Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I speak in favour of the amendment from Michael Woodhouse that the words be disestablished." be replaced with "remains for as long as the alert level remains at above level 2 with consequent restrictions on the operations of the [Government]".So what we're talking about here is the Epidemic Response Committee which was formed when Parliament was shut. I have spent a lot of time on that committee and obviously it is a reaction to a 100-year crisis such as we haven't seen obviously for a very long time where as we've seen $62 billion of money has been spent. Decisions have been taken to control people's lives and that have had a real impact on their ability to be with their loved ones at critical times and engage in their business employ themselves and do basic things. A big decision's been made and so it was absolutely right and I commend the Government for its initial decision and willingness to have this committee set up with an Opposition majority so that Ministers could be called and held to account to a degree and experts could be brought before the committee. I remember many many striking conversations that were had. I particularly remember the police commissioner coming in. We'd just heard from the Prime Minister that people coming in from overseas were going into self-quarantine but that New Zealanders shouldn't be worried because the police would check up on them within three days. Then it was useful to have the police commissioner come in and tell us "Actually that's not the case. We're not doing that." and it was a great shock for many people. But if the committee hadn't been in place that stark reality wouldn't have been brought to mind and the Government wouldn't have been frankly embarrassed into doing something about it. That helped us with our response to the crisis and made a difference and on many occasions such as with Sir David Skegg and many other people making their comments about the quality of the testing and tracing regimes it made a real difference. So the question now is—now that Parliament has resumed and we do have the opportunity to have Ministers back before the Parliament at question time and we have the opportunity to have select committees meeting—is it still required? The Government seems to think no but they should be conscious of the fact that they are developing a bit of a reputation for dismissive attitudes towards criticism and transparency and we're all aware of the infamous message from the Prime Minister's office—SPEAKER: Order! Order!Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —and reluctance to turn up to the committee. I would have thought it would have been good politic from the Government to be responsive to that and not to be seen as dismissive of attempts to hold a candle or a light to the decisions that are being made. However they have pressed on with wanting to close down this committee and the only point I'd make is that this is—as we keep on hearing—a 100-year crisis and it is occasion to do things slightly differently. The full mechanisms of Parliament are not yet working. We don't have written questions answered in normal timespans and there's not the same ability to get answers to a whole lot of things as quickly as normal. It's not possible for all members of Parliament to be in the Chamber and it's not as easy to have all the select committee functions operating the same as normal but more importantly we're in a situation where the Government has granted itself the ability to spend more than $20 billion at its choosing over the next couple of months—extraordinary things which in the normal course of events just wouldn't occur. On that basis I think there is a very strong case for keeping the committee going—not three times a week as we have in the past but I would have thought on a weekly basis—so that that different extra layer of transparency is retained at a time when Parliament is not operating as normal and these momentous decisions are being made which will affect the lives of New Zealanders not only now but for many years to come as we pay off the debt. So my plea to the Government is that they reconsider this and that they do act magnanimously and allow themselves to be exposed to extra scrutiny at a critical time in our history and I would think they would do well to reflect on that. The final point of course is that it's by no means guaranteed—we all hope and pray that we don't go back into a higher form of lockdown but it's not impossible that we might. So it would certainly make sense to keep this committee on the books at least and able to be swiftly brought back to life. So on that basis I support this amendment to this motion. Thank you."