Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well thank you very much Mr Chair. Debating Part 1 of this bill I'd like to first make some comments about clause 3 Repeal of this Act". Originally as introduced the bill would've been carte blanche for two years and it's very difficult to understand what the logic behind that was. It seems to be that the COVID crisis might continue for two years and that's how long the Government might want to use the powers afforded it in the bill. I think that possibly reveals something about the thinking behind the bill that we should be very worried about because it seems that rather than doing what might've made sense to put in place this urgently made bill only for as long as it would take for Parliament to revisit and make a proper law it was just a matter of seeking power for the State or the Government for the period that the Government thought it might want it. I think that is first of all a real mistake but second of all betrays that throughout this crisis we've had an approach by the Government that is more about having the power to fight a virus than balancing all of the rights freedoms and objectives of New Zealanders.As ACT we put up amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 494 that would at least reduce the expiry date or the period of this bill back to one year from when it's passed. I think that would've been an improvement. I'm really pleased to see that there has been another amendment put up by the National Party which I have to say is even better which requires 90-day renewals of the bill by this House. So it could actually expire on any 90-day period until two years when it definitely expires anyway. I see the Government's adopted those amendments in its amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 497 and I completely support those. So it's a good improvement but it doesn't take away that suspicion that we got a look into the mind of the Government through its initial drafting.We then come to clause 4 which is the purpose and for people who may be watching this on a Wednesday morning or may not have read the whole thing or had a chance to do that—it's all come at us very quickly—it's worth saying: "The purpose of this Act is to support a public health response to COVID-19 that—(a) prevents and limits the risk of the outbreak … (b) avoids mitigates or remedies the actual … potential adverse effects … (c) is co-ordinated orderly and proportionate; … (d) has enforceable measures". What's really interesting about that is that once again it appears to give some insight into the psychology of the Government as it faces this crisis. Yes COVID-19 is something that we should want to be able to mitigate. Yes it may be that if people overwhelmingly are being cooperative there should be out of fairness enforcement powers for those one or two people at the fringe that do stupid things and risk becoming a super-spreader for example and letting everyone else down. That's all understandable.But what's interesting is that the purpose here is entirely about COVID; it's not about balancing the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders or securing New Zealand's overall welfare in the face of this crisis—and that seems to reflect the approach that the Government has taken throughout. What the Government could've said the purpose of this bill is is to balance the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders and their overall welfare the ability to preserve their livelihood with the Government's effort to fight the spread of COVID-19. The only concession we see to normal rights and freedoms in the purpose clause of this bill that clause 4 is that it needs to be proportional. Well I understand what that means but it's a very weak concession to the fact that we have other objectives not just fighting COVID-19. That is not everything. People have other things that are important and other rights and freedoms to be preserved. I hope to be able to continue that commentary with what it should've said in some detail in a future speech.What that purpose clause could've said is that the purpose of this Act is to ensure that the Government manages the COVID crisis in a balanced way that respects the rights freedoms and livelihoods of New Zealanders as well as the necessity of fighting COVID-19. Some people might say "Well yes but of course the Government has to do that and any Government would of course balance things out." That's not the point. This legislation is passed by Parliament to direct and constrain the Government and what we have is a piece of legislation that says the Government can do whatever it wants so long as it is pursuing the objective of opposing COVID-19. The only concession to any kind of fairness or justice is that word "proportional" and I'd put it to the Minister in the chair David Parker and to this committee that that is simply not good enough if we want to ensure a balanced approach.I think there's ample evidence in the way that this crisis has played out so far that we simply have not balanced all of the other objectives that New Zealanders have with the objective of fighting COVID-19. We can look at the total reluctance of the Government in earlier lockdown phases to consider for example the welfare of those butchers bakers and fresh fruit and veggie stores. The Government was quite happy to have people driving past those stores in their communities that were going broke so that they could mingle in a supermarket with 50 other people. We've had as I mentioned in the first reading speech to this bill couples where the wife was having a miscarriage left sobbing alone for hours in an empty room at a hospital. The partner who should've been there supporting her who wanted to be there supporting her desperately was pacing in the car park unable helpless to do anything. Why? Because in the Government's response to this crisis there simply has not been a commitment to balancing the other objectives that New Zealanders have with the objective of fighting COVID-19.We need an approach that says COVID is a problem but it's not our only problem. We want to balance it with other problems that New Zealanders face and the purpose clause much as with the repeal clause of this bill seems to give an insight into the psychology of the Government that drafted it: COVID is everything to them control is everything to them and that is not the way to get an optimal outcome for a better response to this crisis. So I'd put it to the Minister that when he drafted this section he should've drafted it in a way that said the purpose is yes to establish controls over COVID-19 but also to ensure that when the Government acts under the authority of this bill and this Parliament it has to have regard to those other needs that there are. It's only a purpose statement. You know it only gives the underlying psychology of the legislation. There's no reason why it couldn't have said that.We then get on to the interpretation section and in particular the most interesting part—normally interpretation sections are not sections of great interest in legislation I have to say but the enforcement officer definition is very interesting because initially it appeared that the Government wanted anybody to be brought up as an enforcement officer. It could've been a so-called community group operating a checkpoint or a roadblock—no one seems to know the difference anymore. It could've been just about any group of New Zealanders the director-general appointed to enforce these incredible powers against their fellow citizens. I'm pleased to see the Government has clarified and in the Supplementary Order Paper 497 that the Government's tabled it now has to be somebody from a Crown entity. Well that is something of an improvement a small improvement but again the initial drafting appears to give an insight into the psychology and motivations of this Government and their approach to New Zealanders' basic rights and freedoms.I can't wait to continue this Part 1 discussion but I've got to get on Newstalk and tell the people how it's going. Thank you Mr Chair."