Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): That was an interesting contribution from the Hon Ron Mark—some of it I agreed with the vast majority I didn't because when a Government chooses to put a piece of legislation into place that proposes an exception to civil liberties then there has to be a clear definition about why that exception is being put in place. This bill doesn't do it. Everyone knows that we have had a lockdown and that it has prevented some of the extraordinary numbers that were in various models from ever coming anywhere near being correct. That's because people by and large voluntarily complied. It's because people who own businesses—and let's be clear when you talk about businesses you're talking about jobs and people who own those businesses decided that they would comply. Then what we saw effectively was a voluntary commitment to try to beat this COVID-19 virus.There have been questions in recent days about well what was the legality of what happened? Was it right for the Government to do this? Did they have a legal right to do that? Well that's going to be played out over a little more time to come but it's interesting to note that this bill starts on page 1 with The bill establishes [a] standalone legislation that provides a different legal framework for responding to COVID-19 over the next two years" and it then goes on to say that it will apply at whatever level we might be at over those two years. That I think really answers the question about the legality so far and that in turn highlights the trust that New Zealanders have exhibited the willingness that New Zealanders have exhibited to get on top of this thing. So going to level 2 I would have expected that we would see a far more liberal arrangement than we're seeing here—far more liberal. These people aren't silly. They know that social distancing is a good idea in the current circumstances. They know that sharing hard surfaces with one another does mean that you've got to clean between them at various times. They know all that they don't need to be told the housekeeping of how to behave appropriately at a time when these threats exist.So we have several concerns about this bill. One is the sunset is far too far out. Two years—two years we could be at level 2 all the way through. Now I don't think public tolerance would actually take any Government that far. That's up for the Government to determine. We will be putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that we hope will make a difference to that that means it can be reviewed at a much more frequent opportunity. We hope the Government is considering what has been discussed in briefings today.We're also very concerned about the issuing of section 11 notices. So the bill doesn't prescribe anything particularly beyond enforcement but it does make it possible for the Minister of Health—who has to go through a consultation process that means in actual fact the Prime Minister determines what is in a section 11 notice. A section 11 notice will have the prohibitions in it: no more than 10 people at a funeral no more than 10 people at a wedding no more than 10 people at any other public gathering only a few people in cafes unless seated and single-table service same in restaurants and eventually in bars. Everyone might wonder why when it's so easy to determine that actually you are a tavern and therefore you can open this Thursday as opposed to a bar and have to open next Thursday Thursday week—what's the reason for that? Well I think it's found in the schedules because they have to take a week to print the enforcement notices that are going to be served on all these places at various times for these minor breaches.While Mr Mark says "Well you know we have trusted New Zealanders and we've got to back the police we've got to make sure that we support them in their work."—don't put them in the invidious position of having to deal with New Zealanders in the sort of petty ways that occasionally we've seen over the last four weeks. I think what I saw at Sumner beach in Christchurch two weekends ago was appalling—absolutely appalling—and I think if anyone expects that to be a shining example of how the police are going to deal with these powers when it comes to New Zealanders then they're deluded. I worry about that. I feel for the policemen on the beat feel for the guys in the cars and all the policewomen as well who have to do all that difficult work. But they're being put in an odd position and I think it's a bit unreasonable for that to happen. So I don't like the infringement regime. It's too tough. It should be that there is some kind of an expectation that there'll be a lead-up process before the so-called enforcement officer gets out the book and writes the ticket.So then we come to enforcement and who can enforce it. As the bill is written at the moment then we should take Police Commissioner Coster at his word and expect that various gangs around the country could be presaged into becoming enforcement officers because apparently it was OK what they were doing: blocking roads stopping New Zealanders going about their rightful business. So we don't want to see any of that sort of thing coming into the enforcement regime. We do want to see that the people who have that enforcement responsibility are responsible that they are in some way linked to the Crown and therefore have a chain of responsibility that can be looked at.I worry too—particularly when it comes to the hospitality industry—that what we're seeing here is the construction of an effective local alcohol plan applied to the entire nation. I think that's quite a potential danger. Let's be very clear: while the Prime Minister has said that there was a great deal of work done with the Hospitality Association the reality is that there was one of those consultations where they were told what's happening and expected to agree. A Minister who I won't name actually told them "Don't worry so long as there's a bowl of chips on the table you'll be able to open." That's totally in contravention of the current alcohol laws. So it just shows the degree of understanding that's gone into this thing from those who have been party to putting the bill together.So on those three points the sunset clause will have an SOP; on the section 11 notices we'll have an SOP; and on enforcement we'll have an SOP. I only hope that maybe they're trumped by the Government being smart enough to know that they haven't got everything right in this particular bill.Now I want to come to the whole issue of what it's doing to the psyche of the nation. I do worry about that. I think the symbolism of not being able to attend friends' relatives' and very very close loved ones' funerals is a big problem. I think it's heartless it's cold and it is nowhere near kind. I think similarly for many people at a time like this where there is uncertainty—no one knows what the next year or so is going to bring for this country. We're a trading nation. Mr Mark let me tell you sir when it comes to looking after the big export businesses the people who hang off those big export businesses are the small businesses that are the majority employers in this country. So don't kick us for having an interest in our export markets. And by the way have a talk to your leader because I don't think he's doing us many favours with our biggest export market just at the moment.Let me just say this: when people start to get so particularly and individually hurt by the circumstances that they see around them then I think we've got a problem. So I would urge the Government to make some kind of a statement beyond just that it may be changed in two weeks' time to actually come out and say what the intentions would be. The big thing that's missing all the way through this is the lack of information for anybody to plan. Now the Government might say "Well because we didn't really know what's happening." Well the Government has a duty to be at least slightly optimistic about the future and to put out a plan that people might be able to hang off and rely on and we haven't seen it. I know that there will be redundancies in the next week because some of the people who are trying to plan the future for their business cannot see that future have not heard a lay out in front of them that they can rely on. This is not a good bill."