Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Look before I get on to it I'd just ask a few questions. I think what we just heard from Minister Wood sums up everything that's wrong with this legislation and the process behind it. The Minister was happy to stand up and say We've got business groups and employment law experts who say that this new tool will make it easier to assess the risk of COVID and set mandates and policies within businesses." That's true. Then he said "You know we've just had for example Countdown"—I think it was the example; he could have used The Warehouse Group as an example—"We've just had businesses that have set their policies." and the one glaring problem with all this is that the tool doesn't exist yet. So he's giving examples of why the tool's actually not needed apparently.Hon Member: Yeah they all love the tool they haven't seen.DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes—well exactly. Of course given that the tool doesn't exist people haven't actually seen it so all that those experts in employment law and those business groups have said is: "It would be great if a tool did exist." I think about a comment someone once made about New Zealand's healthcare system. They said that we've got First World professionals in a Third World system and that reminds me of Michael Wood. He's a First World Minister in a Third World Government. He's getting up there he's making the best case he can and he's selling it but unfortunately the tool he's selling is a non-existent tool. He'd be better to get a rabbit in a hat and say "Abracadabra!" than actually try and argue for the policy.Madam Chair I'm sorry. I know this is a serious matter but I just had to point that out. I actually wanted to ask the Minister about clause 7 of this bill in Part 1—specifically the new section 11AA. It says that "The Minister may make a COVID-19 order under section 11AB"—which we can get to—"in accordance with the following provisions:". It goes on to say "the Minister must be satisfied that the order does not limit or is a justified limit on the rights and freedoms in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990;". Now that's really important. It says "the Minister must be satisfied" and then I go back to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and it says that there are justified limitations on the rights and freedoms in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: "Subject to section 4 the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Now the thing is up until now what is "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"? Well there's been some ambiguity. Is that up to the Government to decide for itself? I mean it says that if the Minister can satisfy himself that's good enough or is it up to the courts to decide? Now I think it's really important because before the Privileges Committee at the moment there's actually a bill about what exactly should happen if the courts make a declaration that Parliament has passed a law that is inconsistent. I guess the question is: what will happen if a Minister makes an order under this law and the Minister says "Well we're satisfied. I'm satisfied." and you know it goes on to say they have to have consulted the Prime Minister the Minister for COVID-19 Response the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health and consulted any other Minister and they may have consulted the director-general. They've done all of that and that they're all happy so how do the courts interpret that? Should the courts come along and say "Well Parliament's passed a statute saying that if the Minister is satisfied that the order is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and what's more they've followed the laws of consulting everybody that they have to consult and they may consult being the Director-General of Health" what then happens? Do the courts interpret that this statute overrides the requirements in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or do they then say "Actually we're not so sure about that. We're going to strike it down and declare that this order which has been made under this law is inconsistent."? So is it that the courts decide if an order is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and what's acceptable in a free and democratic society? Or has this law just given the Minister a new standard that as long as the Minister is satisfied and consults a few other Ministers then that is consistent with a free and democratic society?Now I might just take this opportunity—I know we've heard the point made but it bears repeating—to say that this is exactly why if you find yourself in a global pandemic and you start vaccinating people in February you don't wait until November to legislate how the vaccine passports work because you may find yourself rushing through issues that are extremely constitutionally important and that the Privileges Committee is currently considering and maybe not know the answer to. I hope the Minister does and he'll get up and tell us now."