Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well thank you very much Mr Chair. It's not that I don't deeply empathise with the points that Nikki Kaye has entered. I represent the Epsom electorate which is adjacent to her Auckland Central electorate and we've got a lot of very similar issues going on. It speaks to the need to balance public health measures with the other objectives people have such as farewelling their loved ones at funerals.But I do in the spirit of what you've said want to keep very closely to this bill and specifically the clauses in Subpart 3 of Part 2. They start with clause 18 and they begin with this idea that we're going to have so-called enforcement officers or authorised persons. I think it's really critical that we're having this debate because people who are watching this committee—and I know we're in a ratings war with the Epidemic Response Committee right now—need to know exactly what this bill actually proposes.One of the most extraordinary parts is this idea that the Government is able to appoint—or actually not the Government; the Director-General of Health specifically—so-called enforcement officers who can be initially anyone. So when they introduced the bill it literally could have been a group of people who are having a roadblock or checkpoint in the community. People such as that could have actually been given a badge by the director-general and told Go hard and enforce my directives." I think that's something we just need to dwell upon for a moment because it's quite an extraordinary thing that the State actually has a law that allows it to appoint vigilantes.Now I think it's worth noting that the Government has subsequently introduced a Supplementary Order Paper that says that the person made an enforcement officer has to be an employee of a current Government department. I think that's better because people in Government departments at least have some sort of obligations to behave in a responsible manner—whether or not they always do is another issue.Yet at the same time we've done the most extraordinary thing that we've introduced people with quite extensive powers—which I also just want to get to because people need to understand what powers these enforcement officers have—and yet there is no accountability mechanism for them. I've got amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 496 which I've put up which basically do two things. First is that there's actually the right to complain about one of these enforcement officers because as the law's currently drafted they can come into your house shut down your business do all sorts of things tell you that you can't drive on the road and if you don't like it tough.The problem with that is that you actually end up with people who know they have no accountability. So it's not just that they're randomly bad and you can't complain about the bad ones. I'd like to remind the committee of a great book again by one of my favourite thinkers F A Hayek called The Road to Serfdom. Chapter 10 of that book is entitled "Why the Worst Get on Top". It's because when a Government introduces a regime for people who want to exercise power—all the nasty little people that maybe had a tough time at school and want to exert some revenge on society—guess what sorts of people sign up for jobs with untrammelled authority! So it's worse than you think because as soon as those jobs are created you either get people that have always dreamed of them or people that realise they have unconstrained power and use it.So that's why my amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 496 first of all would say that a person may complain to the director-general about the behaviour or conduct of an enforcement officer that let's remember the director-general has appointed. I think that is absolutely critical. Secondly this amendment would give a person the right to receive from the enforcement officer the terms on which they can complain and the rights that they have under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act when these enforcement orders are visited upon them.I think it's absolutely vital that that process is in place. I've had some discussion with the Attorney-General about this and I appreciate him being prepared to engage. What he said is that he was open to entertaining part of my amendment but he's now unwilling to do that because Government employees who work for Crown entities already have a complaints procedure. Well I understand his logic but I don't think it's sufficient. Here's why: if it was for example a WorkSafe inspector coming into your business and acting at the behest of the director-general acting at the behest of the Minister of Health where is the process for a person aggrieved by the way they're treated to actually go and complain? This happened in the lawlessness that preceded to Jack Lum's a fresh fruit and vegetable store an iconic venue in Remuera. They were told in no uncertain terms—with no comeback and no right to complain—that they had to shut down. Now the interesting thing about that is that the plain-clothes police officer that told them they had to shut down does have a complaint process; it's called the Independent Police Conduct Authority. But the problem was there was no accountability for the enforcement of this particular directive. That's why this Supplementary Order Paper that gives people the right and gives people the right to be told their rights gives them the right to complain to the person that put the directive in place is so essential.I again would appeal to members of the committee to actually think carefully about the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 496 and perhaps for some of the Government support parties that have always been standing up for the ordinary bloke in the case of how New Zealand First professes itself or the Greens that erstwhile defender of civil liberties in this country to actually consider crossing the floor and voting for it. The reason they might want to do that is that they need to recognise quite how severe the powers of enforcement that these enforcement officers—who are not police by the way; these are people basically commandeered by the director-general to enforce the director-general's or the Minister of Health's will. Well they can enter without a warrant any land building craft vehicle place or thing if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is failing to comply with any aspect of a section 11 order.So the Government makes an order and a person can enter your property or your boat or whatever and come and tell you to stop doing it. They can also come into your house or your marae with no warrant if they are a constable. You know these are quite big steps. I think we should just think for a moment. I know that there's been a lot of panic around the global COVID-19 pandemic. I know it's a problem but do we really have a sense of proportionality about the rights and freedoms we're giving away here in order to fight it? I'm not so sure that this Government has thought that through.Not only can they enter—going on to clause 21 the power to give directions: "direct any person to stop any activity that is contravening or likely"—likely—"to contravene the order". It doesn't take much of a threshold for you to suddenly get ordered around by a person who wants to be in this role—remember "Why the Worst Get on Top"—of unconstrained power where you don't get given your rights and you don't have the right to complain to the person that was responsible for all this. It's quite an extraordinary situation that the Government wants to put us in.Once they've done that well you know they can close roads public places and stop vehicles. Directions may be given verbally or in writing so they can just tell you. Then you get to the offences: you can be put in prison for six months or fined $4000 if you don't follow these directives. Now I actually wouldn't mind having penalties for enforcing the law if the law was tight and clear and appeared to everyone equally and was enforced without fear nor favour but none of those conditions are met. What you've got is a commandeered rabble of people that the director-general has raised up who can go round tell you what to do fine you or even get you put in jail for six months if you don't follow these poorly defined Government directives. That is why this bill should not pass. The more one looks into it it's impossible to support."