Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the motion and yet in support of the amendment. I'd like to reflect a little bit on the events that led to the establishment of the Epidemic Response Committee and the contribution that it made.The first thing I would do is reiterate comments that I made in the House on the 23rd—or 25th if I remember rightly certainly the last day before Parliament adjourned for lockdown which was that it was a mistake for our Parliament to shut. Examples were given at the time that other countries had shut their Parliaments actually for longer than us and that made it good enough. I've always taken the view that my ancestors moved here to the edge of the known world for a better tomorrow. Our objective when we make policy in New Zealand is not to be the median but to be the best so we should never use other countries' poor policy as a justification for our own.I think it was unfortunate the contrast that in the initial days of the lockdown west Auckland liquor stores remained open but this Parliament was shut.SPEAKER: Order! I'm now going to interrupt the member ask him to resume his seat and ask him to now speak to the motion before the House. It is not a general debate; it is a very narrow motion with an amendment.DAVID SEYMOUR: Well of course Mr Speaker and I think it's reasonable to give some context in which the Epidemic Response Committee was established and that is the context: Parliament was shut so it was necessary. I have to say that the Epidemic Response Committee performed exceptionally well but it's important to preface that statement with the fact that it will never be a substitute for democracy and this Parliament. It's important in a democracy that people are able to send a representative from their community or from their preferred party to represent and speak for them—that is almost the definition of a democracy. So we had to improvise and do it in the form of the Epidemic Response Committee.I think it's fair to say that the committee had an outsize and positive impact on the way that our country navigated—what many people say and it's hackneyed but it is true—an unprecedented crisis. The committee had the help of some expert witnesses and some very brave members of the public who told their story. The telling of stories and the injection of alternative perspectives on what was going on was very much needed as this country sought to navigate the crisis. Let me just give two examples of that. Professor Sir David Skegg put on notice to the whole country that we were not doing well enough with testing. He introduced us to the concept of planned epidemiological studies. As a result of his testimony we saw a massive shift in the operation and attitude of the Government towards testing. That was an example of a great contribution made by the Epidemic Response Committee. But also there was Bjorn and Lucy Reymer who bravely told the story of Lucy having a miscarriage left with a box of tissues alone in a room in hospital while her husband Bjorn was pacing in the car park outside unable to comfort her—the most natural thing to comfort one's partner in one of the most traumatic times—because of rules that were ridiculous that required scrutiny that actually would not have got the kind of attention they received had it not been for the bravery of them and many others testifying before the committee. We had people from business—I might mention Eve Lawrence who came and gave compelling testimony that the response of the Government was affecting the tourism industry and small to medium sized enterprises in general in a way that needed to be brought to light. So I think we should commend the responses—or the role at least played by the Epidemic Response Committee in contributing to our democracy.I reflect also on the composition of the committee because I think it actually is an opportunity to learn something about the role of select committees in our democracy and this is why I think it should continue. It's interesting that usually any select committee that has really important legislation you can guarantee has a majority of members of Parliament who are also members of the governing party—take firearms legislation sent to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. One of the results of that is that the outcome is very easy to predict. All one needs to know is what the Government's policy preferences are. The fact that this committee had a majority of Opposition members gave it a completely different tone and purpose from most important select committee deliberations. When I look at our country and its anaemic constitutional arrangements—no written constitution no Upper House no subnational Governments no states or provinces—I think actually we can learn a lot from the benefit of having a select committee that has the power to actually change legislation and drive the outcome from a perspective other than the Government majority. I'd put it to you Mr Speaker and I suspect you'd be sympathetic with this view that perhaps future Parliaments should actually learn from this experience and consider making select committee membership proportional to the non-executive members.SPEAKER: Order! This will be a very good speech on the report back of the Standing Orders Committee but we're not having a general discussion about the shape of the Parliament. That's the second warning.DAVID SEYMOUR: Well thank you Mr Speaker. Again I would put it to you that actually this does help build the case for why the committee should continue. Thank you though for your acknowledgment. The fact of the matter is that we can learn from this—New Zealand can learn from this wider experience.But I'd also put it to you and to the House that this crisis is far from over and that a Government will continue to attempt to manage the crisis with a clear eye on 19 September and that is the reason why—just as the Epidemic Response Committee was able to bring so many useful perspectives to national attention which drove the questions that journalists asked members of the Government in the early afternoon and ultimately drove the stories that New Zealanders were watching at 6 p.m.—we need to continue this committee throughout the remainder of this crisis so that we can have democracy so people can see their representatives putting forward alternative suggestions and solutions and questioning the responses that the Government puts in place. If it was important before in a way it's even more important now.It's particularly important while Parliament still remains under restricted operating circumstances. You see if the reason for having the Epidemic Response Committee was that Parliament was shut then that justification still partially remains. It still partially remains because we have a situation where we still do not have our Parliament fully seated and giving every member an opportunity to participate on an equal basis.In conclusion the Epidemic Response Committee has been a good example of this Parliament innovating through a crisis just as so many New Zealanders and their households and their businesses and their schools have had to innovate every single day of the last two months to survive. For that I commend the committee. But it's no substitute for this House to be sitting in full as it has in this country for 170 years. I'd put it to you that until the House can resume sitting fully and until the Government has finished operating in almost a wartime footing then the Epidemic Response Committee with an Opposition majority is essential and should remain. Thank you Mr Speaker.