SpeechBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Chair. Well in response then to the Minister's comments—his comment first of all that this bill is a narrower set of powers—he gave the example of the requirement to report on a warrantless entry. Well quite frankly that's a good safeguard; that's actually a really good idea. But back to my earlier point: why not make that an amendment into the Health Act or into the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act for that matter too? And it could also be limited particularly to a health epidemic or indeed to COVID-19 and it could even have a sunset clause. But if it is important and actually I think it is important the Government would have been better-off making that amendment in the existing Acts; not creating an entirely new framework.So another set of questions for the Minister given he claims that this is a reduced set of powers. It's pretty simple: for New Zealanders what lockdown meant is the Government could tell them what to do. The Government effectively told them to stay at home. It told them the conditions under which they could leave their homes whether it was to access an essential service such as a supermarket to go to the pharmacy or to go and get some exercise—and the Government placed constraints on what that exercise could be where it could be how far they could travel by vehicle for the purpose of exercise. The Government determined what businesses could open not even actually under a framework of principle-base but actually the Government decided individually which business could open and which business could not. The Government was able effectively to lock down the country in level 3 and 4 that we've experienced and the provisions in this bill enable them to do the same things. There is the ability under this bill if it is enacted to place the same level of constraints on people's freedom of movement their freedom of association—the Government can lock them up in their homes under the provisions of this bill should it choose to.What is more it's actually worse—the powers are greater—because while the Government may have to give regard to advice from the Director-General of Health it does not have to follow it whereas—and I'm going to slightly impinge into Part 2 just by reference—under the existing legislation it is the Director-General of Health that makes those decisions not the Government. So actually they're giving themselves more power and taking the power away—or lessening the power—of the apolitical and unelected officials who New Zealanders can have the trust in to make decisions without a political tinge. Rather than as the Minister has said making it more accountable this simply makes it more political.But to that point which the Minister made about these somehow being more constrained powers they simply are not—not to the everyday effect of New Zealanders that they have felt for the last six or seven weeks. The Government if this bill is enacted can do all of the things it did to New Zealanders over that period under this bill and it allows them to do it outside of the existing legal frameworks which do provide limitations on the power of Government and what is more require the decisions to be made without a political tinge. So I find it quite astounding that the Minister who must know these things would seek to make such a claim in this House. This is a truly serious matter. This is not about limiting Government response; this is about empowering any politically founded response that they may choose to do so.Also because of course these provisions or these powers can be unlocked at the whim of a Prime Minister who just decides that they will move into a state which allows these further protections for New Zealanders from political meddling are actually removed because she or he could choose to do so counter to advice from officials including the Director-General of Health. This is not a bill that is securing the civil liberties of New Zealanders; it is completely undermining them in a way that lessens the safeguards and constraints that the existing framework places.I do agree with the Minister that there are gaps in the current frameworks for what we see as level 2 and possibly even level 1 but I don't believe he has justified why an entirely new framework and law is required.