SpeechJAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): That was a good speech from Golriz Ghahraman and I respect that's her view but that's not what the bill actually says or does. The bill that the Green Party and the rest of the Government—and in fact the National Party—are voting for is completely different to the speech she just gave and the speech from Jenny Marcroft and others. This bill doesn't contain the current Government's policy around how they'd like to charge. It sets up a regime that they could put their policy in. It equally sets up a regime in which the National Party could put their policy. In fact Gerry Brownlee said they're voting for it because the $3000-odd charge that the National Party supports could fit within this regime. So when the Green Party says We've stood up and we've protected you and we're going to make sure that your human rights are protected." they're actually voting for a law that allows the National Party to do whatever it wants if it's in Government. You're enabling actually what they call "breaches of human rights".Most of the debate around this bill has been around the charging regime but I actually think the more egregious parts of this legislation are the changes to the section 11 orders. Now half the House—well just under half the House—voted against the primary legislation because it felt the section 11 orders and other infringements on people's human rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act were going too far. It felt some of the warrantless entry powers were going too far. It felt some of the orders that could be made under section 11 were going too far. Dr Duncan Webb: Conspiracy.JAMI-LEE ROSS: And now it's going even further with this particular piece of legislation. It's not a conspiracy Duncan Webb. Your own Minister the Hon Dr Megan Woods stood there in the chair and said that part of the considerations around this were around the evolving medical situation and what we know around vaccination. Goodness me! The good people in Botany that I represent—many of them have said to me that if there's a requirement around taking a vaccination that's rushed through that hasn't been looked at properly that hasn't gone through the normal checks and balances they would be concerned about having that forced on them. And yep sure other parties say we're never going to force that type of thing on them but actually here in clause 7(3) it says "After section 11(a)(ix) insert: (x) satisfy any specified criteria before entering New Zealand from a place outside New Zealand".The Minister herself said in response to a question from another member that that's one of the very things that is being considered. New Zealanders that want to return home can have Government Ministers under this law place restrictions on them wanting to come to their own home. Sure you say you might not do it you might not want to do it it might not be your policy but a law is being passed that allows that to happen—that is what's happening that's what they're voting for: these huge powers that are being given to Ministers and bureaucrats under section 11 orders whereby the Minister gets to determine whether they're breaching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or not; it's not the Parliament. It's Parliament usually that determines to override the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but no—Dr Duncan Webb: Thank God it's the last two days!JAMI-LEE ROSS: Well Duncan Webb you call yourself a lawyer. Go and look at what the changes are in clause 6. If you can't see what's happening in clause 6 you should hand back your LLB or whatever else you've got—oh you've got a doctorate sorry. He's a doctor of law—can't read legislation. So I think that we should be taking very seriously the particular clauses in here which are doing what I believe is going too far in overriding the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The other change that's in here that I think hasn't been discussed enough in this Chamber is the way in which the section 11 orders are changing with regards to medical examination. See there are some new words that are being inserted in here. Previously it just said people had to "report for" a medical examination or testing. Now it goes further and says "report for and undergo" a medical examination. No longer is there the ability to conscientiously object to some sort of medical procedure or medical examination—that ability is being taken away and it can override people's rights and it's absolutely wrong.I'm also of the view that when it comes to the charging regime the proposal put forward by the Government will collect very little money in terms of the overall costs of doing so. Why are they even bothering? They're doing so because this is just before an election and they've been embarrassed into doing that by the Opposition. Is the Opposition policy right? No I'd say it's not. I think they're going too far. I think they're going too far also in saying—and this might be policy they want to implement later on—that if you abscond from isolation you should be charged for the cost of that. That's like saying to people who run away from prison that they should pay for the cost of recovering them. It's actually a public good for the country and if there's something that's determined to be a public good then we pay for that through our normal taxation.I'm also of the view that where people—I'm not suggesting people should be leaving managed isolation or they should be trying to get around the restrictions but the charging regime places financial penalties on people if they are unhappy or don't want to undertake a medical examination or they don't want to undertake the testing. There are now coercive mechanisms by way of financial penalties because there will be charges in place if they end up staying in managed isolation longer because they for some reason don't want to undertake the testing regime. That's going too far. That is a huge overriding of human rights in this country. We're doing so under legislation where Ministers get to make all of these decisions without the real scrutiny of the Parliament.These laws go too far. I voted against the primary legislation and I'll be voting against this amendment bill here too."