate, because we can't afford to have any going to waste at this point in time.
Hon Kris Faafoi: Don't worry; I'll find it.
DAVID SEYMOUR: Kris Faafoi's laughing; he knows what I mean. He's not going to miss out on any chocolate this Easter. Kris Faafoi is going to hoover up the lot and good for him. He's been working hard.
On the issue of these COVID-19 examination orders, I think that we had a very interesting speech from the Minister, and there were a couple of interesting points in it. One was that he started off by saying, "I don't think we'll be doing this much longer." He basically said he thinks COVID's over—it's become less complex and the parts that are required from the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act could just go into other legislation and be looked after under other portfolios. In other words, he's the first Labour Minister to actually shrink the size of the Government by nuking his own portfolio, and that's an awfully welcome thing, but the ACT Party, often being ahead of the curve on this sort of issue, said back in November that it was time for this legislation to go. We started voting against it then. 
I hear somebody from the South Island—I don't want to get stuck on the specifics; Nicola Grigg, I think—saying, "Ha, ha!" Well, I know she's new here but I just remind Nicola Grigg that the National Party said they were going to vote against the legislation and then forgot to. It was so confusing the Speaker asked them if they got it right or not because from the speeches it sounded like they were going to vote against it then they didn't, leaving only ACT voting against this legislation since November. It's about policy and process, and they both matter.
The facts are that we have been needing to move on from COVID for a long time. In fact, the ACT Party's fourth comprehensive policy paper on the COVID issue—set out at moveon.kiwi for those who may be looking for some Easter reading—sets out why we need to move on from COVID restrictions and why so many of these rules no longer make sense but constrain New Zealanders in their everyday lives. An example of that was people trying to go in and out of the country, and the Minister tellingly misspoke. He said, "Oh, we're going to let Kiwis come back if they're non-vaccinated." And then he said, "But I want to be clear it's only citizens." 
So here's the thing. We've got a Government that started out saying it's all about public health and following the science. They said, "Everything we do is driven by the evidence." Well, can the Minister please tell us: where is the evidence that getting a New Zealand passport makes you immune to COVID? And if you don't have a New Zealand passport, if you're one of those many New Zealand families who are permanent residents, who may be citizens who have permanent residents in their family, who have loved ones stuck overseas that they can't unite with, how is it justified that because someone doesn't have a passport but lives in this country, and pays tax in this country—does everything that a normal person does in this country as a permanent resident—has to go through seven days of managed isolation and quarantine but a person with a passport doesn't? There's just no rhyme nor reason, no logic, no cost-benefit analysis, no justice in this COVID response when you make distinctions like that, and that's one of the problems with the rules that are currently being debated.
The ACT Party says that all people should be able to come to New Zealand whether or not they are permanent residents or citizens or tourists, whether or not they come from a country that is a visa-waiver country or not, because a virus doesn't care if you come from a county that has a visa waiver with the New Zealand Government. Biology just doesn't work that way. So why don't we say New Zealand is moving on and we're open for business with sensible public health measures?
Here's another thing that has been put up under this COVID-19 Public Health Response Act, which is not being abolished today but should be, and that is that a person who comes from Australia has to isolate for seven days if they have a positive test. So let me paint a picture—here's how it works. You're coming from Sydney with your partner and two kids. You land at Auckland International Airport and they give you a couple of rapid antigen tests each and say, "Do one of the first day and one on day five or six, and if you're positive, phone us. And then we'll make you isolate in the same place for seven days." So what you're doing is you've planned, you're going go down to Rotorua, have a look at the hot pools, take in some kapa haka, and then you're off down country. You fly through Wellington down to Central Otago, rent a car and drive around. You've got your tickets for the Earnslaw, and then—
Dr Duncan Webb: You've missed Christchurch.
DAVID SEYMOUR: Duncan Webb says, "Why wouldn't you go to Christchurch?" Well, if you knew Parliament was sitting, that would be the time to go, because you'd know that Duncan Webb was here. That's when I'd go to Christchurch—the best time to visit. If there are any Australians watching who want to go to Christchurch, a beautiful city, Tuesday to Thursday is the best time to visit.
So you're on your way to Central Otago and you're hoping to have a bit of couple's time at the Onsen, you've bought your tickets for the Earnslaw and to take the kids and show them the big steam engine on Wakatipu, and you take your test and it says you're positive. Are you seriously going to isolate for seven days in one place and miss your flight back to Oz, have to buy extra accommodation, and not be able to use any of the other tickets? You're just not going to do it. 
Here's the question: if it's unworkable to have our current seven-day isolation rules for tourists, why are we doing it to New Zealanders that need to go to work to feed their family? Our isolation rules no longer work, and if the Minister's talking about backing down and no longer having rules that don't make sense—which he did, and I commend it and I welcome it—then we need to get rid of our isolation rules that don't work. Seven days of isolation—and even if you keep testing negative every day you've got to stay inside. It's nuts. It doesn't fit with biology. In Singapore what is it? Seventy-two hours and then a negative test and you're free. Well, that makes sense. That's what a sensible Government would do. So those are the kinds of changes that we need to see.
But it's also a time when the Minister appears to be reflecting on how the COVID response has gone. He said we've done a great job. He said things are changing, we're on the wind-down. Well, if he's going to say that, let me join in some reflections. There are things in life you can control and things you can't control. What the Government could control were things like delivering personal protective equipment (PPE) on time. Did it deliver it on time? Did it have contact tracing that met the gold standard of 80 percent of cases traced within 96 hours? Did it have a vaccination roll-out that partnered with GPs and pharmacies and hapū to get the vaccine to the people in a format they trusted on time and under budget? Did they have, for example, testing that was fast and reliable and easily scalable, or did they rely on one provider and one type of testing and ban all others, including saliva tests and rapid antigen tests? We know the answers to all those. Ashley Bloomfield went on TV and said there was no shortage of PPE, and, every night on TV, we saw doctors saying, "Well, I haven't seen any at my hospital."
Then there was contact tracing. It never got close to the gold standard. Even with low case numbers, it never got remotely close to the gold standard. They gave up on contract tracing. The QR codes never worked. Then there was the vaccine roll-out, and, of course, the GPs, the pharmacists, the hapū, and the iwi weren't included in any kind of partnership to roll it out. That's why it was initially, at least, a disaster and only sped up when we had a real outbreak.
Then there's the question of how we went with testing. Well, that was the worst disaster of all. They spent half their time fighting with testing providers instead of actually getting testing done. And as soon as case numbers spiked up, the testing regime completely collapsed because it hadn't occurred to them that batch testing doesn't work when you have higher rates of positivity. 
What did work with our COVID response? Well, being in the middle of the Pacific was helpful. I don't know if Labour's taken credit for that at this point but I wouldn't be surprised. Having a population that was prepared to sacrifice by just going home, putting a teddy bear in the window, and awaiting further instructions at a moment's notice—that sacrifice great as it was, propped up by huge amounts of money printing and borrowing—helped, because whenever the virus got in we could do that. And closing the border and having successful managed isolation and quarantine worked, but nothing that was happening within New Zealand was successful. The only reason the Government can claim a successful response is that for most of the last two years people sacrificed at the border and in lockdowns, and that meant that there was no virus to fight anyway. The Government didn't have any tools to fight COVID-19 at home.
So that is the reflection. If the Minister thinks they've done a good job, let's be honest about what they could control and what they couldn't, and what worked and what didn't. Not much. Not many, if any, initiatives were successful. With that, we oppose these motions, and we commend to everyone a very happy Easter. Ka kite.





SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm just going to take a short call; I don't intend to address all the aspects of the COVID orders that are being passed. But it would be remiss of me, as the MP for Tāmaki, not to add a voice around the unvaccinated permanent residents who are not being allowed back into New Zealand. So it's in that space that I want to speak, and particularly to those amongst my electorate who call themselves the "forgotten of New Zealand"—on this side of the House, you are not. 
We are, ultimately, in a very strange and discriminatory situation here, where citizens of New Zealand are allowed to return, but we find that, actually, permanent residents are not. I'm not going to belabour the point that there are basically no differences between a citizen of New Zealand and a permanent resident. There's a few—they're quite small—but we just need to remind ourselves that we're surrounded in this country already by Kiwis who are citizens and permanent residents. We make no distinction in our daily lives: permanent residents can vote, and most importantly—particularly to a Labour Government—they pay a lot of tax. So it feels to me both legally and morally wrong that we are not allowing them to return. 
Even if you do not agree—or, rather, members opposite don't agree with me on that front—even on a pragmatic point of view, allowing New Zealanders who are permanent residents to return makes sense as we're crying out for extra help, labour, and support. Every day in this House we hear stories, and we debate stories, about how hospitality, tourism, and pretty much every and all industries in New Zealand need more people. While we keep the border locked out to those on other forms of visas, it would make absolute practical sense to allow unvaccinated permanent residents of New Zealand to return.
The final two points, very quickly, I would like to make. There are two points, as I say. The first is, the risk of COVID is everywhere now; it's almost ubiquitous. There is no health logic that I can see of keeping people out—it's not as if they're bringing something into the country that's not here. As I say, COVID is everywhere. Bizarrely, yet possibly—if you wanted to really push the point for the sake of almost exaggeration—you're probably more at risk of getting COVID from someone in New Zealand than from an unvaccinated permanent resident returning. 
And the final point, really—and maybe this is just an encouragement to Kiwis as we go into this Easter weekend—please do not forget those other Kiwis who are still overseas. In fact, let's not forget permanent residents of New Zealand currently who would love to travel for various reasons. I have one situation, again in my electorate, where someone who's a permanent resident is desperate to go overseas to see a dying loved one, but in effect they cannot, because there is no guarantee of return. And I just again want to reiterate: I think that is legally wrong, and I think that is morally wrong. So, as I say, as we go into this Easter weekend—one that is meant to be one of hope—can I ask Kiwis to not forget those permanent residents of New Zealand still stuck overseas. And to the many who have contacted me through social media and in my electorate, from me to you, I say: you are not forgotten. 





A party vote was called for on the question, That this House approve the following orders made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020: COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework) Amendment Order (No 4), COVID-19 Public Health Response (Self-isolation Requirements and Permitted Work) Amendment Order (No 2) 2022, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Amendment Order (No 2) 2022, and the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Self-isolation Requirements and Permitted Work) Amendment Order 2022.
Ayes 108
New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10. 
Noes 12
ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Motion agreed to.
Orders approved.





COVID-19 RESPONSE (COURTS SAFETY) LEGISLATION BILL
Third Reading
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I move, That the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill be now read a third time. 
This bill supports the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice to keep courts and tribunals operating safely and effectively during the pandemic. This is critical to ensuring people can continue accessing justice. The amendments are not tied to the severity of the pandemic at a particular time. There continues to be a need to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission in courts and tribunals, even as we pass through the peak of the current Omicron outbreak.
The changes in the bill are temporary, linked to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act being in force, and this ensures new powers exist for only as long as they are needed. The bill does not mandate any specific safety requirements; instead, it authorises the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice to develop requirements that will minimise the risk of COVID-19 transmission. These safety requirements will apply to the people entering the court or serving as a juror. The judiciary and the ministry will be able to rapidly adjust these requirements to respond to changing health risks and to ensure the requirements remain a reasonable and proportionate response to the pandemic. The requirements will be subject to safeguards. They must be necessary in the interests of justice and to protect health and safety in the courts to take account of the effects of COVID-19. 
People who are compelled to attend court, such as criminal defendants, will be able to enter into the court even if they do not meet the safety requirements, and this is because the requirements cannot override the legislation regulating who is entitled to attend court. Judges will also be able to override the safety requirements on a case by case basis, and this means people who do not meet the requirements will be able to enter court or be eligible to serve as a juror where a judge determines this is in the interests of justice. In addition, the requirements must be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
Existing law already authorises the judiciary and the ministry to manage safety and security at courts and tribunals; however, it is not a perfect fit for the risks that arise in the pandemic. This bill therefore amends the Courts Security Act to clarify and supplement the ability of the judiciary and the ministry to respond to safety risks. It clarifies their ability to set safety requirements relating to COVID-19 and, importantly, it makes express provision for senior members of courts and tribunals to set these requirements. This supports rules to be set consistently across jurisdictions. Court security officers will be able to enforce these safety requirements, and this includes an ability to refuse entry to people who do not comply with them. 
People summonsed for jury service need to be able to come to court confident that measures are in place to protect them from COVID-19. These people are compelled to attend court, and jury trials may pose a higher risk of COVID-19 transmission because these trials involve strangers who have travelled from many locations and who may be required to be in a confined space together for several hours, and, in some cases, for several weeks. Addressing these risks, the bill amends the Juries Act to authorise the Chief High Court Judge and the Chief District Court Judge to set safety requirements that jurors and potential jurors must meet. These requirements will be additional to and applied despite the jury rules and provisions in the Juries Act relating to juror summoning and selection, service, and discharging of jurors. 
Judges and registrars will be able to proactively defer or excuse a person from jury service if they are unable to comply with the safety requirements, and these people will be told in advance that their jury service has been postponed or cancelled. This will ensure that most of the people who attend court for jury service comply with the requirements, and this will reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission amongst potential jurors.
The Juries Act is also being amended to expressly enable a person's jury service to be deferred or excused for a reason related to COVID-19. People will be able to apply to have their jury service deferred or excused if they or a member of their household or family are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, or if their finances have been significantly negatively affected by COVID-19. 
Most of the bill will be repealed when the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act is repealed; however, a few provisions relating to jury service will continue for a further two years. These provisions aim to return people whose jury service was deferred for a COVID-19 - related reason to the position they would have been in but for the pandemic, and these people will be able to be excused from jury service on less stringent grounds than currently typically apply. 
The bill also amends the Criminal Procedure Act to clarify two areas of uncertainty that have been exacerbated by the pandemic. The Criminal Procedure Act contains protections for the public and media access to criminal hearings, and the bill before us clarifies the relationship between these protections for open justice, on the one hand, and the use of remote technology and court entry requirements, on the other. Firstly, the bill clarifies that these protections for open justice are satisfied if a hearing is held remotely, and the public and media has the right to observe via remote technology. I would emphasise that the bill does not change the circumstances in which remote technology can be used or the types of criminal hearings that can be conducted remotely. The use of remote technology will continue to be regulated by existing law. Secondly, the bill clarifies that the protections for open justice do not limit the ability of the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice to set court entry requirements.
In conclusion, the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill will enable the judiciary and the ministry to manage COVID-19 risks in the courts while maintaining access to justice, fair trial rights, and public confidence in the courts. This will help keep the court participants safe and will also avoid the social and financial costs of delayed trials. I commend this bill to the House. 





CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi) (remote): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I respond on behalf of the National Party in relation to the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. We have made tolerably clear throughout the legislative process that whereas our position at the first reading was to support the bill in the belief and expectation that it would be fit for purpose and necessary at the time of its passing, clearly that is no longer the case. So I do want to focus in my contribution on why that is so.
So a bit of history, first of all. It was late last year that Parliament passed the so-called traffic light legislation, more formally the protection framework, etc. At that time, National members in the House, having noticed, even in the short period of time that we were given to scrutinise that bill before it was rushed through with indecent haste—it became clear to us that there was no specific mention of how the regime of traffic lights, vaccination mandates, passes, and so forth would apply, if at all, to courts. So we asked the question: did it, in fact, apply, and, if so, what specific provision would be made for the particular circumstances that are so important in relation to Kiwis' access to justice, the right to be safe when compelled to attend hearings, and so on? 
The response at that time, which was reasonable, as far as it went, was that that legislation didn't apply and that something separate was appropriate for the court system. We accepted the Government at its word that it would be providing something bespoke in that space in due course—one would have thought at the same time would be appropriate, but perhaps as soon as possible thereafter. So imagine our surprise when it was not until the following year, namely 2022 in March of this year, that the Minister finally got around to introducing into the House legislation that would provide some guidance as to what procedures and certainty and clarity might be provided to those working in the court system in the context of an Omicron outbreak of COVID-19. 
The fundamental question, really, for the Minister and the Government in seeking to justify the ongoing passage of this legislation, noting that we're at its third reading today, of course, is whether there have been defects in the system in the meantime caused by the fact that this hasn't been on the statute book and how that can be justified and how the delays in the Minister getting around to introducing the legislation can be justified.
Alternatively, if it was not needed for the last three or four months, then why is it needed now? The great irony is, of course, that it was needed previously but is much less needed now. Members opposite, of course, may not wish to take my word for it in terms of what is required in relation to COVID-19 response but they should at least take the word of their own party leader, namely the Prime Minister, who announced on I think it was late March, but in any case before 4 April, that on that date various restrictions in relation to vaccine mandates and pass requirements would be lifted. And so that at the time seemed like a milestone. 
Of course, with this bill having been introduced but, obviously, made redundant by that announcement, it seemed clear that, surely, the Government would walk away from what it had provided too little, too late, but at least realise the error of its ways at that time. So the facts changed, and the National Party updated its position accordingly. The same could not be said, ultimately, however, for the Government, who, through the select committee and its members on that, are determined to push through with this legislation none the less, which is now imposing restrictions that were needed to provide the clarity and certainty that the Minister is now talking about in late last year. 
I do want to acknowledge the select committee process, though, because, on a more positive note, I was pleased to be able to join the Justice Committee, a body of which I'm not normally a member but was able to participate in those proceedings. So I thank its chair and its members, the officials, the advisers, and, of course, all those who submitted into the select committee process: a mixture of practitioners, professional bodies for the legal profession, but also ordinary New Zealanders who were interested to know how they would be affected by this. There was some positive commentary, there was some negative commentary, but, overall, it was a very worthwhile process. So I do just want to acknowledge that we have had positive interaction in the democratic process through the select committee, albeit, as I say, rather late. The whole thing has been rather late and the select committee process indeed itself was shortened in a bid to spare the Government's blushes in relation to the late passage of this legislation. 
At the committee of the whole House stage—as recently as last night, so not even 24 hours ago—the Minister made a couple of points that he, I suppose, thought were valid in relation to the National Party's position. One is that he accused us of crystal-ball gazing, which, as I said at the time, I found remarkable, given that, at the time that the original traffic light legislation was passed, it was we who brought to the attention of the House the fact that there was nothing tailored to the courts [Audio issues] Secondly, he made allegations of, essentially, a political stance being taken, which is pretty amusing, to say the least, given that we'd supported at first reading, in good faith, the bill, because we could see that at that time, only a month ago, but [Audio issues] at least somewhat made sense and was worth exploring in the select committee process. For that reason, as I say, we supported the bill and decided, of course, as always, that when a bill has passed its reading and is going into a select committee process, that if changes can be made that are positive, then whether or not we support the overall passage of the bill, it would be worthwhile engaging in that discussion constructively, and so we did. 
Some positive changes were made and we supported those accordingly with amendments at the select committee stage. But we did, none the less, have questions, and we do still have questions that relate to certain key aspects of the bill—that it doesn't seem to us the Minister has been sufficiently on top of it to give us much confidence and, more to the point, the justice community and those involved in it, the confidence of how this thing should be operating going forward. A key example, as highlighted by a submitter at the select committee, is in relation to court security officers. Under the bill, they're expected to provide legal advice, in effect, about why they are excluding persons from the ability to attend court or denying them access or, indeed, removing them, and that seems, to us, a strange way to go about dealing with fundamental rights and freedoms of New Zealanders in a courtroom context. 
We're also not satisfied that the Minister has given much, if any, attention to the practical implications of providing audiovisual link and audio link facilities for courtrooms and tribunals throughout the country. Now, to be fair, that's outside the ambit of this bill. One wouldn't expect that to be included in the legislation per se, but it's part of the overall network and framework of justice that the Minister and his Government are responsible, in conjunction with the courts themselves, for providing and it's clear that little attention has been given to that or, indeed, to making positive changes through this bill that would have a permanent nature and survive the temporary passage and, then, repeal of the legislation. 
In my remaining time, I did just want a note on the subject of comity, that is to say the relationship between different branches of Government—of the judicial and the legislative branches—we are anxious to ensure that our courts do have the ability to control their own affairs, of course, in relation to COVID-19 and other matters, and the Minister and other Labour MPs have made noises along those lines too. Again, that is all sensible, in so far as it goes. But the Minister does need to explain that if this bill is providing the ability of courtrooms to arrange their own affairs now and it is to be repealed, then what remains after that. I think it would be helpful for the Minister, perhaps, in subsequent legislation or by engaging with the judiciary in some other way, to make clear the expectation that the clarifications and the certainty provided by this legislation, supposedly, will survive its passage and repeal.
In my remaining time, Mr Speaker, I do just want—excuse me, Madam Speaker, I think; it is always difficult to gauge remotely not engaging physically with the House. But at last count, we are disappointed that opportunities for change, such as suggested throughout the submission process, aren't being picked up as permanent features. The Minister and the Government have said that they will consider these in due course. The time is now. The time was last year. It's too little. It's too late. We cannot support the passage of this bill through the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to.





GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) (remote): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. My contribution on this bill is brief. The COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill is important; the Government is progressing this legislation, most importantly, to ensure that the courts can continue to operate safely and effectively as COVID-19 spreads in our communities.
Access to justice through the courts is vital to a fair and democratic society. To date, measures to keep COVID-19 out of the courts have largely worked. However, additional safety requirements are needed to manage transmission risks under the COVID-19 Protection Framework, as we've got more people who are active, and while there is COVID-19 actively being transmitted within our communities.
The Government has therefore agreed to make legislative changes that will apply during the COVID-19 pandemic. These changes will strengthen the existing ability of our judiciary and the ministry to set and enforce conditions people must meet when they are entering and remaining in any court—and also in tribunals.
It will enable the judiciary to set additional conditions for selecting and managing juries to reduce close and prolonged mixing of juries. These changes will also mean that jury selection can take place outside of court buildings, where alternative venues need to be used to reduce close physical contact between jurors. These changes are important because they promote access to justice through the courts. We see this as a cornerstone of a fair and democratic society.
I would like to acknowledge the Minister the Hon Kris Faafoi for the quick shepherding of this bill through the House, the officials who have worked incredibly hard to make all of this come together quickly, those submitters who took the time to put their views forward to the committee, and my fellow Justice Committee members for working hard through this.
This is a good bill, it will continue to make sure our courts are operating safely and fairly under a COVID-19 pandemic, and I commend it to the House.





Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. Now, this is an omnibus bill that removes legal barriers to the judiciary—or seeks to remove legal barriers to the judiciary—and the Ministry of Justice in addressing health and safety issues in relation to COVID-19 and the safety risks in courts and in some tribunals. So that's what everybody, of course, has been very much concerned about over these past two years as we have battled with COVID-19 and the restrictions imposed by Government, which they see as in the best interests of New Zealanders in order to reduce the harmful public health effects of COVID-19. 
This legislation is what we believe to be a rather belated attempt to try and deal with the complications of those rules in the legal setting. And I suppose it reflects the broad theme that was seen in relation to COVID-19 in this Government, which is one of scrambling to pass laws urgently to try and fix problems that were very easily foreseeable. So the genesis of this bill starts with the legislation in November for the traffic light regulations, as they might be called, which we're all, sort of, trying to grapple with now, being in orange and wondering what that means for ourselves and our families. Now, this was brought in in haste, under urgency—the traffic light measures back in November—to bring in all these rules and regulations about when to wear a mask, who was to come, and what mandates to have there, and all these issues raised in preparation for the inevitable arrival of COVID-19 in some form in the country. 
Now, the point we made at the time was we started this back in March 2020, and the Government's strategy—in so far as it can be determined—on COVID-19 was to buy time; that is, to put boundaries up around the country and to lock down parts of the economy and to, basically, encircle the country with a very strict border control with enormous economic cost, and to do that so that we could vaccinate the population when vaccines became available and prepare our health system to respond to the inevitable subsequent arrival of COVID in New Zealand, which would be mollified by high levels of vaccination. 
Now, of course, in 2021, what we saw in the first half of the year was a very slow vaccine roll-out and a missed opportunity there that contributed to the requirement to lock the whole of Auckland down for such an extended period in the second half of the year. Nevertheless, in the second half of the year, we did get on, finally, and got cracking on the vaccination, and New Zealanders as a whole have done a remarkable job there. Nevertheless, still, eventually, we have to open up; we have to re-engage with the world. We can't just stay isolated as a hermit kingdom forever. At some point, COVID is going to get into the country, that was obvious to everybody—that was obvious to everybody—and so some sort of mechanism to deal with that burst of activity that was going to occur when COVID came into New Zealand was going to be required. 
Now, the Government finally got round, in November, to coming up with what they term this "traffic light framework" through some legislation through the House. And at the time, we thought, "Well, what are the consequences for the court system and access to justice for people who are compelled to go to the courts, and where does that all fit in?" We're very conscious of the broader context of the justice sector, which is very slow; it's a trite thing to say that "justice delayed is justice denied", but it's true. You know, there are, sort of, three elements around justice that have to be considered: one is getting the judgment right; but also it is how long it takes to get that judgment; and, thirdly, whether it is an affordable thing for the people involved. If you don't pay enough attention to the time it takes and the cost, then you still don't really get justice, particularly in the civil setting and in many other areas, and families' lives are on hold, and we're seeing that right across the country at the moment. 
That access to justice and the efficient movement of the courts is a critically important issue. So having scrambled in November to introduce the traffic light setting, nothing was done on the court side. Then we heard last night in a revelation from the Minister that the officials got on to it in the new year after Christmas—when he says the "new year", my hunch is that it's probably the last week of January that they got on to it and started the policy work on this bill. And as a result, what we have is a bill that makes amendments to the Courts Security Act 1999, which clarifies that the heads of bench—the senior members of courts—set requirements relating to COVID-19 that people must enter and remain in court and some tribunals. It applies safeguards where people are compelled—it sets out a bunch of things that make it, in essence, easier for the court system to be able to clarify how the court system can deal with COVID restrictions in a way that is legal and that works.
Then, secondly, it amends the criminal procedure—well, thirdly, I won't work about the second one, in the interest of time, but, thirdly—arrangements around the Juries Act and allows people to decline jury service if they have been affected by COVID-19 and particularly if their family has even been economically affected by COVID-19. 
The problem is, of course, that being so slow to get around to doing this and waiting for the new year to start the policy process and introducing it into the House, it now has been made redundant, largely because most of the restrictions have been removed; the mandates are drifting off into the sunset. We are now, sort of, working our way down the traffic light—we were red for a very long time and now it's blazing amber, and we're hoping that, like the traffic lights, the amber will be short and we'll be in green before we know it. In fact, we don't do that in New Zealand, but in the United States, they do that. It's usually the other way around here, so that metaphor doesn't work. And so the outcome of it all is that this bill is redundant, largely. 
The point I was trying to make in the committee stage last night was: what is astounding in this whole process is that if the Government wanted to do one thing to deal with the broader issue of the slowness of access to justice and the big backlog that we see in court cases and the years that people are waiting to get resolution to justice issues and cases that put their lives on hold, you would think that any Government worth its salt would have thrown resources and, if necessary, legal changes into ensuring much more effective audiovisual responses and technological responses to keeping those parts of the court system running that can run in that setting. Not everything can, of course—not everything can—but there is a substantial volume of work that can be dealt with audiovisually. And as we've all learnt, everyone, through this pandemic, there is this thing called Zoom, and there are these options where things that were unthinkable two or three years ago that could be done over the phone or online can be done over the phone and online, and things can actually happen; people can get on with life. 
Now, there's been an element of that in the court system, but nowhere near as much as we would have liked. As I pointed out to the Minister, there were 27 courts or tribunals throughout the country—it might have been 29—that don't have any—any—audiovisual facilities. You would think that in the context of a Government that has spent something around $60 billion on the COVID response and a Minister of Finance that's opened the chequebook for all sorts of mad job-creation schemes at a time when there's no workers, such as Jobs for Nature—all that sort of stuff—that he would have found some resources to really advance the audiovisual capabilities. So, on that basis, this is a bill that has missed the boat, and we won't be supporting it.





ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. This is a straightforward bill, and so I will make my contribution straightforward. It supplements the ability of the judiciary and the ministry to respond to safety and security risks in the courts at a time when there is an incredible level of uncertainty in our courts and the need for more flexibility. This makes a real change for people's lives, like my constituent Eileen, who reached out to her local MP to help her navigate how her and her family, who had been infected with COVID-19, were meant to apply to be able to leave their jury service duties. It was important for Eileen and this is important. We're seeing a Government that's committed to a better court system in enabling some of those changes that need to be made now, and one that is committed to access to justice for everyone, whether they are people with vulnerabilities who cannot come to court or people who are legally required to be there and need to be kept safe. That is why I commend this bill to the House.





GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a very straightforward bill. Members of the judiciary do already have discretion to govern for health and safety in their courtrooms. This bill just extends that existing discretion to governing the courtroom to be safe in terms of the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is the case that the pandemic is not over. We do need to continue providing for this type of discretion. It's also the case that those who work in our justice sector are actually essential workers. They don't have a choice about coming to work; whether it's the court takers, the registrars, judges, the defence counsel, members of the police force, or prosecutors. It's also the case that those who are arrested and charged, witnesses, and victims don't have a choice but to interact in a confined space in circumstances where they may need further protection. That goes for jurors, of course, as well.
So this provides for judges to exercise their discretion in terms of spacing, in terms of masks—it's not a vaccine mandate—and it allows for people who need to opt out to apply for that and for a member of the judiciary, or a judiciary officer presiding, to make decisions around that.
As an immunocompromised person who previously worked in the justice sector, I hugely appreciate that this bill will be a relief. I also want to notice that the community most disproportionately targeted by our system of justice—that is, Māori—are particularly at risk of COVID-19, so not passing a bill like this would have been callous. I do commend it to the House.





NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to take a call on behalf of the ACT Party on the third reading of the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. ACT continues to oppose this bill and we did clearly outline in both our first and second reading speeches our reasoning why, which includes our position that we continue to maintain that this bill is simply not needed. But let me go a little further on what the adverse impacts of this bill will do.
The passing of this bill will allow for the heads of benches to make decisions as to who can access the courts and under what conditions they may enter. They will call these decisions "protocols", and this legislation does not tell us what the protocols will contain. The details will be written at the discretion of the Chief High Court Judge and the Chief District Court Judge. These protocols will become secondary legislation, and what is secondary legislation? It is law that is made by someone other than Parliament, and it's made under a power that Parliament has formally delegated in a particular Act. 
What does that mean? Well, quite simply, it means that the Government has transferred the ability for lawmaking to be done outside of this House of Representatives and outside of those members that the voting public put into this House to be lawmakers on their behalf. Submissions received from the New Zealand Law Society and our own Regulations Review Committee had concerns about the secondary legislation and the by-product of that legislation, and I commend the New Zealand Law Society for their considered recommendations to try and help alleviate what those concerns may bring. In fact, they did give, I believe, three different options on how to amend it; however, the officials advised that, in their opinion, it's OK to allow secondary legislation to occur and that they believe it is appropriate. The ACT Party disagrees. 
It goes further, though, because additional requirements can be set by other heads of benches, and this includes decisions which can include restrictions on accessing other venues such as the courts, tribunals, or where there is a constituted dispute resolution body. The bill specifically lists 35 entities and allows others not named on that list to also be included. Therefore, the additional requirements, which include rules for who can partake in proceedings, will be decided by adjudicators, authorities, and chairpersons, not just judges. 
So this bill is not about access to the Family Court, the District Court, or the High Courts alone; it includes access to public services such as those ones listed in the bill. So we understand about the Supreme Court, even the Court of Appeal, High Court, District Court, the Employment Court, the Environment Court, the Māori Appellate Court, the Māori Land Court. But what about the Court Martial Appeal Court or the Court Martial, the Disputes Tribunal, and Principal Disputes Referee, the Tenancy Tribunal, Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority, the Licensing Authority of Second-hand Dealers & Pawnbrokers, the Alcohol Regulatory & Licensing Authority, the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal, even the Human Rights Review Tribunal, Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal, the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal, the Copyright Tribunal, the Coroner, the Customs Appeal Authority, and the Immigration and Protection Tribunal? It just goes on and on, but we even have the Legal Aid Tribunal, the Social Security Appeal. What about the Student Allowance Appeal Authority, the Taxation Review Authority, the Victim Special Claims Tribunal, the Weathertight Homes Tribunal, and the Waitangi Tribunal? 
Another point that I would like to make, and I think it's important for the public to know, is this legislation actually has a clause within the temporary provisions schedule that allows court staff to use reasonable force if you do not comply with whatever these protocols or additional requirements may actually be. And if you don't adhere to the protocols or additional requirements legally placed upon you, then a security guard working for any of these Public Service entities, any of the 35 that I should have named—but I think I only gave you 30—they can manhandle you to remove you. And it's an interesting concept, especially when this week we've heard how patched gang members are getting jobs as security guards around the country, even when our police had objected to it. This House is legislating reasonable force on compliance of behaviour and are expediting their ability to do so. 
What about my learned colleague Mr Goldsmith, pointing out that out of all of the courts in the country, 29 of them do not have access to audiovisual (AV) equipment to run virtual court sittings? A large part of this bill is about ensuring that remote hearings can continue. We are legislating, under urgency, something that is already happening; at least, it is where the facilities are available. I recall Mr Goldsmith stating that Ruatōria doesn't have AV equipment. I've been inside that fully ring-fenced District Court, the one where a judge has a corrugated-iron roller door between his bench and the rest of the court. I guess there's no need for gang-patch security guards when you can bring down the internal garage door instead. But the point being made by Mr Goldsmith at the time is quite valid. If you have someone living in a remote, a rural, or an isolated piece of New Zealand and they make their way, say from Hicks Bay to Ruatōria for a court case or a hearing, they may be turned away if they don't meet the protocols. So if no AV equipment is available for a remote hearing to take place, then this House is allowing a delay to justice, and it appears to me that the cart has been put before the horse.
Should we not make sure that we have our courts able to execute their business with the equipment that they need before legislating their ability to prevent access? This Government is expediting this law in the name of COVID-19. It is giving power to the judiciary to set protocols that, depending on what they set, could be considered unreasonable to those seeking justice and could be viewed by many as State-sanctioned mandates. And all of this is happening at a time when the restrictions are easing and the peak of the Omicron pandemic has passed. 
The Labour Government really should stop treating the people of New Zealand like little children who need to be constantly told what to do. Stop interfering so much in our lives, and let everyone move on. ACT continues to oppose this bill.





VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'll take a very brief call. We are of course very delighted to see the recent shift to orange, but there are still foreseeable risks in terms of COVID. There are also circumstances that the courts currently need to address in terms of COVID, and my colleague Golriz Ghahraman referred to those. This bill allows certainty of the courts' powers; it allows consistency in terms of the powers allocated to courts, as well as other decision makers; and it allows the courts to respond to access to justice needs, particularly to those who have acute vulnerabilities when it comes to COVID. I commend this bill to the House. 





SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to see the enthusiasm of one of my colleagues across the House to stand and speak, I'm sure, for a good five to 10 minutes. 
National continues to oppose this bill, the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. The basic principle is that it's no longer in line or in time with where the COVID response overall is. Other speakers have far more eloquently than I articulated National's position, but, sadly for the other side, that won't stop me for speaking for another four minutes and 26 seconds. Welcome, people, to the delights of Parliament and how it operates. 
Fundamentally, this was a bill that should have been progressed months and months ago. The principle of allowing our judiciary to make its own decisions of how to manage COVID—be that who can access the courts, what their vaccination status could or should be, how juries could be composed, what might happen if someone was found to be COVID positive, how would all of that be managed. It's quite right and proper in our Westminster tradition to make sure that the courts have the power to do it themselves, to make those choices. We as the Parliament have to provide those instruments, these legal recourses, but it's to give the courts that independence and power. Again, members here know, it's called comity. I mean, I'm not a lawyer. There are lawyers here, and much smarter ones, of course, than me. But, fundamentally, the courts do need that independence. So National has no problem with a piece of law which empowers the courts to make those decisions. 
The only problem, of course, is that the COVID situation in New Zealand has dramatically changed. We're coming out of the current dynamics that we've been accustomed to. Yes, I hear the debates and discussions from the other side that COVID is still with us and more things could come—that's quite true. I prefer not to be someone who lives in fear; it's just not the way I operate. Yep, things could get worse, but at the moment they're tracking in a pretty good direction. You don't have to believe me—I'm only espousing words. The Government itself has, effectively, acknowledged this. We're progressing down the traffic light system. On this side of the House, we want the whole traffic lights tossed out completely, but that's a whole separate discussion. 
But the Government itself is acknowledging that the environment's changing, and yet it's pushing ahead with this piece of legislation. It's probably around the question of audiovisual links—or AVL or AV; whatever acronym you choose to use—where, if you will, the nub of this discussion and debate comes up, and, for me, for at least two reasons. We've heard from previous speakers one of the concerns is that there's lots of talk about how we might use AV in our various courts. I won't list them all off—I think it was 35, I heard from a colleague—but there are a number of courts. The problem is that for all the good intentions in this legislation that the courts, the judges, may be able to decide to use this technology under this COVID response courts safety bill, what we also know, of course, is that we don't have AV technology in most of our courts. I think, unfortunately, it's a missed opportunity by this Government. Instead of, if you will, having wasted, ultimately, I think, the Parliament's time on this piece of legislation, if they'd taken the time, particularly through justice and the Minister of Justice, to find the funds—and the Government is profligate with cash. I'm sure they could have found the tens of millions required to actually get the audiovisual technology into those courts so they could be used.
My final point around all of this, and the second reason why I think this is not needed, is it's rushed. We're not in urgency, but I think it's important for people to understand at home. The Government rushed this through select committee. It's been driving it very fast through the Parliament for reasons that don't make sense. A number of submitters have rightly pointed out that more time would have allowed for more consideration. 
Mr Speaker, if you might indulge me for 20 seconds, because this will be the last time I can make a quick acknowledgment of my colleague Louisa Wall. Actually, I'm feeling a bit emotional, which might seem strange to people, because Louisa and I disagree on just about every issue, to put it mildly. But I think—very quickly—I respected her fervour for her positions and she respected mine, which meant that when we came to discuss human rights and the likes of China, we united. I will miss her terribly but wish her well in her valedictory. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Tangi Utikere—five minutes.





TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I just intend to take a very brief call. Colleagues on this side of the House have indicated, I think, the position for the Government, and my colleague, actually, Vanushi Walters touching on the certainty this will provide—not just the certainty moving forward but the flexibility within the confines of a courtroom environment. It's appropriate, I think, that that judicial discretion remains there. It's the role of the judiciary and the heads of bench to determine those matters. Can I finally just acknowledge the Minister—Minister Faafoi—for his leadership in this particular space. I commend the bill to the House.





Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I reiterate the words of my colleague Tangi Utikere and my other colleagues on this side of the House. I bring to this House, further, the information from discussions with my colleagues back at the criminal bar who have said what they want is for the judiciary to have the certainty to continue to innovate without creating uncertainty where they feel obliged to mince their words—they want this bill. I commend it to the House.





JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on this final reading of the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill, which will shortly pass into law as Labour have the majority. National does not support this bill. I note that I put it to the Minister of Justice yesterday in the committee of the whole House that this bill should really be called, among other things, the "Too Little, Too Late Act 2022". I note that the pandemic began, functionally in New Zealand—at least, we had our lockdown—in March of 2020; we are here in April 2022 talking about putting in place a bill called the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation. It begs the question: why did it take Labour two years to do so? It's ironic that we're having the final call of this bill on the day that the country has moved into the orange setting, and only yesterday, Australians were able to return to New Zealand—both positive things. But the question is: why are we here now and why are we talking about a COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill so long ago? 
Things have moved on in a whole raft of ways. For me personally, back in March 2020, I was a courtroom lawyer working in Invercargill, and I had to go into court on occasion during that lockdown period. I also had various appearances from home—everyone was trying to figure out how to make it work, and we were all doing various kinds of audiovisual-type links into the court from home, and people were just trying to make it work. The courts have done this for over two years—the courts have regulated their own proceedings; they have found ways to keep the court system running. All credit to all the participants in that process; it's a very challenging environment for everyone involved, and an important one. It's very important that people have an opportunity to appear in court and to get the certainty of the decisions that the court will provide for them. Regardless of the outcome of those decisions, it's very important they have that opportunity. A lot of work goes in, from all the participants, to make that happen. 
However, we're here, just as, thankfully, the Omicron wave is on a downward trend. The Minister for COVID-19 Response made very positive comments recently about how things are looking good in that respect. And, like I said, we're here on the day that we moved into the orange light setting, and yet we're still dealing with this COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill which is about to come into law. And I listened with interest to my colleague Nicole McKee, when she talked about putting the cart before the horse. And it's made me think about some comments yesterday in the committee for the whole House stage, when we were talking about Ruatōria and the quite humorous scenario, which is real, and I've talked to people who've been to that court, and spent time there—you know, people who sometimes ride their horses to get to the court. And it made me think at the time, when I was talking about that, that this should really be called the "Horse has Bolted Legislation Bill", because the horse really has bolted and we just don't need it. I mean, that's the fundamental point. I'm using a little bit of humour here to make the point that we do not need this law.
In terms of the main provisions, I should probably just spend a little bit of time going through that so that anyone listening has some clarity about what is involved in this bill. So the bill empowers the head of bench of a court to create directions or requirements in respect of COVID-19, which must be complied with in order to enter a courtroom. The person making the directions or imposing requirements must be satisfied that they are reasonably necessary in the interests of justice and that they are to protect the health and safety in the courts. A court security officer may ask a person who wants to enter, or is in court, to show evidence that they comply with COVID-19 requirements set by a head of bench and may deny entry or remove a person who does not comply. 
A person who has not complied with COVID-19 requirements may enter and remain in the area of the court if the presiding judicial officer considers it in the interests of justice to permit or require the person to do so. Additionally, the bill enables a head of bench to make a protocol, setting additional requirements relating to the selection and management of juries that are necessary to protect the health and safety in the courts on account of COVID-19. A judge, on their own initiative, will also be able to impose additional COVID-19 requirements on jurors during a trial. 
And I'll take a moment there just to note that I did ask the Minister yesterday, in the committee of the whole House stage: what would be the potential remedy for a juror who felt that the judge had imposed requirements on them that they thought were a breach of their rights, and what appeal rights they might have? I don't know if the Minister had entirely turned his mind to that aspect of this. And it's an important one, because a judge may regulate the proceedings within the court, but if they are not complied with, the judge does have the potential discretion to hold a person in that court in contempt of court, and they can actually hold them in custody. So it is an important point and one I don't know if the Minister agrees completely adequately, when I questioned him on it yesterday, but that's another matter. 
The bill also enables a court registrar or a judge to defer or excuse a person from jury service if they do not satisfy the registrar or judge that they comply with the COVID-19 juror requirements.
National members participated at select committee in consideration of this bill, having supported it during the first reading debate in the House. Support was based on three key factors. The first was that consistency, that this is needed between the court system and the rest of New Zealand society in relation to COVID-19 restrictions—for example, regarding vaccination status, when the Government had passed legislation establishing what is commonly referred to as the traffic light framework in late 2021, it became clear that such a regime would not apply to the court system. 
The second key principle was on comity, and we wish to respect the ability of the judicial branch to determine its own affairs to enable comity between the separate branches of Government. The context was allowing the judiciary to implement equivalent protections of those that apply elsewhere in New Zealand society, and that is certainly an important matter that we have great respect for in this House, and the independence between the separate branches of Government.
The third was change. We noted the potential for temporary measures introduced for the purpose of responding to COVID-19 to be made permanent features of court systems—for example, remote participation by audiovisual link for sentencing matters and all cases where the accused person consents. And, certainly, that is something that I can say from personal experience is of great value, having appeared in numerous courts throughout the country. For various reasons, the audiovisual system is of great value, particularly in remote areas where a judge is not available and can be two to three hours' drive from court, but is available via audiovisual link, and it is also helpful if someone is in custody and doesn't have to sit in the back of a van for hours to get to and from court. So that is of great value and something I have certainly seen in my time practising in the courts in previous years before coming to the House.
During the time that the committee considered this bill, relatively short as it has been, the Government announced that various key COVID-19 restrictions—for example, vaccination status, determining access to certain places, were to be removed on 4 April 2022. Given that this bill will not be enacted until later, and we have already passed that 4 April 2022 date, and it's almost likely it will be later this month or next month, the first two factors noted above, namely the importance of consistency and comity, no longer apply. 
This only leaves the third factor, namely the desirability of obtaining permanent benefits from what would otherwise be merely temporary COVID-19 - related measures. And, as suggested by the Auckland District Law Society submission, the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010 could be amended permanently by this bill to enable the hearing pleas and sentencing of willing defendants. National would support such a change being made by the bill, but it wasn't advanced by the Labour Government. The majority of the committee members have advised that they didn't support that approach; however, preferring the permanent reforms would be subject to greater consultation and consideration than is possible while enacting this bill.
As I said in my earlier comments, this is a bill that has come well after two years after the pandemic began. And as we are winding things down, somewhat ironically on the day that the country moves into the orange framework, it really is a case of the horse having bolted and the Government just playing catch-up with a piece of legislation that is only intended to be temporary in nature and, in fact, is to be repealed on the date on which the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 is repealed, which may well be later this year. So the question is: why it took Labour so long to put this in place.





HELEN WHITE (Labour): This is a very sensible piece of legislation. It's very practical. It supports our courts. It supports all the participants in it. I commend this bill to the House.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.





VALEDICTORY STATEMENTS
SPEAKER: Members, in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, I call on Louisa Wall to make her valedictory statement. Louisa Wall.





LOUISA WALL (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, rau rangatira mā, ngā mana whenua o te Whanga-nui-a-Tara, te Kaiwhakarite Mana Whenua o Pāremata ko Kura Moeahu, te whānau o te Pāremata ko ngā hoamahi o mua me o nāianei te whānau me ngā hoa tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā tātou katoa.
[To those in power, to all the voices, to all the chiefly peoples, to those who hold authority over the land in Wellington, to the Senior Cultural Adviser to Parliament, Kura Moeahu, to the parliamentary family, to my previous and current colleagues, to family and friends, greetings, greetings, greetings one and all.]
Given the discussions surrounding my resignation from Parliament, I have thought carefully about what is left to say in my valedictory statement. While I will speak about the highlights and acknowledge those who made things happen—I want to also talk about my new role—but there are a few things that I also feel I need to address, given comments that have been made over the last few days.
When I was forced out of my electorate in 2020, by the unconstitutional actions of the party president, Claire Szabó, and some members of council, I was devastated. The president accepted a late nomination, did not share the fact of its late receipt with the council until questions were asked, and then retrospectively tried to justify and legitimise her actions. But the devastation was not so much about the actions directed against me but about the devastation wrought on my Manurewa Labour Electorate Committee when their voting rights were removed to ensure that a central party vote would prevail.
I was lucky throughout my years as MP for Manurewa to have the staunch support of the Labour Electorate Committee (LEC). My nomination for 2020 was made by the Manurewa Local Electorate Committee, and I have the support of my union E tū and their members. The LEC that supported me was made up of a number of life members of the party, some of whom had served through the periods of the Hon Roger Douglas and George Hawkins. As I leave, I want to acknowledge my LEC members; a number are here today, and those that have sent apologies. I especially want to acknowledge Raewyn Turner and her late husband, Trevor, and Andrew Beyer, who all served on the executive of my LEC, and to thank them for their continuous support. Further, I want to apologise to them for the actions of the party president and council members who disenfranchised them, without any basis or explanation, after years of loyalty. For me, people like Raewyn, Trevor, and Andrew—and those who are here today—are the foundation of Labour. The way they were treated in order to punish me is reprehensible and it is as a result of that corrupt process that I am standing to deliver my valedictory statement today.
In recognition of that electorate role as MP for Manurewa, I also want to acknowledge Bill Marshall and Verina Kingsley-Jones, who were my representatives on the ground in my Manurewa office from the time of my election in 2011 until the time of my deselection in 2020.
In 2020, I agreed to leave because, irrespective of the merits of challenging certain actions, being in a team where there is no appetite for your contribution is not healthy. I took the opportunity to complete some of my ongoing work, including in the international advocacy space. I was placed on the list, just below where I had been in 2017, and accepted that I was to resign as an MP during this term. I want to record formally my gratitude to the Hon Michael Wood, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, and Tim Barnett for their integrity in assisting in a process of reaching an agreement.
And so I stand here today, fulfilling my part of that agreement, but I want to be very clear that this was not entirely my choice. I have been a member of the Service and Food Workers Union—now E tū—since 1986, and I joined the Avondale branch of the Labour Party on 4 March 1998. At the time, Avondale was part of the Mt Albert LEC, supporting its MP: the Rt Hon Helen Clark. I want to thank Helen and the LEC, particularly Joan Caulfield, for their support in having the confidence to begin my path to Parliament. It is that confidence that was acknowledged by then - party president Moira Coatsworth when I became Manurewa's Labour candidate. Coincidentally, it was exactly 10 years later, on 4 March 2008, that I was first sworn into this House, when Ann Hartley retired. I have enjoyed the privilege of being a member of this House since March 2008 for a period of eight months, and then from 2011 as the proud representative of Manurewa.
I firmly believe that being a member of this House offers the opportunity to find solutions, to advocate, and to do what we all say we want to do when we enter this House, and that is to make a difference. I've approached this role in the same way that I have faced all other challenges. I will look towards the try line or the goal, and pursue the most direct path that will achieve the objective. To that end, I differ from some of my colleagues and those in leadership. Perhaps I am politically naive in that approach, but the time we have here can be short and it should not be wasted.
I have learnt that working across the House is the best way to make effective and long-lasting change. I have always been grateful to my colleagues in other parties who are willing to listen and are open to discuss issues, and I acknowledge that the engagement of colleagues on this side of the House has often been influenced by matters outside the issues. In my view, there is no place here for an us-and-them mentality. We need to be more kaupapa- rather than personality-driven.
For me, the journey to marriage equality in Aotearoa New Zealand was a rapid-fire course on processes and procedures. It would be fair to say that, despite legislative reform for our LGBTIQ+ community being included in our Labour manifesto, there was not universal approval to me putting my member's bill in the ballot. Thankfully, the Hon Parekura Horomia tackled those who were opposed in a manner that shook many into acquiescence. So while my name is often associated with the passing of the bill, it would probably have never been realised without Parekura.
It was during this journey that I experienced most acutely how personal politics can override kaupapa. For me, the debate around marriage equality was rooted in basic human rights principles. How could the State deny the rights of a group of people to enter into the State-recognised institution of marriage? While the deputy leader of the caucus at the time wanted more recognition of civil unions, I believe that advocacy for marriage equality was based on fundamental human rights, and that civil unions became a stopgap measure because it was not clear that marriage would get over the line. When I expressed this view, I was told that this would be the end of my career and I would be on my own.
The success in achieving marriage equality is not mine or the party's, though. The lobby groups throughout the country, Legalise Love, campaigns for marriage equality in various towns and cities, our rainbow community, and the commitment across parties in the House achieved that, and I shared the collective parliamentary leadership formally with Kevin Hague and the Hon Tau Henare.
One highlight from that time was reflected in the action of Major Campbell Roberts, and I know that many of our community were deeply affected by the position the Salvation Army took on homosexual law reform. But during marriage equality, I had positive discussions with Campbell, who advised me that they would take a neutral position on marriage equality. During the passage of the bill, the Salvation Army apologised to our rainbow community for the hurt occasioned by their stance during homosexual law reform. This leadership has contributed to the progression of the rights of rainbow peoples in Aotearoa New Zealand, and it is much appreciated.
Members' bills are an avenue that allow debate and discussion on issues that may not be part of the Government's agenda, or, if they are, may not be a priority for the respective Minister. I have had the opportunity to provide a platform for these discussions through members' bills and the guidance of the atua to influence the draws from the biscuit tin.
During my time, I have been able to raise issues around housing, period poverty, female genital mutilation, surrogacy, alcohol policies, early education, revenge porn, safe zones, and protection of journalists' sources. And I have been blessed to have the opportunity to facilitate two private bills through the House that allow children to have their parents properly recorded on their birth certificate. And the members' bill process has allowed me to work with some wonderful people to ensure we are doing all we can to have legislation that achieves the outcomes we are seeking.
It is a privilege to have Dame Margaret Sparrow here along with Terry Bellamak, who have worked tirelessly for abortion law reform. I am for ever grateful to Professor Mark Henaghan, who provided invaluable advice on many issues, including end of life choice, and surrogacy laws. The staff in the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Office of the Clerk have always been willing to listen and find ways to practically reflect aspirations.
One regret I have is that we have not, as a party and as a Government, had the courage to confirm in our Constitution Act the status of Māori as the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand. I have tried on a number of occasions to put the bill in the ballot but it did not get through caucus. For a fleeting moment, when we came into Government in 2017, there was talk of it being a Government bill, but no Minister agreed to that course of action. I was then able to put it in the members' ballot but was directed to withdraw it prior to the 2020 election. As discussions around He Puapua, co-governance, and recognition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi become the focus of politicians and parties, having statutory recognition of Māori as tangata whenua and its first peoples would remove the propensity that allows people to ignore our reality as an indigenous people that continue to suffer the scourge of colonisation. Māori are not another ethnic group. In 2010, we signed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, and it is time we took the most basic of steps and recognised our status as indigenous people in our Constitution Act.
In my maiden speech in 2008, I spoke of two Labour Party principles that were of central interest to me as I entered this House. The first was Labour's commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand, and the second was a commitment to human rights. Statutory acknowledgment of our status as first peoples meets both those principles and is something I believe should be addressed sooner rather than later.
It is that commitment to human rights that will be uppermost in my mind as I move into my new role as ambassador for gender equality in the Pacific. I am grateful for the opportunity to continue work in an area that I am passionate about and to support this Government's Pacific resilience strategy. I also welcome the opportunity to continue advocacy for LGBTIQA+ equality, both in the Pacific and internationally. I have been lucky to have the support of the Minister the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Chris Seed, in appointing me to a role that will use the experiences I have had in order to promote greater representation of women, in accordance with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. I also want to thank the Hon Margaret Wilson and Dame Marilyn Waring, two very special wāhine who have always provided sound advice and guidance. 
My electorate office staff—Bill, Verina, and Karen Brake. My support staff in Parliament—Mereana Ruri, Jo Pettitt, Gina Anastasiadis, and Wendy Stevenson. Parliamentary staff—Jane McKenzie, Winton Holmes, and Wendy Hart, representing all the staff I've had the privilege to work with on various committees. The diplomatic community—Laura Clarke, unfortunately at home with COVID, always so willing to engage on issues that maintain global peace and security. My friend, lawyer, and former colleague the Hon Christopher Finlayson. Having all your collective support has enabled me to continue to do my job. 
Finally, my love and gratitude to my whānau sitting in the Speaker's gallery. My mum, who carries my dad on her shoulders every day. Uncle Tai and Aunty Chris Tahau. The Tahau-Hodges whānau. Cousin Charlotte Severne, and Joe, and all those representing my Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Hineuru, Waikato, and Ngāti Kurī whānau. My Ngāti Hine mentor and friend, Whaea Moe Milne. My fam—Catherine Smith, and we know you will be watching, Tina McCafferty. And my wife and partner in every sense of the word, surrounded by her children who we are so very proud of—Georgia and Thomas, who, with Prudence Jane Tamatekapua, have taken every step with me on this journey. We have been an awesome team and I know we will continue to support, nurture, and love one another. 
So, while there have been obstacles to face and overcome, I leave knowing that I did what I could within those constraints. To use a sporting analogy: I left it all on the field. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou kātoa.
Applause.
Waiata.
SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 3 May.
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.