Andersen VirginiaVIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak on this bill which has already been mentioned as being an interestingly named one—Freedom of Access" when it's exactly the antithesis of that. This bill has three main things that it sets out to achieve. First of all people who obstruct enforcement officers or fail to give their correct name and address can be arrested without a warrant. It also widens the scope in which an enforcement officer can remove and seize property.Let's look at the background of this bill. In 2007 we had an international movement by the name of Occupy and this bill which was first brought to the House under the name of the member Mike Sabin was drafted in response to a series of occupations we saw across New Zealand. We saw them in Aotea Square Christchurch Dunedin and also here in Wellington. It was part of a global protest movement after the Occupy Wall Street occupation happened. It was a protest that brought global attention to its cause and that cause was economic inequality. It was part of the public response to the global financial crisis which left many people without money. It was part of the public protest around the subprime mortgage crisis which left many people homeless. It was part of a global push to protest against economic inequality.So let's get this straight: the National Party's response to New Zealand's participation in a protest about corruption about the perceived undue influence of corporations on government is to increase the powers of authorised officers to seize property and to arrest people who don't give their correct name and address. If I have ever seen a piece of legislation that shows the true colours of the National Party—in terms of their inability to understand inequality their inability to understand the rights of New Zealanders to protest and the sheer out-of-touch nature of what this National Party shows.But wait there's more—there's more—and it's not a set of steak knives. Local government powers are already able to do this. So what it's trying to do is put in extra powers where the Local Government Act already provides for an offence to obstruct local council officers. Furthermore the Local Government Act already enables officers to seize and obtain property in a public place that's in breach of a by-law.So here's the final nail in the coffin: the only difference between the existing law and what this member's bill provides is that it's failed its New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. The member's own colleague the former Attorney-General the Hon Christopher Finlayson has ruled as the Attorney-General that it is inconsistent with section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Let's have a look at what that says in section 22: "[Everybody] has the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained."—because this protects human dignity. So this bill attempts to override section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in order to do that.So to wrap up let's get down to the point that if there is economic inequality if there is social unrest people have a right to be able to protest and that is why the Labour Party does not support this bill. We believe that people have a right to protest. This bill is an embarrassment to the National Party because it gives an insight into their true colours the idea that you can sweep it under the carpet if it looks a bit messy. Well that doesn't wash here. If people want to protest whether it be in Moutoa Gardens Aotea Square or outside my front door there is a right for people in New Zealand to do that and no two-bit limp-wristed member's bill is going to have a crack at section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That is why I will not be supporting this member's bill and nor will the Labour Party."