Salesa Jenny; Bishop ChrisClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we now come to our final debate which is on clauses 1 and 2. The question is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part.CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'm just trying to find—Hon Chris Hipkins: It's the title and commencement.CHRIS BISHOP: Yes I realise that. I'm just trying to—Hon Members: Ha ha!CHRIS BISHOP: I realise clause 1 is the title; I was just making sure I got the wording right which is the No 2—COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2).This bill and the title of the bill is an unfortunate day for the Parliament because what this House is doing is passing into law—soon going to pass into law because we're under extended hours; we're into the third reading this afternoon—a bill that does two obnoxious things. Firstly it continues the obnoxious abhorrent system of managed isolation and quarantine for much longer than is necessary; and secondly it puts into law obnoxious provisions that allow the Government to steal private property under very dubious circumstances.So the bill is misnamed. It's very anodyne in its current form; it's banally worded—the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2). It should really be better named the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Theft of Private Property) Amendment Bill."Hon Member: Abrogation of rights.CHRIS BISHOP: My colleague says abrogation of rights. Thank you very much; that was going to be my next point. I wasn't going to put it quite—Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Madam Chair the member knows full well as does I'm sure the committee the Standing Orders are very clear as are Speakers' rulings that debates on title and commencement must be specifically on that matter and cannot be used as a way to criticise or critique the content of the bill.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Relevance is something that the Chair rules on. Thank you for your assistance Kieran McAnulty. CHRIS BISHOP: Thank you for adroitly pointing out that I was speaking specifically about the appropriateness of the title. I accept it's a narrow debate but I'm talking specifically about what the bill should or should not be called. Clause 1 is the title clause 2 is the commencement and the title of the bill is misnamed. It's inappropriately named because it's a very banal title for a very serious bill. That's my critical point and the first of my no doubt many contributions on this particular clause.It is an inappropriately titled bill. For a bill of such significance that does so many serious things there should be the proper title and proper words in the title that make it—Hon Louise Upston: Which we will be tabling amendments for shortly.CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah well my colleague Louise Upston is in a fiery mood this morning and she points out that the Opposition will be tabling amendments in relation to this.Hon Dr Megan Woods: Are you going for the deputy leadership Chris?CHRIS BISHOP: What's that?Hon Dr Megan Woods: Are you going for the deputy leadership?CHRIS BISHOP: Ha ha! I tell you the member who's just making that rude interjection certainly will never be the deputy leader of the Labour Party not after the—although having said that Kelvin Davis is doing such a shoddy job at the moment. "Where's Kelvin?" they call him up north; he's disappeared off the face of the earth.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Point of order Chris Bishop—come back to the bill please.CHRIS BISHOP: Was that a ruling? Was there a point of order? [Interruption] Oh OK. Well anyway. Sorry Madam Chair I was provoked by the Government frontbencher. Anyway the point is—Hon Dr Megan Woods: If you're going to filibuster you have to up your game so take calls.CHRIS BISHOP: Well again I certainly won't be taking advice on filibustering from that member who is not renowned for the filibuster; I'll take advice on filibustering from the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Chris Hipkins who's at least a parliamentarian performer but I won't take it from Megan Woods—Dr Megan Woods.Anyway the point I was making was that for a bill that is actually of significant importance in relation to rights and freedoms it should be better named. And so there should be a recognition in the bill title that this has a big impact on a lot of New Zealanders. It's not every day that Parliament passes laws that arguably are in contravention of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We don't do that very often; we do that on a very rare basis. I acknowledge that there's no section 7 report from the Attorney-General—that he's concluded that the bill is in accordance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but I disagree and I think a lot of legal academics would say otherwise and a lot of legal experts would say otherwise and that's the whole point of a parliamentary bill of rights.My simple point is that the bill should be better titled to reflect the significance of the rights that we are imposing upon. Thank you."