MET - Metlifecare - one for the fundies?

[Bjauck]

I think we are reading into it too much. Generally a change in law is secondary to a circumstance anyway. If going by that logic a change in law can always easily be used as a scapegoat to trigger a MAC by looking at what caused the change in law. End of the day regardless of how, the law was changed and I’d think that’s what it comes down to.

As far as I’m aware and to my limited knowledge, the covid laws are new? And even the alert level system and its implications.

The change of law would be a carve out and thus neutralise the MAC event. What I am suggesting is that the emergency powers were a part of the NZ legal system and did not need a change of law to enable them. Consequently I am suggesting that the MET directors cannot rely on a change of law to defeat the MAC trigger. The restrictions placed on Metlifecare (and others) are as a result of exisiting law.

The Health Act had already allowed for quarantining and isolation. Amongst others, there was also the Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006 http://legislation.govt.nz/act/publi...html#DLM404483

‘The powers under New Zealand's emergency legislation did not require new Bills to be passed. The existence of several statutes that make up the country's legislative framework were already in place, and were simply enacted”
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...t-dispute.html

The MET directors may have a chance relying on the “general economic conditions’ carve out. However on that front I think that they could well be defeated by the fact that emergency provisions of various Acts have been employed by the Government as a result of a health epidemic.