SpeechHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House has just fundamentally misrepresented the National Party's position on this bill.SPEAKER: Oh careful.Hon TIM MACINDOE: The National Party has not suggested for a moment that all of the risks have gone that there is no need whatsoever to have any restraints. And then the Leader of the House went on to suggest that this bill is necessary to enable New Zealand to move into level 2. Well that is absolute nonsense. This is not the first time that we will have been in level 2 for a start. And the most important thing to note is the fact that despite what he was trying to suggest then we are now on a sharply downwards trajectory having made significant changes to our considerable cost as a nation but for the gains that we are now so proud of. So this is about ensuring that we move into a level 2 where the nation can get back to work resurrect as many livelihoods as possible in a safe and appropriate way and that's what we are supporting. We're not suggesting for a moment to forget about the last few weeks and just go back to life as normal. We can't do that. No one has been arguing that; certainly not on this side. Now ordinarily as those who are watching or listening at the moment will know—and there are a number of people who do follow Parliament regularly—we would in a second reading debate be focusing on the work of the select committee. We would as members of the select committee be traversing the opinions that we heard both in written and oral submissions from those who chose to have their voices heard on this particular bill and we'd talk about the questions that we ask. We'd talk about the advice that we received from officials. And we're very well served in our select committees by our officials. We have a very fine Public Service and I wonder if I could just take this opportunity very quickly to thank the public servants throughout the country who have served us so well during the lockdown. I think in particular of Sam and Alma the electorate officials who have been wonderful in the way they've responded to the many emails and calls that they've received from electorate MPs and other MPs and our office staff and I want to thank them; those who have worked in the different Government departments who have responded to the many concerns—in many cases very distressing concerns—we have brought to their attention. I think of Michael Appleton in the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and what a fine public servant he is. I shouldn't probably name them—there are too many to name—but I want to say thank you to all those public servants. I know they've worked so hard. We heard the huge pressure that the Ministry of Social Development was under as they were working on the wage subsidy applications and all sorts of other things. So I did want to make that point.As I say in a second reading we would normally have had the opportunity to reflect on what happened in the select committee and how that process would enable us to improve the bill. Well here we're having a second reading where there hasn't been any select committee process. Apparently the Attorney-General did advocate for one so I hope that we're going to hear why it didn't happen. Was he overruled? Did he change his mind? But whatever the reason was we haven't had the opportunity.Now we recognise the fact that when you're dealing with a bill under urgency you don't have a lot of time. But even if half a day had been set aside for that purpose we would then have had the opportunity to hear not just from submitters but also from legal academics from people with expertise in public law from commentators in the media and elsewhere—all of whom along with the officials would have increased our understanding of the issues sharpened our ability to hone in on what needed to be done to recommend to the House and to the Government how this bill could be changed. But of course we have been denied all of that opportunity. So in the absence of a select committee process to report and consider the second reading debate I assume will have to just try to ascertain what the Government's thinking was what processes they've been through. And it is fair I think therefore to look back on their management of the issue to date in order to ascertain what it is that they think they now need to do. Well the Hon Michael Woodhouse said earlier and he was quite right that the National Party had called on the Government to take all sorts of action well before they did. And the Leader of the House was talking a moment ago about the things that the National Party had urged seven weeks ago and we don't resile from any of that. I'm proud of the fact that we called on the Government to shut down our borders well before the Government did that we called on them to effect appropriate checks of those who were coming across the border. We called on them to instigate an appropriate testing regime to provide more personal protective equipment across the country wherever it was needed. So those are the sorts of issues that a level 2 period still needs to be aware of. We don't want to throw any of that away. All responsible New Zealanders wish to continue to lock in the gains. It's a phrase we've heard a lot recently and I don't know of a single New Zealander who doesn't want us to build on where we've got to where we're at to continue to ensure that New Zealand has a proud record in dealing with COVID.We know that the threat will be there for some time to come. So this bill is the Government's attempt to suggest presumably the only way that the issue can be dealt with but it leads to dreadful anomalies. It leads to some appalling constraints on civil liberties which cannot be justified. And others have mentioned including myself in particular our deep distress at the impact on tangihanga on funerals on worship in all religious traditions not just Christianity but Judaism Islam Sikhism Hinduism you name it. We're a very multi-cultural country and all those places of worship are now being told that only 10 people will be able to gather for worship under this particular bill despite the ridiculous anomaly that contact sports with much greater numbers of people will be possible that much larger numbers of people will be able to go to the cinema that they will be able to gather in restaurants and if they are large restaurants—which will have much larger numbers of people. So if nothing else changes in the remaining stages of this particular bill's passage through the House could I urge the Government to think very carefully about that unfair constraint that is being put on our places of worship and in particular the devastating cruel impact it's having on those who are preparing for the funerals of those whom they love.I mentioned a constituent earlier who's in this position. He had expected that with his father's funeral on Thursday many members of the extended family and friends would be able to gather together—obviously observing safe physical distancing which they would have done but in a way that would have helped with the healing process that comes through mourning together. And now they're in this awful position as are so many other New Zealand families of being told they're not going to be able to do that under level 2. There is no good reason for that. I'm going to continue to hammer it because nobody has yet justified why that should be so. Of course it's natural to want to hug somebody at a time of distress but people should be trusted to understand that that wouldn't be possible at a funeral under level 2. But to suggest that they can't be trusted and therefore they can't even get together is outrageous and we continue to object to that very very strongly.I may have been distracted earlier when the Attorney-General was speaking in his second reading speech. I hope that he will make clear whether—and it's ironic because he is the Attorney-General—there will be a section 7 vetting of this particular bill under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Hon David Parker: There has been.Hon TIM MACINDOE: There has been?Hon David Parker: Yep.Hon TIM MACINDOE: And has the Minister been the judge and jury in his own particular issue?Hon David Parker: No no.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Right. OK. Well I'm pleased to hear that assurance because New Zealanders do respect the rule of law as David Seymour was suggesting earlier and they are concerned when some people take the law into their own hands. And one of the things that is a concern arising under this bill is the possibility that vigilantism and undesirable intimidatory tactics by say gangs as we have seen in some pockets of New Zealand in recent weeks will effectively be condoned because of the wording of this legislation. Now for an elderly couple who are legitimately going about their business—say going to the shops or off for a short trip to the beach or whatever—to be stopped by pretty intimidating young strong people who are effectively telling them to go back is a very frightening experience and that must not be allowed to happen.We are therefore seeking a very clear assurance from the Government in the remaining stages of this particular bill that only Crown agencies such as the Police and Customs will be permitted to carry out—