SpeechBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on this the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill. I just want to set on record just for background: National called for border controls ahead of action from the Government it called for quarantining ahead of action from the Government it called for us to go into lockdown to flatten the curve ahead of the Government's actions. Likewise it's also called to exit that harsh lockdown sooner both because of our understanding of the severe curtailment of civil liberties but also the impact on lives and livelihoods with thousands of people losing their jobs and businesses going out of business. But we understood the need and we supported the Government when they came to make that move. Along the way we have questioned some of the lawfulness of some of the actions under that lockdown. Partly that is our job but more importantly if a cornerstone of a democracy is the freedom of speech similarly an equal cornerstone is the Government not only upholds but follows the laws that every other citizen of the nation is expected to follow. In fact in situations like this it is even of more importance that every action of the Government is lawful as the laws stand.Quite frankly not only the provisions in this bill but some comments we've heard tonight including the contribution from Kiritapu Allan suggest very strongly just as the public suspect with the withheld Crown Law advice that actually the Government also believe that there was at very least a grey area if not in fact an absolute unlawfulness. Nowhere is that more evident than in the lockdown threat of compliance prior to 3 April when a subsequent health notice was issued. This is all relevant because it gets to why are these enforcement powers in this bill required—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Then relate it.BRETT HUDSON: —which I'm going to do right now. What became clear from the Hon Chris Hipkins' comments—which was there's no state of emergency but there is today but it's going to run out shortly—is a very clear signal that the risk profile heading into alert level 2 does not support the continuation of a state of emergency or maybe even an epidemic notice. What they're saying is they're unable to continue what they've claimed is lawful but that the powers under section 70 of the Health Act the enforcement powers under section 71 and the powers under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act—they're saying they'll no longer be able to rely on those because they can't claim an ongoing emergency or epidemic.If that were the case and they had the need to apply constraints to civil liberties across the entire nation the answer is not to create a completely new framework and set of rules; it's to address the provisions of the epidemic notice of the Epidemic Preparedness Act and the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act to ensure that the conditions the risk profile presented under what they have arbitrarily called level 1 and 2 is accommodated for under the existing legislation. It is not an excuse to create a whole new set of powers which enable them to completely ignore the law as it stands and the powers and limits on the powers that are unlocked under an epidemic notice or indeed under a state of emergency—because that's precisely what they're doing with this bill. The giveaway too for the public to get concerned about—and they do have a reason to be very concerned about—is that what they've put on the tin is saying this bill is necessary to enforce provisions under level 2 except that the provisions apply under any level.Now I'm sure some legal expert will be able to say there are some provisions under section 70 of the Health Act or under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act which aren't mirrored in this bill. But for New Zealanders who faced lockdown every day for what amounted to six weeks the rules that required them to principally stay at home that limited what they could do for exercise and where they could do it; the rules that limited what businesses could open and how they could open those rules all exist in the new bill and they can all be applied at any alert level that New Zealand happens to be at. This is not about powers for level 1 and 2. This is powers for levels 1 2 3 and 4 which do not have any necessary regard to the existing legislative frameworks principally the Epidemic Preparedness Act or indeed the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. They've created completely new law to give themselves the same sort of powers they wanted because they don't believe they had the lawful authority they needed either prior and certainly now.They've made it worse because one of the safeguards—because unquestionably to the extent that the authority was lawful under the epidemic notice in the state of emergency there were enormous powers to curtail civil liberties and powers of enforcement. But the balance on those was that they were not directed by politicians by Government. They were directed by apolitical heads of departments. The Director-General of Health issued health notices; the Director of Civil Defence Emergency Management made directions under that Act—not politicians with political agendas. Well they're flipping that completely on its head in this bill. They turn it round. The director-general's powers are shrunk but the Minister of Health who has to consult with the Prime Minister effectively has all those enormous powers for all levels of COVID alert level. They have completely turned around and politicised this pandemic. They have made the administration of it and the enforcement of it a political exercise that is wholly wrong.On the matter of urgency too just before I move on to the enforcement officers I would contend that when a Government is seeking such wide-ranging curtailment of civil liberties that is exactly the wrong time to push that through: under urgency. It is the wrong time. That is the wrong time to push this through: under urgency. But here we go steamrolling through in a few hours.The third area I'd comment on is this idea of enforcement officers. Now we saw in the public domain over the course of the lockdown a number of community groups around the country stopping citizens in their vehicles and demanding personal information. These public citizens had no warrant. They had no legal authority. We believe that unquestionably those checkpoints were unlawful. The Government told us the roads weren't closed so the powers of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act weren't brought to bear the Health Act wasn't brought to bear but the Land Transport Act certainly was and that requires an enforcement officer with a warrant to legally stop or direct traffic on an open road or indeed to demand personal information.Well under this bill the Government—because it is effectively the Government running the show under this bill—will be able to authorise anyone they like to undertake those sorts of activities: to walk around checking up on businesses and closing them to be demanding private and personal information from people who might have been stopped by a constable but are then handed over to the citizen with a special power to be an enforcement officer to demand that information and with the threat of issuing an infringement notice with a penalty of $300 if that person that otherwise member of the public decides themselves that that person that they are addressing has contravened a rule in their mind. That is a travesty. The police are the principal enforcement agency of the Government for domestic compliance. It is them and them alone that should be authorised particularly in situations where civil liberties have been curtailed where people's freedoms have been abridged. It is the role of police to undertake the enforcement of those rules.This bill is a complete separate right of a set of powers which can be exercised at the whim of a Prime Minister maybe having regard to what they're told but not having to follow advice they're given. The whim of a Prime Minister the Government through the Minister of Health can basically constrain any and all civil liberties of any class of New Zealanders or indeed the entire nation and they can subcontract the enforcement of those conditions to anyone they like. This is not us.