Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this motion to continue the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. Just to put it into a bit of perspective for anyone who may have woken up switched on the telly and wondered why Parliament is sitting at 9 in the morning this motion is to continue the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act that very wisely has a self-extinguishing clause. So every 90 days if Parliament doesn't actively put it back in place then the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act extinguishes itself. I actually think all laws should have something like that—perhaps not every 90 days but if we had to look at the laws that we have on a periodic basis I suspect a lot of them would not be continued.Now the ACT Party I think it's fair to say has taken a constructive and consistent approach to this law throughout its life. We initially voted for it when it was introduced to first reading last year—I think it was last June. We did that because we saw that it was better for Parliament to write down what the law was than to have the Government making it up ad hoc. We know that for example the initial lockdown last March was actually illegal and the Attorney-General at that time was slammed as one of the worst performing Ministers by senior journalists at the end of the year because they couldn't get the paperwork right. That's been a theme throughout.So we thought look passing a law that actually tells people what the procedures are and what their rights are was consistent with a free society and we thought it would be good to have. But we also asked while this law was initially being debated last June if some concessions could be made. For example if somebody was going to be an enforcement officer under that law we wanted them to be accountable as well—totally unaccountable. ACT ended up opposing the law in the third reading because they weren't prepared to play ball.But once it was in place we said OK look we'll watch how the Government uses it and if they don't abuse the law then we'll keep voting to roll it over." So we have because we've felt that actually while there are many failings in the implementation we didn't feel that the Government had abused this COVID-19 Public Health Response Act and therefore we kept voting for it to continue.Today we're voting that it should not continue and there's a few reasons for that. Most of them stem from the way that it's recently been expanded and there's a couple of changes in the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Act (No 2) that was rushed through Parliament under great urgency just last month that I think are inconsistent with a free and democratic society. Now we heard Chris Hipkins and he's sort of like that guy in the cartoon that's got the angel on one shoulder and Beelzebub on the other. He knows that he wants to be a parliamentarian and a democrat and uphold the tenets of a free society but then someone goes and makes them do all this crazy stuff.One of them is the fact that this law now allows the Government to confiscate people's property. Actually when you read it carefully—and I don't know whether the Attorney-General has been through this whole saga to be honest—it actually allows the Government to direct a person to do particular things. I've had at least one QC tell me he thinks that arguably it is enslavement of citizens. Well I'll leave that to one side. The idea that the Government can just take a business's property beyond all the usual commandeering and emergency measures that Governments have already was deliberately set out as utu because the Government was in what I call a spat with the saliva testing company Rako Science. I just think that's disgraceful. I'm proud that this side of Parliament acted and our National Party friends actually stood up and said "That's wrong. We oppose it." because no one on that side of the bench could stand up for any kind of principle either because they weren't allowed to by somebody or perhaps they just hadn't seen it. I think that law has to fall.So that's the first reason. The Government shouldn't go around pinching people's stuff. In a free society the Government's supposed to stop other people pinching your stuff not join in with it which is what this Labour Government is now doing.The second thing I say is that in that law when it was amended last month were new provisions that a person can be made what's called an enforcement officer and that person can become a road-blocker for want of a better term. That person can go and set up a roadblock and stop other New Zealanders from exercising their New Zealand Bill of Rights Act ability to move freely about the country. That person can actually stop you going up North—perhaps to your home—and check your vaccination status. I think that that is absolutely wrong. The only time it's justified to have your New Zealand Bill of Rights Act right to move around the country limited is when it's justified in a free and democratic society. Now here's the thing: in a free and democratic society we have official advice from the Director-General of Health about what the public health requirements actually are. The Director-General of Health we now know because he told the Waitangi Tribunal—although the Government would never release public health advice within two weeks of receiving it to the rest of New Zealand. But the Waitangi Tribunal found out that just two weeks ago Ashley Bloomfield said that the Auckland border has served its purpose.So here's the question for the Government: why are they setting up these police- or is it iwi-led checkpoints? Is it the case that there is a public health need and that iwi are helping out as enforcement officers? Or is it the case that Hone Harawira who represents no one—and we've actually tested this because we had a general election and the people of Te Tai Tokerau voted him out—is saying "I'm going to do it anyway." and the Government has decided to save face by sending the cops along to babysit them?This stuff really matters at a constitutional level. It's not clear who is truly directing the police anymore. Are the police there because Hone Harawira has decided to set up a checkpoint or because Ashley Bloomfield thinks there's a public health justification? Well we know it's not Ashley so what by source of elimination is the remaining answer? Does this mean that anyone who's got a grievance against Government policy can block the roads and the cops will come along and help? Because if that's the case we have abandoned the conventions of the rule of law that have stood New Zealand in good stead for many generations and it's happened on that Attorney-General's watch. I think that is shameful. That's why this law cannot continue.But then there are wider questions around COVID management. Is this Government really still up to the task? I'm sure that the Labour members on the Government bench are getting some of the same public opinion research—well actually we know they are because we just received an Official Information Act response and it's a doozy—that is saying that the public no longer have faith in this Government's COVID response. That's the truth folks. That's the truth. Because they've watched a Government that thought that they had it all under control that Delta would never get here and if it did managed isolation and quarantine would stop it and if it got through the vaccines would be ready. None of that was true. So now it's helter-skelter.Now this morning Andrew Little actually had to call in to breakfast TV. You wouldn't believe this. I don't know; you guys probably don't know about this. He actually had to call in and dispute what the nurses are saying that actually the hospitals aren't fine—"We're very stressed because you just froze our pay as inflation took off." That's another wee problem with the COVID management response. You're so disorganised we don't have saliva testing in the hospitals at the right time. I mean the old health Minister went off mountain biking in the middle of a pandemic.The public the nurses everybody is losing confidence in this Government's management of COVID. It is so incoherent. There are so many things that just don't make sense. For example this law allows the Government to make rules about the response at the border. Now riddle me this: it's not safe for vaccinated negative-tested New Zealanders to come into the country and to isolate at home but it will be on 16 January. It is safe right now for New Zealanders who we know have COVID because the Government tested them and they were positive to isolate at home. So thousands of people are missing out on opportunities missing out on work—oh but here's the thing and here's this Attorney-General who has got so much to answer for. I hope he will get up and take a call. Because if you go to court and ask the right questions none of those rules apply to you. Who designed that law? Why isn't it consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? Well the courts don't think it is and they've got real trouble coming in the new year as one of my colleagues alluded to.So this Government doesn't deserve this law anymore. They are not competent or capable of managing it. The public increasingly see it and they are going to see more of the kind of defiance that they got from BusinessNZ this morning because everyone knows that this Government is trying to back out but its back's against the wall. That's why this law should be withdrawn. The Parliament shouldn't let them have it and I can't wait to see what's about to come. Thank you Mr Speaker."