I’ve found what I needed for my own peace of mind – a cogent explanation of the legal framework behind the rules imposed this week.

I’ve also read the key piece of legislation – the Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006.

It does specify (in section 9) that the Prime Minister must promptly revoke the ‘epidemic notice’ if she is ‘no longer satisfied’ that the effects of the outbreak are ‘likely to disrupt essential governmental and business activity’ in New Zealand (or parts of New Zealand).

Hypothetically, if thorough testing revealed no new COVID-19 cases and the existing ones were under control, the restrictions would have to be lifted earlier than 4 weeks. (I know, I know, that won’t happen. Alas, there will continue to be new cases for some time. Just making the point that the government can’t set a future date for ‘review’ without considering in the meantime whether the restrictions are still needed.)

Although the wording talks about the Prime Minister being ‘no longer satisfied’, this requires reasonableness. Under general principles of public law, she would not be allowed to say ‘I’m still not satisfied’, and continue with draconian restrictions, if there was clear scientific evidence that the epidemic was over.

Similarly, any emergency changes to how statutes are applied must stop if the epidemic stops.

For a detailed review of the governing legislation and the steps that have been taken, this article on the NZ Law Society website is helpful.