Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. I just want to take it up a level and acknowledge the really huge sacrifice that the country has been through over the last few weeks and the profound impact that is going to have on us as a country for a very long time to come. I want to reflect back that a sense of anxiety has lessened on the whole and we're seeing this in terms of some of the feedback from surveys. People were really really anxious as we were going into level 4 and deeply worried about their own safety. We were hearing that on a regular basis and how that has reduced over time as we've seen the numbers shift from going up so dramatically to coming down to the point where we are now. That's been because we've all worked together to be able to achieve this and it is a significant achievement for us as a country and I really want to acknowledge everyone's efforts to get to this point. Over this period of time we've been supported by the Health Act and the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act to enable our police system as well as our ministries to be able to act to ensure that the guidelines were kept to to be able to keep all of us safe. But the advice that we've had is that actually that is less certain going into level 2—that the legal framework does not support the enforcement that we may need. Let's hope we don't need it but actually I've seen parties happening not that far from me and the need for intervention from the police and that's been in a situation where there are really high levels of anxiety. As we hope that that anxiety continues to decline there is an increased chance that people will relax to a point that they act inconsistently with our collective interests. We need to have the tools to be able to intervene to ensure that our sacrifice wasn't for nothing and to ensure our safety into the future and that is what this piece of legislation is about.Of course it's not ideal that this is not going to a select committee. Of course all of us would want that to happen in the ideal circumstances. I suspect there is still an understanding that this has been a rapidly evolving situation and that we are moving into level 2 on Thursday and we need to get that legal certainty before we do. That's why the Green Party accepted the proposal of having an exposure draft go to the Opposition and to key experts: to be able to get that feedback to ensure that we were having those broader sets of eyes and perspectives to make amendments which will be debated in the committee stage. We've seen some really good feedback come through that process and changes I understand will be happening and that gives us a level of confidence with this.I also do want to recognise on a principle level those concerns about the powers that are in this legislation. People are right to be very conscious of that. This is not something any Government or Parliament should consider lightly. Warrantless entry into dwellings is a significant power and it needs proper scrutiny. This is the reason it's in here: because we are in exceptional circumstances and this is what we've been told in terms of—Nicola Willis: What's wrong with a warrant?JAN LOGIE: Because the warrant may just take too long to be able to ensure. I will just say that what's happened with this is that they've been confined to situations where police have reasonable grounds that a gathering is occurring that breaches the rules—so it's not limitless—that has been brought in and that they may only enter the premises if it is necessary to direct people to disperse. It is not a broad power for warrantless entry. I think that's really important to note because if you think about that—they've got reasonable grounds in terms of people not abiding by the conditions of level 4 and they believe they need to disperse people—that's a safety issue. In the context we're in at the moment and what we've been through and what we're heading into we need to be putting safety first. It's a simple principle.I'd also point that the bill is structured to support a graduated approach to different breaches of rules that we are supportive of and that the purpose includes a subsection that states that the enforceable measures in the bill are there to support voluntary measures. It includes an infringement regime which allows a non-criminal pathway for offending. We hope that that will be supported by warnings which is what we've been seeing in the practice up to this point but it gives the police and enforcement agencies further options in terms of intervening so that things don't escalate unnecessarily. There are significant democratic checks on the orders made including being referred to the Regulations Review Committee and a necessary confirmation vote by Parliament if they are to last more than a month or two and the bill also has a sunset clause of two years. This is not a piece of legislation that has been drafted lightly without consideration of the seriousness of this issue. If we are considering the safety of our country though what we've been told is that we need those powers to be able to intervene and to have this legal certainty to be able to support that action. I just can't understand—with some of the Opposition views coming through that I've heard saying that this just isn't necessary to move to level 2 and we don't need this legislation—how anybody could consider that that is responsible or reflective of the huge sacrifice that's been made and the efforts that are going to be required to protect the gains from that sacrifice. The Greens are supporting this legislation.