SpeechHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you sir. I agree with Michael Wood that the Epidemic Response Committee showed Parliament and members of this House at its and our best but there is a fundamental flaw in the argument that we have just heard from Michael Wood and that is in the assertion—or at least the inference—that Parliament is now functioning typically and as we usually would. Well that is absolute nonsense and it's why tonight I stand to endorse the amendment moved by the Hon Michael Woodhouse and to oppose the Government motion seeking to disestablish the Economic Response Committee.We've just heard from Mr Wood that the amendment moved by my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse has no foundation—no basis. Well let me point out why that assertion is utterly wrong. This Parliament is still heavily restricted. I'm speaking tonight from near the back of the House not because I'm occupying my seat but because I can't go and occupy my seat. Because of the physical distancing requirements four of my very fine colleagues are in the area where I would normally sit and I need to remain away from them. That's not a trivial point—that is not a trivial point—Hon Damien O'Connor: You can blame your new boss. That's why you're that far back!Hon TIM MACINDOE: —because—ha ha! Well clearly Mr Damien O'Connor wishes to trivialise it but it's not a trivial point because those who are watching—and there will be many people at home watching tonight—will have noticed that all members are sitting apart from one another. Today at question time half of my caucus could not take their rightful place in this House. They could not enter the debating chamber to which they were elected; they were told they had to go and sit up in the gallery.Hon Damien O'Connor: It was all right—we didn't miss them.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Yet again the Hon Damien O'Connor wishes to trivialise that point. We understand the reason for it but it doesn't make it something we should be relaxed about or happy to accept as being the new normal; it is not.So not only can I not sit in my seat tonight—and that's only of minor relevance—observers cannot enter the select committee room that I will be working in tomorrow morning. That is significantly more disturbing. We understand it again but this is a democracy. We have a very long proud democratic tradition in this country which includes the right of every member of the public to enter the precinct of Parliament and to scrutinise our actions and at the moment they cannot do that. Even if they wanted to the chances are that if they were coming from other parts of the country they wouldn't be able to do so because their public transport options are severely limited and if they were to get on a plane again they'd have to be occupying the physical distancing room.More importantly there is nobody in the public gallery tonight just as there has not been now since Parliament resumed in our limited way a couple of weeks before the Budget was delivered. Now again that is something of which we should be very concerned. The public should have the right to enter this building to scrutinise and observe the actions of their elected representatives. Again we understand the reason why that can't happen at the moment. None of us wants to undermine the public health response to the COVID pandemic; all of us are proud of what we have achieved collectively. All of us want to—as what has become a cliché has been mentioned many times—lock in the gains that we the team of 5 million have achieved. But while members of the public cannot enter this House cannot attend our select committees cannot freely participate as observers in the democratic process of this country we must champion their interests.At any other stage members of the public would be able to gather out on the forecourt and on the lawn in front of Parliament and protest or demonstrate against a matter that is of concern to them or stand up for important principles—and every week when Parliament is sitting normally we see that happen. Most recently I think of the protest against the Concert FM proposals. Now that is such an important part of functioning in a democracy. Members of the Government should not trivialise that; they should recognise that that is a reason why the Epidemic Response Committee has such an important function.I had the privilege of participating as a member of the National Party's representation on the Epidemic Response Committee twice in my capacity as our seniors spokesperson. I was hugely impressed by the way it operated. I was hugely impressed by the chairmanship of the Hon Simon Bridges and the way in which members listened respectfully not only to one another but in particular to those who came to put their views before the committee—and of course in almost every case they were doing so by Zoom because they couldn't enter this building.So when the Leader of the House in moving this motion earlier said that the Epidemic Response Committee served a useful purpose he greatly understated it. The Epidemic Response Committee served a vital purpose: the only truly democratic option for scrutiny of the actions of a Government during a state of emergency when Parliament was adjourned and we as members of Parliament were effectively forced away from this House of Representatives to which we were elected. We still aren't functioning in the way that we would expect to be able to in the way that the public expected us to be able to when they made their decisions at the 2017 general election. Until such time as they have their rights restored as members of the public can be sure that their voices are being heard that their concerns are being listened to and responded to we should not be disestablishing the one committee that protected their interests.I led the charge for the National Party as the shadow Attorney-General against the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill just a fortnight ago. Never in my 12 years as a member of this House have I received so many messages and emails from people who are not supporters of my party but who were saying thank you to the National Party for standing up for their interests for defending their concerns and in particular for defending our democratic rights as I did on that occasion. Now without the Epidemic Response Committee that opportunity to represent the concerns of members of the public will be greatly diluted.Yes belatedly after that travesty of an abuse of Parliament frankly the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill went through under urgency with no select committee process with no opportunity for the public to make submissions. After the event the Government said Well OK let's send it to the Finance and Expenditure Committee." but as the Hon Michael Woodhouse pointed out earlier that is a committee with a Government majority. At a time when Parliament is severely curtailed when our ability to function fully as members of this House is not respected or at least not possible now the Government wants to use its majority on a committee effectively to minimise the concerns and the views that will be brought to it.Well the very nature of the Epidemic Response Committee going across all aspects of public policy was its great strength. I want to pay huge tribute to the many commentators and advisers business and industry leaders health and social and community sector leaders who advised that committee and whose advice is still needed because we have the Director-General of Health telling us that we cannot ease up; so too is Professor Michael Baker. We know that every day across the world hundreds of deaths are still occurring as a result of COVID and thousands of new cases are being detected in other parts of the world. Therefore the very real risk continues to exist of a further flare up in New Zealand. That's why I support the Hon Michael Woodhouse's amendment to ensure that the committee remains established so that it can quickly convene once more should it be required. I strongly oppose the Government's motion."