Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to stand and speak in support of the amendment to the motion that was tabled by the Hon Michael Woodhouse. So instead of disestablishing the Epidemic Response Committee it would be to have the Epidemic Response Committee remain for as long as the alert level remains at or above level 2 with consequent restrictions on the operations of Parliament and the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act has not been repealed and that the select committee convene weekly.At the start of this crisis and as my colleagues have said clearly it's been a crisis—a one-in-100-year occurrence—the then Leader of the Opposition the Hon Simon Bridges committed us as the Opposition to be constructive. If I look at the number of issues that have been raised in a very respectful way by experts—and some of those have been mentioned here today—whether it was Professor Skegg the former Chief Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman whether it was economists or actually whether it was industry organisations that wouldn't otherwise have had a voice I firmly believe that the ability for those to be represented actually enabled a stronger response from the Government which is what all of us wanted as a country. So you know at the time it was really interesting because lots of constituents said Why is there not a war Cabinet? Why are there not daily briefings by members of the Opposition by their counterparts?" And the answer was "Well no. Parliament has created the Epidemic Response Committee which allows for three days a week in an open and transparent way for the New Zealand public to participate in the dialogue as well." which I actually think was and has been really significant. As my colleague said Parliament still is operating under restrictions and to not have every member of Parliament able to sit in this Chamber and to take their place and participate in our democracy is a significant challenge. My colleagues have mentioned written questions which is the normal vehicle and Official Information Act requests. Legislation that the Government has been considering around the COVID-19 response hasn't required regulatory impact assessment. So a lot of the mechanisms of a normal scrutiny of Parliament haven't been in place and are still not in place as well as the fact that Parliament also isn't operating in its normal manner. Back in the electorates electorate offices aren't all able to open to be staffed to serve the constituents. Even simple functions like recruitment by the Parliamentary Service can't operate in the normal manner. So it is really important in dealing with this one-in-100-year event that the public have the confidence in the Parliament operating in a way that's clearly different because it is restricted. But Parliament needs to be able to have an alternative mechanism while these restrictions are in place to enable and to ensure that there is some scrutiny and actually as my colleagues have given examples that scrutiny has meant changes—the Government moving shifting and those decisions have been in the long-term interests of New Zealand.So whether it's on providing more data and evidence—and at first we didn't see anything in terms of Ministry of Social Development data. We hadn't seen anything from Treasury. That came which was really helpful and I think it's been fantastic to see that data on a weekly basis and it should continue because it's important not just as a Parliament but as a public that we are informed about what's happening as a result of this crisis. Things like personal protective equipment (PPE)—there wouldn't be a member of Parliament in this place who wasn't bombarded by very very concerned members of the public who were working as essential services essential workers on the front line who didn't have access to PPE. We were able collectively to raise these issues and ensure that people who were at the front line doing critical work had PPE which was important for them. It was important for their families when they saw their mum dad sister auntie or whoever go off to work each day and it was really critical for the people that were being served whether it was an older worker whether it was a midwife—numerous examples that were shared. So it is really important. Yes some of us are standing here. Yes Parliament is operating in a limited way and also in terms of functioning democracy. I'm pleased the limit was lifted but we are still only allowed gatherings of up to 100 people. So if you think that democracy is operating and there is the ability for members of Parliament to do their roles we can't. We can't function in the same way that we used to. Michael Wood is looking surprised. Well I'm sorry but actually to have 100 people at a public meeting at a gathering at a time of a one-in-100-year crisis you expect that the public would have the ability to engage with you as their member of Parliament whichever party you are in this House. Whichever party it is in the House the public don't get the ability for the Parliament to function and the MPs to function in the same way they did before COVID. So the Epidemic Response Committee should remain while those restrictions are in place. Michael Wood I'm surprised that you're shaking your head because the number of people who came to the Epidemic Response Committee and they'll be small businesses large industries that weren't represented otherwise that fell between the cracks—I think of the event industry. That's a critical one in my electorate. Do they go to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment? Do they go to the tourism Minister? Do they go to the Minister for Sport and Recreation? Do they go to the Minister of Health? Oh no because actually a letter I wrote to the Minister of Health six weeks ago I still haven't even had an acknowledgment for. Right? So as a member of the public or an industry association having a voice and having a platform in the Epidemic Response Committee was critical. We want to make sure on this side of the House that they still have that voice. There are still restrictions in place. There are still restrictions in terms of funerals. There are still restrictions in terms of the number of people who can visit a loved one in hospital. There are still restrictions on gatherings. There are still restrictions on Parliament. That's why as the Opposition we want to make sure that the Epidemic Response Committee still has a role. It's played a really important role and for that I acknowledge every member of Parliament who's been on it. I'm really quite disappointed that the Government doesn't think that we are still in a crisis and that we should still have a mechanism for this Parliament to scrutinise the decisions and to enable more voices to appear when legislation even tomorrow is being put on the Table rammed through all stages. Actually it could have gone to the Epidemic Response Committee even for a week. That would be a sensible responsible logical thing for the most open and transparent Government of our times to do. So I'm supporting the amendment."