Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'd like to come back to this question of clause 7. There's a couple of claims that the Minister has made. The Minister has said these powers to take away people's property—to effectively enslave laboratories that provide COVID-19 testing—will only be used if we really really need them. But one of the things that's important here is that this Parliament is making laws—it's what the law says that matters not what the Minister promises.Now this law I've just been trying to see—and perhaps the Minister can explain to us—where's the bit that guarantees us that this power will only be used if it's really necessary because what I read here is that the director-general may make these COVID19 orders. Well look it says the director-general must be satisfied the order is urgently needed is the most appropriate way; the director-general must be satisfied the order does not limit or is a justified limit on rights and freedoms; the director-general must be satisfied the order is appropriate to achieve the purpose of the Act. It seems to me that only one person is really charged under law with deciding if it's truly an emergency or needs to be used. There don't seem to be any requirements written down here that anyone else gets to judge whether it was right to take people's stuff. It seems to me that it's really just up to one person and that's not the rule of law. We've already talked about the fact that they can't go and appeal any court decisions; they've taken away the rights of appeal which is pretty incredible. But it seems to me that there is actually just one decision maker here; there's no standards to see what might possibly invoke this law.Here's the next thing: as we heard from Erica Stanford and Chris Bishop for that matter in normal commercial relations you just make a deal. So here's the scenario: you are trying to make a deal in normal commercial relations but one party has a piece of law passed by this Parliament which says at any time you can just say Look if you don't like my terms we could always invoke section 11 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act and simply say that we've decided that it's really important that we have these powers it's really important that we have this equipment because we need it for an emergency so we'll take it anyway. Now is that your final offer?" The fact is that even if these powers aren't used—and this is something that I think the Minister needs to explain whether he's considered—they change the dynamics of any kind of bargaining with the State because suddenly one actor has this incredible power that in normal commerce you wouldn't have.Another question for the Minister: no doubt the Minister will say "Oh but this is normal. We have emergency powers. Everyone knows that if there's an earthquake you can commandeer someone's car to use as a makeshift ambulance to take someone—" We understand all that. So here's the question that I think the Minister needs to get up and answer: what powers already exist? Why aren't the powers in the Health Act 1956 and the emergency powers in the Civil Defence Act not adequate to deal with this problem he talks about? And if they're not what extra powers are in this law that aren't in those laws and what restraints are contained in those laws that won't be constrained here? Because he can't have it both ways. He can't say "Oh this is perfectly normal. This is what we do in emergencies. We take people's stuff all the time. No problem—nothing to see here" and then say "Oh but we need to pass this extra law in order to be able to get the stuff that we need in a particular circumstance." So there's really two questions here: first of all what restraints other than the director-general saying he's satisfied are actually put in place on this power? Because it seems that the only restraint is that the director-general has to be satisfied. And second of all if these powers exist in other civil defence and health legislation what is it that this legislation does that gives additional power?And I'll just finish by picking up on a remark from Erica Stanford which was a very good one: what is it about this Government that makes it so pathologically unable to engage in commerce with business—that when they talk about needing a contingency and needing supply they can't go and sit down around the table and nut out a deal respecting people's dignity and property rights as equals? What is it that's so pathological about this Government that they need to resort to force to get what they want? Because if they keep on doing that you know what they're going to find? They're going to find that people with ingenuity and creativity and drive don't have to play the game or not in New Zealand anyway and what they're going to do with their succession of laws that resort to force and pathology instead of working together constructively and partnering—a word they usually like to make much of—is they're going to make New Zealand a poorer weaker more dismal place with this kind of legislation. I hope they'll stop."