Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of this bill to its first reading. The reason ACT supports the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill is very simple. It's about the rule of law and the rule of law matters because if it means anything to be a New Zealander it is to live freely under democracy and the rule of law: to be able to send representatives to this House to make laws that are clear that we can read for ourselves and understand what the law is. Having the rule of law protects the weakest people in our society because they can see it written down and it applies equally to every person. It's especially pertinent at the moment because we have had a terrible taste of what it is like to live in New Zealand for those few weeks without it. We descended into the most horrific hysteria where people threw apart and threw away the most basic regard for the rights and dignity of individuals.Let me give you an example of what I mean. Let's just call them Vivian. They wouldn't want to be named. They're an older couple who were walking out in the eastern beaches of Auckland. Why? Because the hills of Remuera are hard on their knees. They were resting on their own chairs that they had taken and they were not only harassed by members of the public but also by the police and they were in tears. They got in touch with me to ask How is this possible? Have we not any rights?"Then there's the story of Jack Lum the guy who runs the greengrocer that has been in place in Remuera for over 70 years told by some officials that he could open and then told by a policeman in plain clothes that he must shut down with no notice and he couldn't even trade out the day. Well Jack tells me it takes 500 man-hours to get the store going again and at his age he's not sure if he'll get it going again. The crazy thing is that just across the road Fruit World Greenlane continued to operate. Jack was told that he couldn't operate because he's near a supermarket Remuera New World. Well so is Fruit World Greenlane next to the Countdown of the same name.Then there's the story of Bjorn and Lucy Reymer who bravely came and told their story of having a miscarriage: Lucy sobbing alone left with a box of tissues in an empty room in the hospital; Bjorn left out in the car park with no rights to be supporting his wife at the most tragic of times. I could speak all night about the horrific—DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'd like it on the bill.DAVID SEYMOUR: —events that have occurred in a time when we did not have the rule of law when people could not go and read on a piece of paper what their rights are. That's why this bill debated by this Parliament no matter how improperly is a massive improvement on what we have seen in the weeks gone by. We cannot afford to revisit a kind of kind police State where New Zealanders were more eager to dob each other in to the Government than support them in questioning their Government.But unfortunately I can only support this bill to the first reading through this urgent process because it has some real problems. I can understand the Government going through urgency. I won't relitigate the issues that got us here except to say that it has been four months—actually nearly four and a half months—since it became clear to countries such as Taiwan that there might be an issue. The idea that this has all suddenly happened and the Government has to rush Parliament through urgency now is a poor reflection on the preparedness of the Government. But no matter we're here and we have to rush this through urgency so we can get to level 2 lawfully and quickly—understood. But what is an issue is that this bill lasts for two years. The objective if we want the bill to be done democratically should be to get it passed now and have Parliament review it as soon as possible. I have an amendment on the Table on Supplementary Order Paper 494 that says it should only last one year. That is enough time for this Parliament to come back and make this law properly.Brett Hudson: More than enough time.DAVID SEYMOUR: "More than enough time." I hear from Brett Hudson.The second issue with this bill might be that the powers issued under section 11 I think it is are so wide ranging but I think it's worth pointing out that those powers are clearly judicially reviewable and the Minister has gone to some effort to make that pretty clear in the way the bill is written. So yes there is almost no constraint according to this bill on what an order could mean. It could mean you'd have to close down stay home don't meet someone don't do this don't do that or don't bring a thing in or out of the country or in and out of an area. All of that is true but it is very clear that this is judicially reviewable and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act states that such an order can be made only in a way that is proportional to the objective and does not unduly override the rights of New Zealanders according to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So we'll give that part a pass.But then we come to this issue of the Director-General of Health versus the Minister of Health. Quite rightly the bill seeks to transfer powers that really have been exercised by the Director-General of Health an unelected civil servant to the Minister of Health somebody that the voters the people of New Zealand have the opportunity to vote out. Who knows—in that particular instance they just might. But the problem is that the bill is not clear on the division of powers between the Director-General of Health and the Minister of Health. It says that if the Minister makes a public health directive then that Minister has to consult with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice. They've got to be sure that they're doing the right thing. They have to give 48 hours' notice. That's all proper.The director-general can issue one albeit for a region. They can issue it for a month and they can keep renewing it indefinitely. So there is a way of exercising the same power that completely circumvents the Minister of Health and the Minister's accountability. I have Supplementary Order Paper 495 that sets out amendments that would change that and say "Yes if something is particularly urgent the director-general can issue a 48-hour notice." That is the notice period that the Minister of Health has to give. Within that period if the Minister agrees that Minister can go through the proper accountability procedure and issue a more permanent notice. That would be the right way to maintain democratic accountability and nimbleness of response: one job for the director-general one job for the Minister of Health and no overlap. I urge members to support my amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 495.Finally as the Hon Judith Collins mentioned we have these enforcement officers and I'd love to know who the Minister has in mind because to me it sounds like it could be WorkSafe employees coming into your business but it could also be that the director-general could decide that one of these community groups running a road block could be enforcement officers with all the powers of the State. That is terrifying. So I have an amendment—or ideally we'd amend it to get rid of that and the police could enforce the law because that's their job and they have proper safeguards such as the Independent Police Complaints Authority—that would say that at the very least a person acting as an enforcement officer first of all has to give the person their rights: "This is how you complain about me and these are your rights under the law." because remember this is all about the rule of law. The director-general has to consider those complaints because otherwise we've set up a whole new class of people who can go around tell you what to do shut down your business fine you and there's no complaint or accountability mechanism whatsoever. I can't think of any other agent of the State that doesn't have an accountability mechanism.So it's critical for the rule of law that this legislation is in place. It should have been introduced to this House weeks ago if the Government was on the ball but here we are. Let's have a debate and let's make it better so that people can maintain their rights and freedoms under this law. Thank you Madam Speaker."