Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you Mr Chairman. This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak in this House since the COVID-19 emergency and it is with a great deal of unease specifically on the provisions that are in this COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill Part 2. My unease is that at the time when the Government is calling for unity and for anybody that questions provisions of its programme is somehow being disloyal to the cause of this country confronting the challenges of COVID-19 we have the Government exercising extraordinary powers over people's lives and we have quite arbitrary decisions being made on the exercise of freedoms that I never thought would ever be questioned in this Parliament. My nervousness is this: only two weeks ago this Parliament under urgency passed legislation very different to what the Minister told the House it was doing. We passed a massive finance bill spending billions of dollars that was completely different to what the Minister said. And that is why it is proper that this Parliament scrutinises this legislation.The bit that I am at loss and my community in Nelson is at loss is in respect of the provisions in Part 2 of this bill as they relate to gatherings of people. Nobody in this Parliament would question the emotion of funerals and the way in which people are able to farewell loved ones. I have a letter which I'll table from my local funeral association that says How do we explain to Nelsonians and to New Zealanders that you can have 100 people in a bar you can have 100 people in a restaurant but you can't have more than 10 people under level 2 at a funeral? You can have 50 people on a school bus but you can't have more than 10 at a funeral." When I hear the Prime Minister say to New Zealanders "Oh you've got to be united. It's unfair to question these arbitrary rulings." I say to the Minister actually in a democracy it is absolutely proper that we can ask questions of regulations and proposals that lack common sense that lack compassion and which do not respect basic things like religious freedom. I'd love the Minister to explain this for me. In a bar—myself and others I enjoy a good beer at my local. Actually I see far more capacity to be able to do contact tracing and to be able to manage social distancing at a place of worship as compared with a bar. So can the members in the Government please explain for me why my churches in Nelson will not under level 2 be able to practise worship with the proper controls but those same groups will be able to hop down to the local bar with 100 people and have an ale? I'm sorry; it does not make common sense. It's insulting to the intelligence of New Zealanders and actually it's insulting to one of the most basic freedoms in this dear country of ours and that is the issue of religious freedom.Here's my further point for the Minister: what this bill says is the Opposition is right—that under level 1 and level 2 the Government was acting unlawfully. Hon Andrew Little: No it doesn't.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We should have seen legislation of this sort four weeks ago Mr Little. My question for Mr Little the Minister of Justice is this: six weeks ago the Government announced a framework—Hon Andrew Little: How would you believe him?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I've put up with continuous interjection from the Minister of Justice Mr Andrew Little. I'd invite him to take a call on such a serious issue rather than the continuous practice of interjection when we're talking about issues as important as the rights of New Zealanders an issue of which he has responsibility for.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I don't need any help but that's not actually a point of order and this is a wide-ranging debate and interjection—I will decide when it's unreasonable. The member may continue.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: So transparency and openness is absolutely critical to our country being united in dealing with the issues of COVID-19. My question for the Minister of Justice is this: the Government announced six weeks ago the level 1 2 3 4 process for dealing with COVID-19; why is Parliament only being given 24 hours to debate the law that provides the extraordinary powers that the Government announced six weeks ago? What sort of respect does it show Parliament and New Zealand's democracy that the Government develops a level system—1 2 3 4—and turns up with the legislation one day before it comes into effect? Is that really good lawmaking Mr Parker? Why is it that Parliament has not been able to have a look at this sort of law rather than effectively being given 24 hours? What is it in the culture and the arrogance of this Government that it can have six weeks with its officials around such issues of what people will be able to do and not do under level 2 but Parliament is to be given less than a day to approve such far-reaching law changes?Now I do challenge the Minister that if you want to keep New Zealand united if you want to keep our response as a country to this challenge then you also need to meet the transparency test. I say what good reason does the Government have for not releasing the Crown Law opinion on the application of level 4 controls?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That's a good question to ask but it's not actually in this part.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well it's absolutely relevant to the issues in Part 2.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well yeah but we are actually debating Part 2 so I'd ask you—Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well it's relevant to the issues of Part 2 because I put this to you Madam Chair—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are you arguing with me?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No I'm not arguing. I'm saying that the issue of the Crown Law advice on the legality of level 4 controls—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Related to which part?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —is absolutely relevant to the issues in Part 2 of this bill because it's attempting to codify the very things that the Government has done under levels 3 and 4. So my question for the Minister is this: why if it was perfectly legal to exercise controls that were far more powerful far more restrictive under level 4 do we need to legislate in Part 2 of this bill for the controls under level 2? Because in effect what the Government is saying is: "Oops we overstretched on level 4. The legislation to enforce what we did under level 4 should've been provided then but now as sort of a backfill measure with a lower level of restrictions we now recognise that we have to legislate." Again I say if you want the sort of goodwill for New Zealanders to back a collective effort 5 million New Zealanders then what we ask of the Government is openness and transparency and we have not seen that.The last point I would want to make in respect to Part 2 of this bill is why exclude the largest party in Parliament the party which received the most votes and has the greatest democratic mandate from the last election from any say in the extraordinary regulations that you're asking for in clause 11 of this Part 2? Why should the over a million New Zealanders that voted for the 55 members of the National Party not have any role or say in the regulations? We've moved an amendment that says that the Prime Minister should consult with the Leader of the Opposition if they are going to proceed with the powers because what this bill does is transfer extraordinary powers from the Parliament to the executive—to the Government of the day. The Government of the day represents three parties—the Labour the New Zealand First and the Green Party—but excludes any involvement of the party that actually holds the majority of the constituency seats and secured the most votes at the last election. So again I say to the Government that if you want unity if you want New Zealand to hold it together and to be able to deal with the challenges of COVID-19 then the quid pro quo is that you respect democracy respect this Parliament and have at the very least a requirement for the Prime Minister to consult with the Leader of the Opposition about the sorts of regulations that would be passed to put these extraordinary limits on where people can worship whether they can leave their home whether they can open their business—whether they can do those such things."