SpeechHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I stand and rise to speak on this COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. There's no argument from this side about the what"—the what we need to do to get the country back into a place of normality where people have normal lives kids go to school people go to work but what we are arguing on this side in regards to this bill before the House as you so rightly said we should focus on is the "how". It's how we do that. And that's the reason why we're having a debate. That's the reason why we are called Her Majesty's loyal Opposition: it's because we speak on behalf of a nation to question and query—there's no question about our role and responsibility.So for the other side to turn around and say they should have a free pass we know that that's not the case. We just heard from the Hon Tracey Martin where she said "This bill is fair it's reasonable it's considerate it's responsible." I would say it is all of the opposite. In my speech I want to outline in particular the reasons why it's not the "what" that this bill should do which is that we should go into level 2; it's the "how" that this Government intends to take us which I believe will be a real concern to the people of this nation to the citizens.When we are voted into Parliament it is because of two simple words: trust and confidence. The people of New Zealand will give the governing body of the day their trust and their confidence. We've seen trust and confidence and this bill addresses the issue of us moving to level 2—they have trust and confidence and we've seen that. Yes the nation has rallied behind to get us out of a pandemic situation of great concern. But the concern that we are in now is that when we head into level 2 that trust and confidence I believe is now getting to the point where it's now starting to wear thin. When New Zealanders begin to hear and see the "how" that this Government is declaring how they will do that there are some real concerns for us.Inside this bill one of the areas in the explanatory note talks about "The measures in the bill take account of the particular characteristics of COVID-19" but the concern that we have here is that it says: "such as its contagious nature and potential for asymptomatic transmission". In other words it's the possibility of not the evidence of that I believe is what this is saying in this bill. I know you may be a little bit surprised about that Mr Speaker—SPEAKER: I certainly am.Hon ALFRED NGARO: —but that's how I interpret that part of it. So to me there is some ambiguity here already factored in this bill that I believe needs clarity. But when we talk about this ambiguity I want to go over to page 2 of the bill in the explanatory note. There's been a lot of conversation about the aspects of the imposition that this places. I know in the House many people have talked about probably some of the most critical times in people's lives and in particular around tangihanga around death and around funerals. My point in this conversation this debate is that I want to talk about trust and confidence.Now I have before me a document in which there was an engagement into the community—a document that was engaging with the funeral directors that was engaging with different iwi different groups that were there those of the clergy those who partake as those in taking these funerals and so forth. There's plenty of documentation there's plenty of evidence to show that there has been a working out. It clearly states here in this document—at level 2 for instance it talked about the issues around marae it talked about tangihanga and inside of that there was an indication that there would be no more than 100 people present. In particular here I want to read from this "already iwi and hapū have been adapting tikanga and kawa to keep our people safe. This has also extended to tangihanga." So I want to say this: why is it that when it came to the trust and confidence of the people of our communities in Aotearoa New Zealand and in particular in this case to our Māori community who were saying that they been consulted they have contributed they have put plans in place; they could not be trusted—they could not be trusted. We've got teachers that come next week on Monday there will be 30 children in a class. They have been trusted to handle their affairs and to accommodate for the changes of safety inside that classroom. Schools will have from 350 to up to 1700 children. Principals and management staff have been trusted that they will ensure the safety and the health and the wellbeing of those children. We've got supermarkets that now have aisle etiquette waiting lines of 2-metre distances. We've got sanitisers. We've got restaurants that will go back eventually next week with waiters and waitresses with 100 people that could gather in a facility. We have trusted them to have a plan to ensure the health and safety of all those that enter yet we cannot trust those who have been consulted those at the heartbeat of the situation in the most difficult time of mourning and grieving where people have lost a loved one; we cannot trust them. We cannot trust those to be able to accommodate for that. That is one of the issues that we take offence to which is in the bill. It talks about that on page 2 it talks about that at the bottom of the explanatory notes where it clearly states this: these powers "can be expressly exercised in respect of classes of people businesses … other activities … weddings [and] funerals" and that's what I'm speaking to in this regard.I want to appeal to the Māori caucus of Labour and those that are across there. This has come not just from those who are consultants and academics; this has come from iwi leaders. This has come from other people who've clearly stated: "Trust us. Trust us." They've accommodated. They've changed in tikanga and kawa. Why is it they have not been trusted to accommodate for one of the most difficult times in their situation and their lives of their community? I think that's a grievous issue too.I want to go to again in the bill and I want to point to and highlight this issue here on page 3 under "Enforcement" and in particular what it highlights in the second paragraph: "To enable enforcement of the measures in orders the Police are given a power to enter premises including private dwelling[s] and marae without a warrant"—without a warrant. I want to ask the question to the Attorney-General: why were marae highlighted here? And if it was highlighted then what evidence did he use? What basis did he do? I know because I've spoken to some of those Māori leaders—by the way they were consulted—and here's what they did say but was not listened to by this Government: "There is neither a general Treaty clause nor any obligation to have regard to the Treaty or its principles at any point of decision making or performance of functions under this Act."So I say to the Māori caucus that are over there are you rolling over on your bellies to get tickled and say this should just go ahead? This is not correct. This is not right. They've been consulted they gave their views and you know what they haven't been listened to. They haven't been trusted. Nowhere here in this bill—and I look forward to the Attorney-General answering this but in the first reading why was it not included? This advice was given prior to this bill being presented. Yep that's right; it's come as a Supplementary Order Paper. In other words it was an afterthought. You had to correct it because if you'd done it at the start when the information and consultation was given to you right at the beginning then you would have put it straight in. I would say this—Hon David Parker: The member misunderstood; that's what's happening.Hon ALFRED NGARO: Well the Minister may be saying there's misunderstanding but I'm reading right from the people who were consulted the iwi leaders that were consulted. It clearly states here in clause 4 that "the purpose of the Bill is to support a public health response". That's in the bill where it's recording that. However again it clearly states here that Māori are affected by this because they haven't been consulted directly with this bill. So to the Māori caucus on the other side: where are you? Where is your voice? Why are you not listening to your community? And again the word marae was put in there. Here's what the Māori leaders are saying: "It's like a stigma that has been created and a level of untrust to the Māori community." because if it was—again here's the evidence. Here's the information that was supported prior to an SOP—prior to a Supplementary Order Paper. What's the SOP for? To correct what hadn't been put there in the first place. That's what an SOP is there for.There is a real concern. To the members of the public that are listening here it's not the "what" that we should do which is to have a piece of legislation taking us into level 2 but it's the "how" this Government is going about it. There is no trust and confidence. When they've gone out to engage and to consult the community have given them advice. Funeral directors have talked about this. Those that are part of the clergy have talked about this. They've shared their advice their thoughts with them and again they have not been trusted. You can trust the teachers you can trust the supermarkets you can even trust the restaurateurs the cafes and the pubs but you can't trust a funeral director whose role of responsibility is to be there at the grieving and the most difficult time in people's lives.I've heard it said by an epidemiologist: "Fear is a very powerful stimulant. In the right way it will guard and protect but with the wrong means it is all about power and control." This bill here is simply about one thing: using the stimulant of fear for power and control of this nation and of its people."