MP’s flip-flop: a tale of two pandemic Bills

As flip-flops go, Michael Woodhouse’s effort in Parliament on Tuesday came close to setting some sort of speed record.

As the National Dunedin list MP pointed out himself, in just 90 minutes he had shifted from praising the Government to condemning it, in the space of two Bills which on the surface were attempting to achieve similar things.

How Mr Woodhouse was able to perform this seemingly contortional act was another example of the tightrope the Opposition has been walking, with a bit of wobbling, during the Covid-19 crisis.

First up was the second reading of the Covid-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill — a not at all snappily named omnibus which amended 45 pieces of legislation to implement changes brought about by the Covid-19 alert level system.

Mr Woodhouse, who late last week was appointed deputy chairman of the epidemic response select committee, chaired the truncated hearing of submissions on this and the Covid-19 Public Health Response Bill — of which more shortly.

"This is an example of what can be done in an emergency without setting aside due process, without setting aside the necessary scrutiny of the executive that is so important in times of crisis," Mr Woodhouse said, noting the committee was still working at 11pm the previous night to finalise the Bill and its amendments.

However, it was a 3am meeting which really got Mr Woodhouse thinking.

He was up at that unearthly hour to represent New Zealand, via the internet, at the World Bank Group Parliamentary Network Briefing on Pandemics and Covid-19, and during that discussion several MPs commented on the lack of parliamentary scrutiny in their respective countries during Covid-19 lockdowns.

"It highlights, for me, that weak democracies are not necessarily developing nations in far-flung parts of this world with autocratic leaders and family dynasties," Mr Woodhouse said.

"What I would say is that, actually, the rule of law and the process of passing Bills is most needed during a crisis, whether that’s a war or a war footing such as a pandemic.

"It is not a time to set them aside."

In this case, Cabinet and officials had been willing to take good ideas and make the Bills better, Mr Woodhouse said.

He was not so effusive soon after in the first reading of another suite of pandemic-related law changes, the Covid-19 Public Health Response Bill — in which Mr Woodhouse netted himself some headlines for stating that the Prime Minister was "Rob Muldoon with slogans and kindness".

Mr Woodhouse’s point, which was rather lost in the flurry that throwaway line created, was that drafting laws which run contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act required those changes to be proportionate and not unreasonably limit those rights.

In Bill A, to his mind, due consideration had been given to those concerns and appropriate compromises made.

In Bill B, however, "I am, frankly, astounded that a Government that purports to be open and transparent, to be kind and to give the country, the public, the credit for the amazing work that they have done, still increases further and further into their freedoms and their lives."

Mr Woodhouse went on to highlight various inconsistencies in the Bill: two professional teams could play rugby but not go to the bar afterwards; a limited number of guests could attend his daughter’s 14th birthday party but hundreds of people could go to the Wall Street Mall; more people could go to cafes than church services.

Most of those oddities remain, but National can claim some of the credit for the sudden increase in the number of people allowed to attend funerals and tangi; Labour recognised it was taking a hammering and wisely made a change before suffering too much damage.

Mr Woodhouse’s broader point remains one the Government should heed: people will accept the State intervening in their lives if the interference is reasonable, well-explained and suited to the circumstances.

The Opposition’s job is to object if it feels that is not the case, as Mr Woodhouse and his colleagues did.

A proportional response

National MP for Tamaki Simon O’Connor spotted one of the more questionable aspects of Covid-19 Alert Level 2 restrictions when quizzing Health Minister David Clark during question time on Wednesday.

"In light of proportionality, is the minister aware that strip clubs are allowed to open during Alert Level 2 but churches are not, and, if so, why is one deemed so much safer than the other?" he asked, to much laughter.

Speaker Trevor Mallard called for order, saying he did not want to show any personal interest in the answer, but that he would like to hear it.

"They are there to worship; they are also there to mix and mingle with others," Dr Clark said.

National leader Simon Bridges then chipped in to ask: "What are they at the strip club for?"

Perhaps to the relief of all, Mr Mallard ruled Dr Clark did not need to answer that question.