SpeechBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise in continued opposition to this bill. Let's make no mistake: the powers within this bill give the Government—and that's the executive Government not its agencies—enormous scope to curtail the civil liberties of New Zealanders under any conditions related to COVID equal to what they have seen over the last seven weeks. And now as we are debating in the third reading we still have a situation where the bill that is actually before Parliament and will soon be voted on is not what was put on the tin by the Government when it introduced it. The public have a right to rely on the statements of Government and its Ministers when they say they're doing something for a purpose but then they discover that the purpose is actually not that which was articulated. We were told—the public were told—when this bill was introduced that this was about being able to set compliance conditions and manage enforcement in level 2. In fact it was stated we had to do this to get to level 2. Now that is actually not factually correct and it's not absolutely necessary. We were in level 2 a number of weeks ago. These powers weren't available then. We did it then. We could certainly do it again. But we were told that it was needed for level 2 and beyond which is level 1 but we've learnt as we've gone through this extremely shortened process under urgency that the provisions in this bill and the powers it unlocks are also available should we return to either level 3 or level 4. That is despite the fact that we already have a legal framework for dealing with this pandemic under level 3 and level 4 risk profiles. They include the Epidemic Preparedness Act the Health Act and the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act (CDEM Act). We've been told by this Government and the Attorney-General in public said that there was no enforcement gap under the lockdown. So there's no gap in the powers under the existing framework for level 3 or 4 conditions so there's no reason why level 3 or 4 should be included within the provisions for this suite of capability and powers to deal with level 2 or level 1. So I sought to test that through the process and challenge the Attorney-General the Minister in charge of the bill on why it was the case that these powers were in some way different for the ordinary New Zealander. I'm not saying that the wording is exactly the same. I'm not saying that every provision in the Health Act or CDEM Act are mirrored in this. But for the ordinary New Zealander for them lockdown meant the Government could tell them exactly what they could and couldn't do when they could go out of their homes and for what purpose; that if they could work from home—oh if they could work at all—they would have to work from home; that if they did go outside for exercise there were conditions around what that exercise could be how far away from their home it could be under which conditions they could drive there; what businesses could open and under what conditions they could open; and what businesses the public could or couldn't access. We are left now with the position of a suite of powers which mirror the ability to do that level of impingement on civil liberties. As I say they may not be exactly the same as the powers in the existing legislation the Health Act and CDEM Act but for the common New Zealander who's experienced lockdown for now seven weeks or just about the powers in this bill enable the same level of impingement on their rights. So I challenged the Minister on not what was different; what was materially different or what was constraining powers. He started off by saying actually this is more constrained because for warrantless entry on to premises the constable will have to report on it. Well actually that's a good thing. But there's no reason why that provision couldn't have been an amendment to the Health Act and the CDEM Act and actually should be because it's probably a good idea under level 3 and 4. On its own it is not a reason to have a new legal framework and powers that include the ability to use it under level 3 and 4. Then the Minister said Oh it's actually needed because this has got an ability to control the basis under which businesses can open and operate." Well we're still under level 3 at the moment so I refer the Government back to lockdown. During this whole process the Government has decided what businesses can and can't open; the nature of how customers can enter those premises such as supermarkets which have limited numbers or dairies which have one in and one out; why dairies can open but butchers can't; and how under level 3 a business could reopen as long as it was contactless ordering and either delivery or pickup. So the Government's either saying that it didn't have the lawful authority to do that under the pre-existing framework so it's necessary to be in this new bill in which case that opens one large can of worms or if it claims it did have the lawful authority to do that over the last seven weeks then it is not necessary for that part of the provision to be in this new bill. To the extent where it isn't necessary but may be desirable I go back to the point that they could have made that amendment into the Health Act possibly into the CDEM Act and to the extent they needed a separate bill the separate bill could have been and should have been limited to alert levels 1 and 2 which is what the Government actually said when it was introduced.So then the Minister said "No it's got further constraint on the powers because Parliament will have to confirm an order made under section 11 and if it doesn't confirm it that is revoked." Well the confirmable instrument is a very important part of our constitutional protections. And ordinarily it's used for matters that are expected to persist for some time longer than a single order under this bill and particularly not in areas which are so severe in their potential curtailment of civil liberties. So the point more than that though that I would make about the bill as it may shortly be enacted is that Parliament may not be able to make a determination on that confirmation for up to 60 days after the Government's given itself the power to do things. What is more there's an explicit provision that says if Parliament doesn't confirm it—doesn't confirm the order and therefore it is revoked—any action taken under it is still valid. So if Parliament says the order was wrong and shouldn't have been done there is no remedy for the persons affected by that order for the period until Parliament makes that decision. But if it was held none the less that such notices should be confirmable instruments then again it goes to my point that for level 3 and 4 which are already dealt with under an existing legal framework which includes the Health Act and the CDEM Act that amendment should have been made to those Acts and that this bill should have been limited to alert levels 2 and 1 which is precisely what the Government said it was for when they introduced it. We are debating a bill and if the numbers stay the same—unless the Greens suddenly reawaken and rediscover their passion for civil liberties or New Zealand First discover that they truly do believe in the common New Zealand bloke and blokess—then this thing will pass. And it is going to pass in a way that allows the executive Government to do things to New Zealanders that they haven't been able to do to date and they were sold on it being something else. I want to touch upon a part of the debate that didn't rage—it was discussed—about who it should be that issues these orders and has the power. And we were told that some legal academics think it should be the Government because it's accountable democracy—people can vote them out. Ordinarily I wouldn't disagree with that but in the area where you are fundamentally locking people down where their liberties are constrained so much it should be the Government that brings the bill Parliament decides whether or not it can be used but the execution of those powers should be at arm's length from political manipulation. It's actually why it's right under the current framework that is the Director-General of Health under the Health Act and the Director of Civil Defence Emergency Management under the CDEM Act because it takes away the risk or imputation that the powers are being used with some political agenda in mind. Flipping that over to be the Minister of Health will simply reduce confidence within the public that there won't be any political machinations or ideas or agendas in any decisions that are made under this.Lastly I'll just briefly touch on the enforcement officers piece which could have allowed almost anyone such as the community checkpoint operators to be given a clipboard and suddenly make all sorts of enforcement decisions. I'm a little concerned about the language that remains which is "engaged by the Crown". I didn't get the opportunity in the committee of the whole House but I just worry that perhaps if a group received Government funding for mental or physical wellbeing they could be considered to be engaged by the Crown. We do continue to oppose this bill."