Covid-19 coronavirus: controversial bill passed to enforce level 2 warning powers

A bill was passed granting sweeping powers to the police to potentially enter homes without arrest warrants while enforcing Covid-19 alert level rules.

The Covid-19 Public Health Response Bill was quickly brought to Parliament in time for Alert Level 2, but it came under intense scrutiny by the Opposition.

He approved 63 votes in favor and 57 against.

The National Party and the Law did not endorse the bill, saying it was an overreach, they distrusted New Zealanders and did not allow the orders to be properly scrutinized.

But the government said it was necessary to ensure the continued fight against Covid-19 and created more responsibility, not less.

The Human Rights Commission said it was “deeply concerned” about the lack of scrutiny of the bill and its hasty process “is a major failure of our democratic process.”

READ MORE:
• Covid 19 Coronavirus: Traveler with positive virus imprisoned after refusing medical examination
• Covid 19 Coronavirus: Jacinda Ardern announces revision of funeral, ‘Jobs Budget’
• Covid-19 Coronavirus: Government faces parliaments of ‘a great job of fiscal repair’, according to the first economist
• Coronavirus Covid 19: How the vaccine can be made in New Zealand

The law establishes the legal framework for future alert levels since there is no longer a state of emergency. It effectively allows the Minister of Health to issue an order that would make alert level rules legally enforceable.

That could include, for example, the ability of the police or “compliance officers” to close certain facilities or roads, prohibit certain types of travel or congregations, or require people to be physically distant or to stay in their bubbles in if necessary.

It would also allow searches without private property order if there was a reasonable belief that alert level rules were being breached.

It is the first legislation related to Covid that has not had the support of all political parties.

The bill was amended at the committee stage this morning.

At the request of the Maori Council, the specific reference to marae was removed and the Government added the requirement that a search without order be reported to the corresponding marae committee.

Attorney General David Parker said it was written in the bill with the intention of providing more protection.

“It’s actually something that doesn’t remove protections; it actually adds them. But nonetheless, Māoridom doesn’t want that. They want to be the same as non-Māoridom with respect to those premises,” Parker said.

The original two-year sunset clause has been mitigated by an amendment to see the legislation updated every 90 days, or more if necessary.

But the National Party still opposed the bill.

National deputy Gerry Brownlee said he “puts too much power in the hands of one person: the Prime Minister” because there was also no mention of what advice he needed to make a decision.

Education Minister Chris Hipkins said when Brownlee introduced legislation restricting civil liberties after the Canterbury earthquakes, he felt uncomfortable voting for it, but “it was the right thing to do.”

National also wanted the bill to be amended to allow people to gather in groups of up to 100 people and for opposition consultation on the orders.

Opposition leader Simon Bridges yesterday called the 10-person limit for meetings “inhumane,” especially when it comes to funerals and places of worship.

The National Party today launched a petition for Parliament to reject the 10-person limit.

Today, the Government stepped back into the tangihanga and funeral boundaries and allowed funeral directors a special waiver to allow up to 50 people to attend.

In the Covid-19 public health response bill, the leader of the Act, David Seymour, said that despite voting on it in his first and second reading, he could not support it in the final stage.

The bill failed to balance the rights and freedoms and general welfare of all New Zealanders with the government’s effort to control Covid-19, he said.

“I have tried to work constructively to limit the power of the CEO, making a democratically elected minister the only person with the power to issue long-term orders, but the government voted against it.”

Parker argued that the powers under the Covid-19 bill are “actually narrower than the powers under the Health Act,” so the government had created an entirely new framework.

The speed with which the bill has been rushed through the House has also been criticized.

Before his third reading, Justice Minister Andrew Little said he appreciated that it was not about laws, but that times were extraordinary.

But the bill would ensure that New Zealand lowers alert levels, Little said.

Chief Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt called the lack of scrutiny and the hasty process of the bill “a major failure of our democratic process.”

The Commission on Human Rights was “firmly of the opinion” that the legislation should include a provision to ensure that decision-makers and those who exercise powers, in accordance with the new law, would do so in accordance with national and international human rights commitments and Te Tiriti or Waitangi, Hunt said.

“In times of national emergency, sweeping powers are granted. There is a risk of overreaching. Mistakes are made and then regretted. This is precisely when our national and international commitments to human rights and Te Tiriti must be taken into account.”