Coronavirus: Government tweaks Covid-19 level 2 law after marae controversy

The Government has backed down on some “extraordinary powers” ​​in a Covid-19 level 2 law, including switching a two-year limit on the enforcement law to three months. But the intent of the bill remains the same.

The updated legislation has tweaked references to police being able to enter marae without a warrant, and removed a requirement that only police operate roadblocks – a matter of controversy after community-led roadblocks were set up around the country during lockdown.

However, the changes still potentially allow warrantless searches of premises by police for the next three months.

The law is required for the Government to enforce Covid-19 Alert Level 2 rules, such as social distancing and restriction on gatherings. It would give police powers to enter homes without warrants.

READ MORE:
* Coronavirus: Government battles to urgently pass new law for Alert Level 2
* Coronavirus: Government set to urgently pass new law for Alert Level 2
* Coronavirus: Government denies unlawful enforcement of lockdown

The Government had planned to urgently pass all readings of the Public Health Response Bill in Parliament on Tuesday because it needed to be in place for when the country moves into level 2 at 11.59pm on Wednesday.

However, the National Party opposed the first and second reading and a number of amendments have been put forward and the debate resumed on Wednesday morning.

The Opposition has “condemned” the bill for its extraordinary power, process and executive overreach and says the shows the Government does not trust the public.

ACT Leader David Seymour referred to the bill as having “Henry VIII-style powers”, a reference to laws made by King Henry VIII that allowed the English Government to change provisions of laws without having to go back to Parliament.

I voted for the first and second reading, but will vote against the bill at third reading.

“I’ve tried to be constructive and improve the bill, but the Government hasn’t taken concerns about the basic rights and freedoms of New Zealanders seriously,” Seymour said.

The committee stage of the debate and further readings of the bill are still under way and could push the enactment down to the deadline.

A Government Supplementary Order Paper (amendment) sets out a number of changes the Government was willing to make.

In a speech, Minister Kelvin Davis said references to police being able to enter marae without a warrant have been removed.

The clause was amended to include a requirement for any exercise of warrantless entry power onto marae to be reported to the relevant marae committee.

The amendment removed the references to private dwellinghouse or marae, and replaced them with the term specified private premises.

However, a private premises was defined as a private dwellinghouse or marae, so it appears the intent of the law was not changed.

It was also warned that removing the reference would mean less protection for marae.

Green co-leader Marama Davidson said the powers of entry singled out marae specifically, originally, to overlay an extra threshold of protection and criteria so that warrantless entry could happen.

“We are seeking to remove marae… it also removes extra layers of protection,” she said.

The Greens “absolutely” believed the “warrantless powers” needed to be scrutinized with a public conversation.

She asked for clarity around the extra protections for a marae – whether they remained or had the same status as every other venue.

When putting forward the proposed changes, Attorney-General David Parker said:

“I think the most important of them is to require this legislation, effectively, to be refreshed every 90 days, which was a suggestion from the National Party, similar in effect to the request by the ACT Party that the final expiration of this be one year rather than two, ”Parker said.

If it needed to be extended, Parliament would have to pass a motion that it be extended for another 90 days.

Parliament could choose a longer period if it wanted, such as during the election, he said.

He said the other significant change was to limit the range of people to whom enforcement power can be delegated.

It would confine the power to appoint authorized persons to persons employed or engaged by the Crown.

The proposed changes state that only constables and enforcement officers acting under their authority can totally or partially prohibit or restrict public access, with or without vehicles, to any road or public place in an area.

It would also allow police to give businesses flouting rules warnings verbally or in writing – to close and cease operation within 24 hours.

The amendment states section 70 orders could continue in force for enforcement purposes and will include drafting changes “to improve the clarity and effectiveness of the bill”.

Meanwhile, Chief Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt has expressed “deep concern” about the lack of scrutiny and rushed process for the bill.

The Commission received the exposure draft bill on Monday evening and its legal team urgently prepared a short response.

“For weeks the Government has known that we would be moving to alert level 2. It has not allowed enough time for careful public democratic consideration of this level 2 legislation. There has been no input from ordinary New Zealanders which is deeply regrettable, ”Hunt said.

“This is a great failure of our democratic process. The new legislation, if passed in its current state, will result in sweeping police powers unseen in this country for many years. ”

The Human Rights Commission is strongly of the view the legislation must include a provision to ensure those making decisions, and exercising powers, under the new law, will do so in accordance with national and international human rights commitments and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.