Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of this motion. I think it's worth traversing a little bit of the history of how we got here. ACT supported the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act at the first and second readings of the legislation and the reason is similar to what we've just heard from Chris Bishop: that we believe in the rule of law and it was certainly welcome that instead of the circumstances in which New Zealand found itself in the early days of the first lockdown where we had total lawlessness where we had a shall we say kindly maverick police commissioner attempting to scare New Zealanders with innuendo and no legal basis for the restrictions put on New Zealand's freedoms we felt that that wasn't the right way to be and that having legislation debated in Parliament and some clarity around what the law was was a better way to be.We also said that in return for continuing to support the legislation we would like to see the time frame shortened and some instruments of accountability for officers empowered under the Act so that people who felt that their rights had been trampled by people empowered by this legislation would have some recourse in complaint because as Chris Bishop said the rule of law the ability to read what one's rights are and to be able to go and seek redress if they are violated is fundamental to our free society. Unfortunately the Government was not of a view to take that feedback on board and ACT opposed the legislation in the third reading as a result.I think it's fair to say that in the time since the fears that we had that led ACT to oppose it have not been realised and I think that is a basis to support this legislation staying in place for a further three months—of course having the ability to oppose it if those fears were to be realised. I think that's the sensible and constructive way to come at this legislation. There should be a framework and a legal framework consistent with the rule of law that allows the Government to put in place public health orders to manage what is a real threat to New Zealanders' wellbeing.Having said that I also would comment that it would be a lot easier to support this legislation if the Government was prepared to use it in a more nuanced and sophisticated way to manage risk. This legislation gives the Government power to test and detain and issue orders in a small area to contain outbreaks and I don't believe that we're seeing the level of sophistication in the Government's response that we could. Just this Friday I hosted Mr Jeff Liu who is the representative for the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Auckland. You're not allowed to say it but he's basically the Consul-General for Taiwan in Auckland. He described the sophistication of the Taiwanese response that's seen them have twelve times fewer deaths per capita than us with no lockdowns.One thing the Government might consider given the power it has to make sophisticated orders is putting in place some proportionality in relation to quarantine and isolation requirements and the destinations from which people come because the walls are coming down in Australia and New Zealand risks being the poor cousin isolated from the other what you might call six states of Australasia. People who are tourist operators in somewhere like Te Anau who are on the bones of their derrieres would reasonably ask the question: why is it possible that Aucklanders where Auckland has had community transmission within a few weeks can come here and spend money—hopefully—but people from Perth Western Australia where there has been no community transmission for seven months cannot come here without two weeks' quarantine? Why do we quarantine people from Taiwan where COVID is completely under control in hotel rooms next door to people from India and California where it is rampant?Those are the sorts of questions about proportionality that should be asked and that having the instruments in this law would allow the Government to introduce some proportionality and sophistication in its response and sadly there is not. You can hear the barracking from the Government benches because they know that ACT is right about this. Thank you Madam Speaker.