Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you Madam Speaker. Prior to David Seymour speaking I wasn't planning on taking a call in this debate but something motivated me during the course of his speech. I'll stay away from the personal comments because I think we can all be a little bit bigger than that in the House today but I did want to address the importance of this motion.There's been quite a bit of heat and light in the House but also more broadly this week in terms of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020  and to a great degree members on this side understand that. We're living in extraordinary times and we accept and understand the fact that some of the powers included in that Act are powers that we would not wish to ordinarily see operating both in respect of the powers that Ministers receive under the Act and the powers of agencies such as the police. There are sound reasons for that which are canvassed in the debate about the bill in order that we might ensure the public health of New Zealanders and that we don't have the deaths and massive disruption of a further outbreak of COVID-19.But the point I want to make is that for members on this side of the House—who do take seriously the questions of the civil liberties of New Zealanders as I think all members of the House do—this is a serious and genuine proposal in order that there might be appropriate oversight of that piece of legislation and the powers that it allows. And I just acknowledge members in the House who seem to I think have gracefully responded to that. I can envisage that all members of the select committee to which this inquiry is referred will engage in that seriously. I do think it's appropriate that the bill is referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It's a large committee that includes all members from around the Chamber. It has significant expertise. It works well together as a committee.I want to specifically respond to the point that Mr Carter made which was a reasonable point to raise but I think it's easily dealt with. Yes we understand the Finance and Expenditure Committee is a busy committee but actually sending this piece of work to another committee doesn't particularly solve that problem. It's still work that has to be done by members of this House. It doesn't subtract or add anything different depending on the committee that it goes to. But it will in fact for both particularly the National and Labour and Green and New Zealand First parties—most parties around the Chamber—create considerable difficulties to be having to schedule members to be attending another select committee in addition to busy committees like the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I might also just gently note that one of the reasons that the Finance and Expenditure Committee is particularly busy next week is because leave was denied for it to meet yesterday but that's a little bit by the by.So I just want to leave members with the assurance—certainly from members from my party and I think from other members on this side of the House—that we put forward this motion in good faith because we think it is fair and reasonable that there is parliamentary oversight and consideration of these issues and that if the motion is successful in referring this inquiry to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that good faith will extend through to the way that that committee operates in terms of its oversight of this inquiry. Thank you Madam Speaker.