Tuiono TeanauTEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise again on this second reading of this bill. I have a couple of reflections and agree with sentiments around the House around the amazing work that our Māori health providers did the amazing work that our hapū and iwi did as well te whakatū kaupapa mate urutā ērā tāngata katoa me mihi atu ka tika [setting up initiatives in the pandemic all those people should definitely be acknowledged].I see the removing of the warrantless search into marae and the pivot—which should have happened in the first place—to making sure that that iwi organisations that hapū are always listened to and that they are resourced to do all the things that they can do to support their communities to support our communities. That should have been done in the first place.So the intention there should always still be there. It's about protecting our communities. So I see that as an upgrading and a correction of what should have already been there in the first place. But I do see it different in terms of all of the other tools in the tool kit.As I said in my first reading speech as well it's all very good and well to upgrade your tools. Should we listen to Māori who know how their communities are who culturally understand and are deeply embedded within their communities? Of course. That is something that should have been there in the first place and that is something that the entire health system hopefully is really more cognisant of as well. So a movement to that is an important thing and that's a good thing.But how does that flow down to the rest of it? How does it flow down to the rest of the powers that are in this bill? Because—and I said it before in the first reading speech—we are moving into the possible summer peak of COVID. And yes there were lessons learnt through the winter peak as well but there were things in place. Who knows what could have happened there? Summer is going to be very different. Summer's going to be very different. There are going to be more tourists around there's going to be festivals. Who wants to be stuck inside? Not me.So what I would like to see in terms of trying to make sure that we alleviate—this House the Government—the anxiety out there is to have first of all a very very very clear communication plan about how we are going to get through the summer. Because I reflect on this in terms of what was said last week. We could be up to 11000 cases there could be up to 100 hospitalisations per day. We know that the hospital system can't take that pressure. You hear and see doctors talk about the pressures that they have already—already.I acknowledge that there is work being doing done to make sure that there is service training to make sure that there is flow-through for workers for nurses and so on and so forth. But that's down the pipeline a bit; that's a bit further down the track. I'm talking about this summer; I'm talking about over the next few months as well.So what I am interested to hear from the Minister—and from that side of the House—is first of all that communications plan and those tools. How is that going to impact us as we try to move through the summer as well? Because we're removing things but what's getting put in place? Right. Some things have been removed; what's being put in place? There are things that are being removed here. The other thing I am quite interested in understanding is the whole issue around proportionality. How did we arrive at option three in the regulatory impact statement as opposed to maybe a different version of option two? I think I understand why we didn't go for option four because that would take a lot more work in terms of making it agnostic to COVID and I want to acknowledge the way—and I'm assuming that I know because I'm not a doctor—that that was kind of put to the side as well.I also want some reflection from the Minister around that proportionality in terms of the way that public health advice arrives—how the public health advice that the Minister gets as well. I reflect on that in terms of answers given in the House last week when we heard that the public health advice was for there to be retained the use of masks on public transport.The answer as I understood it—and I'm happy to be corrected I'm happy for that to be further explained because maybe it didn't land with me appropriately and properly enough; I'm not a doctor. But it seemed to me that the answer was Because it was too difficult." You know it was "not feasible" I think the phrase was that the Minister used. If it isn't feasible because people don't want to wear masks on public transport and so on and so forth then what are you going to do? If this is what the public health is telling us then we should do it. If we're not going to do it we need to have other things in place—and I don't see that in terms of the response going forward.I—and we as the Greens—in this second reading still cannot support this bill because there is not that clear picture of how we're going to get through the summer what it means to actually if we don't know how we're going to get through the summer leave the tools in the tool kit and not throw the tool kit away until we have a clearer picture of how we're going to get through that summer.So on this second reading the Greens once again will not be supporting this bill."