Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. This time I don't have a glass of water on the desk so that's at least a good thing. I want to raise an issue that has been brought to the attention of the House by way of an amendment from my colleague Simeon Brown and it relates to the provisions of clause 7 in Part 1 where there are new sections inserted—sections 11AA and 11AB—into the principal Act. These are the provisions that require when making COVID-19 orders under new section 11AB that the Minister must consult. Now consultation with ministerial colleagues is a logical and sensible thing and I don't think anyone would argue against that but amongst the list of people or office holders that must be consulted it says that the Minister must be satisfied that the order does not limit or is a justified limit on the rights and freedoms in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990;". These are serious situations that are being considered. So the Minister "must have consulted with the Prime Minister"—that makes sense—"the Minister for COVID-19 Response"—I think that makes sense—"the Minister of Justice"—that makes sense—"and the Minister of Health;"—that makes sense. Then at new section 11AA(1)(b) it says the Minister "may have consulted any other Minister as the Minister thinks fit;" and that's good as far as it goes. But there's one very notable omission from that list of people that the Minister must consult with and that is of course the Leader of the Opposition. We are in extraordinary times where the proper inspection and due diligence of parliamentary scrutiny has been put to one side and this piece of legislation that we're considering under urgency this morning is an example of that. One would have thought that in a Westminster democracy of the sort that we operate—or we thought we operated—under it would have been prudent to include in this piece of legislation at least an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to be consulted on matters that potentially impinge on the freedoms rights and obligations of New Zealand citizens.My question to the Minister is to why it would be that the Leader of the Opposition and potentially leaders of other political parties in the Parliament should not be consulted. What is the reason? In a democratic society in an open and transparent Government why wouldn't the Government of the day want to consult on these serious matters with the Leader of the Opposition and potentially leaders of other political parties represented in this Parliament? So my colleague Simeon Brown has an amendment on the Table that would move the following amendment and that is an amendment to clause 7. In that clause 7 he suggests at new section 11AA(1)(c)(ii) to insert a third option which is "must consult with the Leader of the Opposition" and I think that that makes perfect sense in a democracy where so many of the rights of individual New Zealanders are being put to one side. One could argue that there are good justifications for limiting the ability of New Zealanders to travel and for creating rules that insist that they be kept in a particular premise place or space for the benefit and overall safety of the wider community and all New Zealanders. But we must never forget that these are actually rights and obligations that are being impinged and we must do so sparingly and carefully and with due consideration. I would have thought that there is a very good argument that in this section of the legislation that we are considering today under urgency—without scrutiny of a select committee without input from other stakeholders or interested parties—it would make very prudent sense for the Leader of the Opposition to be included. So I think that my colleague Simeon Brown's amendment in this regard makes perfect sense and I'm keen to see whether the Minister agrees with us on this side."