O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I'd like to torpedo that boat. I want to bookend this speech with words from someone else who's far more eloquent than myself. He says when human societies lose their freedom it's not necessarily because tyrants have taken it away. It's usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And … That's what I fear we are seeing now." That's been said by Lord Sumption the English supreme court justice and judge discussing COVID-19 only a few days ago. I agree with Lord Sumption that this is the most anti-democratic piece of legislation being put before this Parliament. I repeat it again: it is anti-democratic. It is against the values of this democracy this Parliament our constitutional sovereignty. It is against the principles of law and ethics.I am pleased to stand on this side of the House as a member of the only political party that has opposed this bill from the very start. I want the public to understand that very clearly: National alone has opposed this bill from the very beginning and we are here now only because every other political party has supported it so far. Why do I oppose this bill so aggressively? Let me as I phrased in a video earlier today come to what I term the "terrible highlights". This is a bill which effectively gives one person enormous powers—one person. I don't actually particularly care who it is. In this case it could be the Minister of Health or the Prime Minister; I suspect primarily the latter. I don't particularly care who it is. This is not a personal issue of who that person happens to be. But any constitutional democracy which puts enormous powers into the hands of one person is by definition not democratic at all.These powers will impact on New Zealanders' daily lives in ways I suspect they can barely comprehend. Why? Because it's being rushed through Parliament; but I'll come back to that. These decisions outlined in section 11 give one person the power to say to ordinary New Zealanders where they can stay who they can see how they can physically distance where they can travel how they can carry out specialist activities. One person alone will be able to dictate to Kiwis how they'll be isolated and quarantined. They will have the power to dictate to you your place premises craft vehicles even your animals—how you or we as Kiwis can operate. These powers are enormous and they have been concentrated in one hand. That is wrong ethically morally and legally.This bill enables the police to enter a home without a warrant. The police have never held that power at all. They have never held that power. And this bill enables police just on reasonable cause to enter into your home. I would suggest even worse than that that this bill creates a provision for enforcement officers. I prefer to think of them as State-sanctioned vigilantes. These are people who will be authorised through this bill—not police—to enforce the purposes of this Act. They are people who will be able to effectively be reporting on us as citizens or business owners or people who wish to go to I don't know church or to play sport. They will have the power not only to watch and report on what you do but to shut you down. Once again this bill this terrible highlight is allowing State-sanctioned vigilantes. And I see it very similar to what was attempted to happen—well it wasn't attempted; it was happening with those checkpoints of which the Government seem to be completely confused about. Completely wrong completely illegal.Also we are seeing through this bill what I have often spoken to as the Draconian and heartless rules that are being put in place around funerals and tangi weddings and other religious services. It is inconsistent and one of the things that annoy myself as a student of philosophy and as a parliamentarian is inconsistency. Why it's important is that any time the public can see inconsistency they know something wrong is happening. As of today we've had a slight change from the Government: that you can have up to 50 people now at a funeral. That is a good step forward—I do want to acknowledge that—but it also shows the incredible muddle which has been created here. Up to 50 people can attend a funeral. Fewer than 10 are allowed to attend any other religious ceremony—act of worship in their temple their mosque their church wherever—but up to 100 people as I pointed out in question time today can attend the cinema. They can play rugby together—30 people can roll around in the mud. That's all perfectly legal but less than 10 people—less than 10 people—are allowed to go and practise their faith safely. It is absolutely inconsistent it's Draconian and it's heartless.As I said I do want to acknowledge I think particularly and exclusively around tangi that the Government's announcement today that it's going to 50 people is a good one and I want to say thank you to the thousands of New Zealanders who have replied to my petition in the last 24 hours. Thank you for the pressure that you've put on. New Zealanders understand the voice you have and we will continue to push against as I say these heartless heartless rules because as it stands now with the changes you literally have to be dying to go to church to be allowed in.I want to point out too that this law exists for two years—two years—and even worse and I'm not sure anyone's touched on this this bill gives Cabinet the power to repeal; Cabinet not the Parliament. That is unconstitutional. Absolutely appalling. And it's all being rushed through Parliament. No select committee. No select committee at all. They've had almost seven weeks to work on this. It's been rushed through. It is as I have said contemptuous effectively of the basics of a democracy and particularly when we begin to think around the notions of grieving celebration and faith I think it's been contemptible. Why do I say it's been contemptible? The legal advice that was put out around this bill this bill which has the power to limit people's freedom of religion is not mentioned at all. I would suggest that is deliberate. I think that reflects a left-wing Government's view of religion and people of faith. It is the only logical explanation I can find other than absolute bloody incompetence on behalf of officials to miss out freedom of religion from the list. They've got everything else but not freedom of religion. Why is that? An absolute shocker. As I say we've got a real problem.My final thoughts though because we have heard from the other side that this is absolutely necessary—"We have to pass this. Thousands will die." That is blackmail. That is a bribe. That is using fear to control New Zealanders. No one in this House wants more people to die. What we're asking for—and as I've written about recently it's about proportionality. To come in with paternalistic moralising that somehow if we don't give over these enormous powers to one person in Government everything's going to go wrong—that is not what we're suggesting. I want to repeat again: to use fear effectively which is what's being done is a blackmail of a sort a bribe. It's emotionalism over reason and this continues to be demonstrated when there is engagement and questions in this House. Questions are asked of Government. They are rational. They are reasonable. They don't have to be agreed to. But all we get is emotional responses. That is not helpful.And what are those responses? It's the tired old emotive "This is hurting me more than it hurts you." And speeches throughout this day as we've rushed it through Parliament—or rather the Government has—have been very much that moralising: "This bill this enormous power we're giving—this hurts us. We don't really want it but it hurts us to take it. But we know it's hurting you too. But you know just accept that." That is wrong. New Zealanders need to be treated as adults. I want to put this warning out because history is very clear about this: you treat adults in a democracy responsibly. You allow them proportionally to take back their lives. Because I put this warning there now: if we don't give it to them they'll take it back.I want to end as I began: "when human societies lose their freedom it's not necessarily because tyrants have taken it away. It's usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. … That's what I fear we are seeing now." Wake up New Zealand."