This is another interesting opinion on the legality of the level 3/4 provisions. It comes down more on the government side than some others I've read
Quote from the article: "When basic liberties are involved, officials and courts should err on the side of preserving those liberties. But they must also take heed of the purpose of the statute and the community the law protects."
At the end of the day five million New Zealanders did not have to go through the disease and death experiences other countries had to endure. So I am ok with that.
It's all fine shouting now but had the government acted differently and we had deaths on a UK scale I'd like to think these same people would be shouting the opposite.
There's no way to making everyone happy.
Then there's the rabid cadre of American racists shouting "New Zealand is running a Communist state with Stasi-like powers for Police" and - surprise! - New Zealanders that repeat this kind of crap on social networks because they are easily influenced idiots.
The issue, in this case isn't "what" the issue is "how". The government did what was necessary to protect public health.
The government should always act within their powers. They have the power to enact legislation very quickly, as they did with the level 2 legislation.
If the government acts outside the law by mistake that isn't acceptable but should be fixed as quickly possible. If the government knowingly acts outside the law then that is incredibly problematic.