SpeechHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I think it's really important in this Chamber that we take a moment to reflect on the significance of this bill and I want to quote back the acting Attorney-General in the opinion that he put up where it said this could effectively if applied to their fullest extent impose arguably the most extreme and significant limitations on New Zealanders' ability to freely go about our daily lives as has occurred in modern New Zealand history." It is important to look at the backdrop for this bill. I have said many times to my constituents that we understand the scale of what the Government has been dealing with. They've been dealing with imperfect information a global pandemic at rapid pace and National supported—as you would do in a national emergency—the capacity of the Government to act and flatten the curve. But the debate in New Zealand on the backdrop to this bill has been about three or four things.The first is: what is the country strategy for New Zealand? Is it about elimination; is it about containment or suppression? We have watched across the world as countries like Australia have had similar health outcomes and it's very relevant for this bill because we are naturally as a nation comparing their outcomes and then what the restrictions of freedom of movement of freedom of association are on New Zealanders. So we have had those questions that have been asked. We then had the extraordinary situation where there has been a question of the legality of this Government acting at this time of national emergency and what we have argued is a very basic principle: not only would you consult with the Opposition at the largest juncture of national emergency in our history but then also you would have transparency about the legal situation in New Zealand. The fact that we have not had what I think is genuine engagement with the Opposition to operate in a way at the time of national emergency but also that we have not had transparency about the legal basis of lockdown is incredibly incredibly shameful.The reason that we are here is because we want to do something about it. We want to—and we have an obligation to—assist the Government in a constructive way to develop rules and laws that enable us to as my colleague David Seymour has said ensure that we can keep the public safe while doing it in a way that is forensic and surgical and does not impinge unnecessarily on the freedoms of basic New Zealanders. The reality is that what we have had at a process level is absolutely appalling. There have been weeks and weeks of this emergency and to give the Opposition 24 hours—and I have referenced Andrew Little's opinion about the significance of this legislation—is not good enough. So if we are standing up here and standing up for the right of New Zealanders to have a decent process around this law it is because we understand the capacity to restrict basic freedoms.I want to remind the committee of some of the constituency cases that I have had but also why the stakes are high. I have dealt with people who are dealing with dying relatives. They can't get out of quarantine; they are literally counting down the clock as they may not see their loved ones. I have dealt with people who have not been able to see people and have actually ended up with significant mental health issues. I have dealt with families who are dealing with people who have committed suicide. I have dealt—as many other MPs in this House have dealt—with the social consequences of the restriction of freedom. So we absolutely in this House must have a decent process around this legislation because it deals with very very sensitive areas of society. The reality is when you're dealing with the passing away of someone it is a significant issue to restrict that to 10 people.Now we completely understand that what the Government is now saying is that they will make these rules up post this bill but my argument to the Government would be: on the backdrop of a major national emergency where you've got questions of proportionality you've got questions of the basis of science and the public rationale you've got questions of transparency how could you possibly turn up to the Opposition and give us 24 hours' notice to be able to debate very complex rules and the balance of freedom of association and the balance of how we mitigate the public health risks with basic freedoms of New Zealanders?So my question for the Government is: why can't you properly get to the table with the other political parties in this Parliament at a time of national emergency and work together to adequately define and deal with the real issues of concentration of power? Because I think that that is the right thing to do—I think it is the right thing to do in a national emergency as a former Minister of Civil Defence and I think that New Zealanders expect that because they believe that actually this Parliament needs to be respected because this Parliament represents them. So that is my question for the other side."