Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): In my previous intervention in this House I gave the Government a commendation and in doing so we were reflecting on a process of a very speedy but thorough select committee process for two important pieces of legislation that are now back before this House just on seven days from its first reading and will be passed into law this week. I talked about the World Bank parliamentary forum that I attended where there was growing concern around the world about what were described as weak democracies—so-called democracies that pushed through State intervention in people's lives without the appropriate scrutiny of Parliament. I find myself in the situation of going within an hour and a half from commendation to condemnation for this piece of legislation—both in its process and in its executive overreach. I would go so far as to compare the Prime Minister to Rob Muldoon. She is Rob Muldoon with slogans and kindness. I'm old enough to remember carless days wage and price freezes reducing the road speed limit from 100 kilometres to 80 kilometres per hour—Hon Member: Supplementary minimum prices.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —that's right SMPs—by an executive that rode roughshod over this parliamentary process. Even they pale into comparison with the influence and executive fiat that is being exerted on this country by this bill. I am frankly astounded that a Government that purports to be open and transparent to be kind and to give the country the public the credit for the amazing work that they have done still increases further and further into their freedoms and their lives.Let's be very clear: if there was a question about whether the level 4 and level 3 lockdown was legally allowed under section 70 of the Health Act—and that is a question yet to be answered—then there's no doubt that the sort of influence that the Government wants to have in level 2 is not. So if the Government wants to act in this way it does need to pass legislation but as I said in my previous intervention that is the very time when this place matters most when the rule of law matters most and where changes to that law need to be carefully thought through well considered consulted on robustly debated and definitely not rushed through.Now the Minister of Health very clearly says there is haste—understandable but this Government has had three months. I think this Government did get legal advice that said that there was a question mark over their ability to act at level 3 and 4 and clearly they wanted to continue to impose themselves on New Zealanders' lives under level 2 in a way that was entirely inconsistent given what we heard about what level 2 would look like and so they're going to pass that bill. But not even the Minister of Health knows his own legislation because he said in his speech that he will have to consult with the Director-General of Health. Actually the bill doesn't say that; it says quite the opposite. At subclause (2) of clause 9 on page 5 when making a section 11 order Nothing in this section requires the Minister to receive specific advice from the Director-General about the content of a proposed order or proposal to amend extend or revoke an order." So he doesn't need to consult the director-general and not even Dr Clark knew that.Hon Dr David Clark: Have regard to any advice.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: So now we have—well he says he doesn't have to have regard to it which means he can ignore advice. Well that's actually pretty consistent with the pattern that we've seen over the last few weeks.Hon Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is mischaracterising my response and I'm not sure what remedy I have for that.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Well that's a debatable point; so members can debate those points.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: So they don't have to take the advice of the director-general they don't have to have an epidemic notice and they don't have to have a state of emergency. If Dr Clark and the Prime Minister believe that the freedoms of New Zealanders should be curtailed they issue a notice. That is the classic case of executive overreach.The Attorney-General talks about how we are now legislating for social distance. We have got to the point where we are going to make a law about how close I can get to members of this House. Why didn't they go further? Why didn't they make a law about sneezing into your sleeve or washing one's hands for 20 seconds? You think I'm being flippant? That's where we've got to and what that says to me is the Government doesn't trust Kiwis.Kiwis have done this. New Zealanders have done this. We have knocked COVID down—and it's true it's not out but there is an expectation that we get back to something of normal because the health risk pales now in comparison to the economic asteroid that's about to hit this planet and it's going to land directly on top of New Zealand. It's going to be ugly and it's happening already. The Minister shakes his head. Well good luck selling that to the country when there are hundreds of thousands of jobs lost.It wouldn't be so bad if anybody could understand what their intentions were as the Leader of the Opposition said. We can have a rugby game—and it won't be just 30 players; it'll be 60 to 70 players coaches referees and medics. They can play they can run around and they can bang into each other but they can't go to the bar and have a beer afterwards because we couldn't trust them to do that. My daughter will be mixing next week with her schoolmates at school. She can't wait. But the 14th birthday party that she was arranging for this weekend is going to be unlawful under this legislation when it's passed. We can go to the shopping mall—with hundreds of people potentially if there's three malls connected together as it is in George Street in Dunedin—to buy the engagement present or the wedding present for the loved one but we can't go to the function wherein we'd be giving them that present. As Simon Bridges said the ability the freedom the fundamental constitutional right of freedom of worship is now less important than the right to go to a cafe or a shopping mall. That is an affront to New Zealanders.Not only are we considering these aspects of intrusion into our lives; we are not giving the New Zealand public an opportunity to have their say—even in a short period of time. Frankly that's an insult to their intelligence it's an insult to this House and it makes New Zealand one of those weak democracies that I heard described at the World Bank parliamentary forum.None of that—none of that—is intended to dismiss the risk the Minister of Health articulates but I ask this: when? When does this end? We're going to be like this until a vaccine is found. The "weeds on the lawn" metaphor that the director-general used is going to be with us probably for another 18 months. Are we really saying that this is going to be New Zealanders' lives for the next 18 months and if so why not give them a say on that? Why not give them the opportunity to say "We can be trusted. We know what social distancing is. We know what close contact is. We know what good hygiene measures are whereas we didn't pay as much attention as we could've before it became apparent that this was a serious virus."?I finish with these points about the Attorney-General's comments about the Opposition's inconsistency in its positioning. I don't believe there's any inconsistency. We were too slow to shut our borders we were too long before coming out of an extreme lockdown and we are too distrustful of the public in legislating for level 2. I'm sad about that. I'm sad that at this stage in the process the National Party cannot support this bill because we want this to be a team of 5 million but it's the Government that is racing off in a direction that we cannot support curtailing the freedom of New Zealanders without their right to have their say. Unless there are material changes to it which will be signalled it will be difficult to support this subsequently."