Seymour DavidWEDNESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2021(continued on Thursday 18 November 2021)COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)In CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 1 Amendments to principal Act and Schedules (continued)DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): It's been a very good debate so far I have to say and I'm looking forward to it continuing—probably for quite some time. I particularly want to draw attention to a part of this bill clause 7. It's a little bit confusing the nomenclature but clause 7 changes section 11 of the Act. Section 11 is all about the kinds of orders that the Director-General of Health currently a position filled by one Ashley Bloomfield can make under the law. What this bill does is it changes the COVID19 Public Health Response Act to say that in addition to the orders that can currently be made the director-general can also requisition laboratory testing material laboratory testing equipment and laboratory testing personnel and force them to do testing for the purposes of the Government and on the face of it some people might say that if there's an emergency we want the Government to go and grab all the stuff it needs and enslave the people required and force them to respond to the emergency on behalf of the public. That's sort of the cartoonish reading of this legislation. But actually people who have looked at this and people who have sat on the select committee as I have and as ACT deputy leader Brooke van Velden has and listened to the people who would be affected think this is a totally outrageous dangerous piece of law. Just to be completely clear about what section 11says it says in subsection (1)(d) in relation to laboratories that undertake COVID-19 testing by—(i) setting quality control measures … (ii) requiring test results to be reported … (iii) managing the supply of testing consumables …. (e) requiring the owner or any person in charge of a specified laboratory of any laboratory that undertakes COVID-19 testing to—(i) deliver or use in accordance with directions given under the order specified quantities of COVID-19 testing consumables that the Minister considers necessary for the purpose of the public health response … (ii) undertake COVID-19 testing solely for the purposes of the public health response to COVID-19 while subject to the order". What this means is that if you invest in the very thing the Government says it wants then you might get all your stuff taken and as Eric Crampton the economist from the New Zealand Initiative has pointed out if the Government is worried about power cuts telling people that anyone who invests in a generator might get their generator stolen by the State is not going to make people want to invest in generators.These people for example at Rako Science have worked incredibly hard for almost two years using their ingenuity investment and contacts with people overseas to bring this technology to New Zealand and now the Government's saying "Actually if we need it we'll just take it." Taking people's stuff is always bad but it's particularly bad when it has the opposite effect of what it wanted.Here's the second issue. The Government says that there will be compensation at a market price. Well here's the thing: there is no market for this stuff. The whole reason there's a shortage and they want to compensate it is that there are very few willing buyers and very few willing sellers that they can actually go to work out what a market price is. So when you say there's going to be compensation at a market price that's meaningless—there is no market price so there is no meaningful compensation. Then they say "Well if you don't like the market price you can appeal." but actually—no sorry I made a mistake there. That's what you'd expect in a normal lawful jurisdiction a First World developed Western nation like New Zealand—that if you go and get a judicial decision and you disagree with it and there are problems with the decision you can actually appeal to a higher court. We've got the District Court the High Court the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. After that you're kind of stuffed but you get four goes. And this law says "Actually you can't appeal beyond the District Court." This is an extraordinary thing to do.What is more you then ask "What does this do to New Zealand's international reputation?" We've had over the last four years the idea of being able to search for oil and gas off the shores of New Zealand totally erased—no Cabinet paper no consultation; just a "podium-ocracy" where the Minister gets up and says "We're not going to allow that anymore and all your business plans are wiped." People have asked what you can do about that and I've said that if the Government changes we can actually reverse that law but we can never rebuild the trust of the global community who now see New Zealand as a place that's a little bit more of a banana republic and a little less likely to offer you secure property rights.Then we had a Government that said in the middle of a crisis "If you have a contract that you signed in say 2010 to have an arrangement between two people an agreement they voluntarily entered into to pay rent in return for the service of providing property at a certain standard well guess what? That may have been the law when you signed the contract but we are now changing the law retrospectively so the contract you signed will be judged under today's law not under the law of the time." This is an extraordinary thing. If living in a civilised society with the rule of law means anything it's that you can only be judged for the things you did under the law at the time you did them. You can't have the goalposts shifted and be punished for doing something that wasn't actually wrong when you did it. So the Government retrospectively changed the law on commercial contracts. Then it comes along and says that if you have—and Chris Hipkins is muffling away there from behind his mask. He's getting very agitated. Chris Hipkins is a very conflicted man here. You see the thing is that Chris Hipkins the parliamentarian knows that all of this is wrong but Chris Hipkins the buddy of Ashley Bloomfield is being forced to do this and he's putting up these legislative initiatives that may well work with—oh here we go.Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order Madam Chair. The member knows that the statement he has just made is contrary to the Standing Orders. It would suggest an extreme breach of parliamentary privilege and he should have to withdraw and apologise for it. He cannot suggest that someone is being forced to do something in the House.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member will withdraw and apologise.DAVID SEYMOUR: I withdraw and apologise. Madam Chair the problem is that the first part of my statement Chris Hipkins didn't object to. He knows that it is absolutely wrong to be bringing up this kind of legislation that violates the rule of law and violates trust in New Zealand institutions and violates trust in New Zealand. He's right that it's wrong to say he's being forced to do it but he still knows that it's wrong and that's his real problem and that's why he's muffling away and raising points of order—because he knows what he's doing is a betrayal of the principles of the rule of law and the security that New Zealanders need.Now after we ban oil and gas contracts after we ruin contracts between landlords and tenants we're now going to say that if you invest in the very thing that people say they need which is testing capability the Government may take it off you. Then Chris Hipkins says "Oh but if testing is really really important then that's the only time we'll use it." Well first of all this a Parliament. We don't give the Government lots of powers and say "Oh that's pretty bad. I just hope they don't use them." Seriously? Parliament is here to restrain the executive not make laws that allow for the executive to take your stuff. And the second thing is if it's true that we have a major problem with testing in New Zealand this is a Government that has banned rapid antigen testing and won't let anyone use it except the Ministry of Health. If they were worried about testing capability why are they then so slow to contract and roll out saliva testing?The report yesterday from the technical advisory group on testing was damning—this Government has completely failed at testing everywhere and yet they now want to confiscate people's property to cover their own failings not realising they're eroding the rule of law they're eroding trust in New Zealand's institutions they're eroding property rights and funnily enough they're going to make it less likely that people will invest in testing. That's why I have on Supplementary Order Paper 88 amendments that would remove that section 11—there would be no confiscation of people's property in this country and there never should be.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Hon Chris Hipkins—Chris Bishop.Hon Chris Hipkins: I think we're both offended.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): OK that's excellent. Chris Bishop."