Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the third reading of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. It's been quite a journey. I voted for the first two readings of this bill for a couple of reasons. It's better to have a law passed by Parliament that's been debated even if urgently that people can look to and know their rights. There was a chance as this legislation progressed through the stages that it could be made of sufficient quality that people really could rely on it to protect their rights. That was the hope. Unfortunately as the debate on this bill has progressed more and more dark downsides of the legislation have been revealed and the Government has by and large failed to make the amendments that might have been helpful for protecting New Zealanders' rights and freedoms. That is a great shame.Let us put on the record what some of those problems are. The range of restrictions that can be placed on New Zealanders—how they can move where they can be who they can see and what sort of things can be moved in and out of a space or kept in a place—is almost limitless. The only restriction on that as the Attorney-General has said is if you've got enough money you can go to court for a judicial review. If anyone's wondering the going rate on the street for a judicial review is about 60 grand. Not every New Zealander has a spare 60 grand to stand up for their legal rights.Then we come to how this law is put in place—or how these orders are put in place. It's partly the director-general and partly the Minister of Health. As we debated earlier the powers of the unelected director-general almost completely overlap the powers of the elected Minister of Health. Well there should be accountability.Then we come to the enforcement. The most extraordinary thing is that the bill as introduced allows the Director-General of Health to raise a rabble of enforcement officers. Originally it was anybody can be appointed with the power to go around telling their fellow citizens what to do issuing fines and potentially landing you in jail if you disobey them. Then they said OK that is outrageous. We'll just make it people that work for the Government." The ACT Party said "Well if you're going to do that at the very least there should be an accountability mechanism for the people that are the victims of misconduct by these enforcement officers." The Attorney-General said "Don't worry. All State employees are accountable." But there remains no complaint process and no accountability for the director-general who unleashes these people. And by the way it says "employees or those engaged by the State"; so who knows what that will mean in reality.And then in the case of enforcement officers and constables they can come into any building or property in the former case and in the case of constables into a private house. I thought Erica Stanford the MP for East Coast Bays put it very well when she pointed out that under this law the protections against entry and search by the police will now be stronger for the Hell's Angels on their pad than they will be for a suspected birthday party of 11 kids. How crazy is that?So I can't support this legislation but I can say I've spoken on it more than any member of this House other than the member in charge. We've engaged properly. We've tried to make it better and we can't get there.Then we come to the politics. Where have the Green Party been? Nowhere. Nothing. Marama Davidson got up and said there have been improvements to the bill. What she forgot to say is they were proposed by the Opposition. What about New Zealand First? They've got to be one of the most politically lazy parties in this Parliament. They have done nothing. Stood by. Nada. They haven't intervened; haven't done a thing to stand up for civil liberties when it's really counted. I hope that New Zealanders reward them for that as they deserve on 19 September. Thank you Madam Speaker."