Seymour David; Rurawhe AdrianDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this motion to ratify these orders. I think it's worth looking at what they actually say in order to see why that is. You know the first the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework) Amendment Order (No 8) 2022—it says Primarily this order relaxes some of the restrictions that usually apply to a person when that person is accessing premises in order to vote in an election of a member of Parliament". I think it shows what a conflict there is between the continuation of a COVID-19 response that makes little sense that does not have coherent goals atop it and does not have good cost-benefit analysis or really logical common sense behind it and trying to get on with ordinary life including doing things such as voting in elections that are essential to New Zealand's way of life. The fact that the Government enabled by the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act was required to pass a special exemption in order to ensure that people could vote in an election I think shows what a conflict there is. And that's why while in theory this order is a good thing actually the whole regime needs to go.The second order being considered here—and let's just call it No. 9—says that this order has made "two general changes". The first was "to clarify the exemption from the face-covering rules for entertainers provided that entertainers comply with the two-metre physical distancing rule. Previously entertainers were required to maintain physical distancing from all other persons who are not fellow entertainers in the same performance. Clauses 23 and 23A have been amended so the two-metre physical distancing is only required from the audience." This is New Zealand in 2022: the Government is making rules so that when you are in a band or perhaps at a dance—I wonder if a certain TV show might have benefited from this rule—you could not wear a mask and be within 2 metres of another person—Damien Smith: Eden Park.DAVID SEYMOUR: —because previously that wasn't allowed. I'm not sure—I've just heard the member say "Eden Park." I'm not sure if rugby players or netball players or any other sportspeople for that matter count as entertainers. But nevertheless we've got a Government making orders to clarify that you have to wear a mask but not if you're an entertainer; if you're an entertainer you cannot wear a mask but you've got to be 2 metres from the audience but you can be less than two metres from other performers. I mean that's what this is actually about.That's what this Government has been focused on—a level of micro-management behind which there is no cost-benefit analysis; simply ordering people around for the sheer sake of it with no coherent policy objectives being pursued by this particular law. This just has to stop. New Zealand needs to move on. New Zealanders need to stop being micro-managed in so many different ways by a Government that doesn't even know what its true objectives with these policies are."The second change is the creation of a scheme to provide passes which exempt a person from both the face-covering rule and the medical-grade face-covering rule. Clause 7 inserts three new provisions into Part 4 of the principal order which deals with exemptions. Exemption passes may be sought on the basis" of first as a physical or mental illness or condition or disability that makes face-coverings unsuitable. So just to be clear the Government said if you are a person who has other health concerns perhaps a physical or mental health concern then maybe in the interests of balancing all aspects of New Zealanders' welfare—that's not a bad idea—you can get an exemption from the mask-wearing requirement in certain circumstances.And then they forgot that they hadn't exempted all types of masks so the Government had to make another order to make it clear that actually we are making the exemptions for people that have those needs for people who have all types of masks—medical and non-medical. Again I know—I don't want to labour it but I think the point needs to be made: this is New Zealand in 2022. This is the level of micro-management with which the Government has indulged itself.And yet when it comes to the really big stuff—like did we get the timing right of dropping managed isolation and quarantine and reconnecting with the world? No; missed that one by four months. Did we get the ad spend for getting people to have COVID boosters right? No; carried on doing that even when it wasn't working wasted millions of dollars. Did we for example manage to order the vaccines on time? Or did we have a whole year of the Prime Minister saying there's greatness in our lateness and saying it's really a good thing we're letting the rest of the world get vaccinated first only to have Auckland locked down for months as a result of not having those vaccines on time and then have the former COVID-19 Minister go on the TV over the weekend and say "Oh sorry Auckland; I think I might have locked you down a bit longer than really necessary and in hindsight we could have let you out earlier." totally insulated from the pain and suffering and frustration and anguish that people in my city have felt? And boy that shows up when you're there. But of course the Prime Minister didn't visit Auckland for three months while it was locked down and I think that's partly why the reality that people experienced still is not real to this Government and they can make such flippant statements.These orders tell us a lot about the Government's response. They are micro-managing the little stuff. They've become obsessed with it. But on the really big calls the questions that actually matter for the welfare of New Zealanders they've got it wrong.And just while I've got the opportunity I'd say to the COVID-19 Minister: I think it would be very helpful if the Minister investigated using the recently passed Medicines Amendment Act 2022 to enable children between six months and five years to have a dose of Comirnaty. Now I'm no lawyer but my reading of it is that that is possible and I know that there are people in the Epsom electorate and beyond who would like to have that ability. And my appeal to the Minister: if she does want to do something useful with the various laws that have been given to her by this Parliament then she should use that section of the Medicines Act that we amended recently to help those parents and those young New Zealanders who wish to get immunity from vaccination. She should stop focusing on the micro-management of whether or not you have to wear a mask if you're an entertainer—can you be within 2 metres of the audience or other performers or what the deal is there. We should actually start focusing on the bigger issues that make a difference to people's welfare and ditch this parody of lawmaking where we are constantly trying to micro-manage increasingly Lilliputian matters in New Zealanders' lives.With that the ACT Party opposes these orders as a matter of principle. Thank you Mr Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members it's come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 p.m.Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.00 p.m."