Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): If I could respond to Mr Hudson's points the powers under this COVID bill are actually narrower than the powers under the Health Act. They're narrower and I'll give you an example of that—I'll give the committee an example of that. At the moment under the Health Act notices that have been promulgated under section 70 of the Health Act they have triggered a warrantless power of entry for the police that they don't even have to report on. This bill says going forward even if we go back to level 3 or 4 in the future the exercise of those powers has to be reported on in a more transparent way.In respect of the issue that the member says that I've misrepresented the bill about being needed in respect of level 2 it is needed in respect of level 2. The point I've been making in the media is to be countering what I think is quite a damaging assertion that has been made by some members of the Opposition that we needed this bill because of a lack of powers under level 3 and level 4. We didn't—we didn't.Hon Member: Release your advice. Let's see the legal advice.Hon DAVID PARKER: He's saying Release the legal advice." Well we've actually won that particular skirmish because it's now agreed that a select committee can't do what the House says it can't do which is override legal professional privilege. But the idea that not releasing legal advice means that the legal advice says there's something bad in there is just wrong and unprincipled and the member knows that because he's legally experienced.In respect of the issue as to why it is that you would want to use this new regime in respect of future level 3 or level 4 events if perchance we have to go there—and we all hope we don't have to go back there—it actually goes to the point that Mr Seymour made. The new framework actually creates more accountability because it's a ministerial decision rather than the Director-General of Health.The further point that David Seymour made in relation to the definitions was saying that the purpose should be more than public health; it should be about economic factors. Well actually this is effectively a bespoke response to a health issue and effectively replaces the Health Act processes for COVID-19. I would say: in the future the House will go back to those things more widely and actually propose more widely in respect of the Health Act a ministerial decision-making framework rather than a Director-General of Health decision-making framework but that's for the future. But with respect to David Seymour whose contributions in this debate I have thought have been very good as have other members'—Hon Member: Because he's voting for the bill.Hon DAVID PARKER: I suspect he's not actually. That was a very cynical interjection there from the other side. People can make valuable contributions even if they're voting in an opposite way to improve the bill before it's eventually passed. But he said that the purpose clause should include reference to economic factors. I agree that the decision that the Government takes as COVID goes forward—because it's a very unusual and long-lasting epidemic—needs to take into account economic factors in addition to health factors and that is achieved in this bill by clause 9(b). It is achieved as David Seymour wanted economic factors to be taken into account in the decision that the Minister makes. That isn't achieved through the purpose clause clause 4; it's the interrelationship between that clause 4 and clause 9(b) of the bill which makes that express point but we come to that in Part 2."