Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I take a short call in response to a couple of comments from the Attorney-General David Parker. I apologise I missed part of his comment but what I got from him was that it was not necessary to set out in any explicit terms the need to balance the other concerns New Zealanders have such as their rights and freedoms—Hon David Parker: That's not what I said.DAVID SEYMOUR: —and their welfare in the purpose. He's now saying to me that's not what he said but he seemed to be saying that because clause 9(b)—and that's in Part 2 and we're not currently debating Part 2—but because clause 9(b) has a reference where it says the Minister must have regard to any decision by the Government on the level of public health measures appropriate to respond to the risks or remedy the effects and then in brackets (which decision may have taken into account any social economic or other factors)". So I take the Minister's point that the bill does include the concern for other factors: people's rights and freedoms; their right to protect their livelihood do their business and so on. However I just make the point that when pushed to refer to that the Attorney-General has referred us to something in clause 9(b) that's actually in brackets and I don't think that is an adequate prominence for the fact that the Government needs to be balancing a range of competing objectives when it puts in place these orders. I just come back—I don't think those are particularly helpful but it's worth mentioning since the Attorney-General's picked it up.The logic of separating couples going into hospital for childbirth is that actually they had their bubble divided. If anything they were put at greater risk. The idea that an intimate couple who are having a baby wouldn't have already infected each other if one or the other had it does not seem logical to me. It's more likely that they're going to infect each other if one of them is forced to go outside and pace around the carpark and take a different route through the hospital from the other. And of course that the illogic of those orders compounds when you consider that actually in most cases such as Dr David Cumin who happens to be a personal friend of mine and a lecturer at the University of Auckland a fine proponent of civil liberties in this country—well he was also separated from his partner in the course of childbirth. But the crazy thing is he went into the hospital then he came out so the bubble was together then divided. The hospital actually increased the chance of spreading COVID including into the hospital. I don't think there's a lot of point debating this because it's not entirely relevant to the bill but it does speak to the need to consider very carefully the impacts of this legislation not only on COVID-19 but on the other rights and freedoms that people cherish in this country.We also come on to the later sections and I don't think there's a huge amount that needs to be said about that other than this question around specified private premises. Now I can understand the obvious sensitivity of differentiating marae from the rest of the private dwellings that New Zealanders have. We don't like the idea that there are two legal regimes—that one race are singled out—obviously and I think it's important that the Government is trying to address that issue. But so far as I can see and perhaps the Attorney-General can tell us specified private premises still names a dwelling a private dwellinghouse or marae so I don't know what the objective is anymore. Are we trying to say that marae and Māori are different or the same when we distinguish marae from private dwellinghouses in the interpretation?So lots to debate—and I think it shows having this debate how important it is that New Zealand's laws are actually debated in a Parliament. And for that I really thank the Attorney-General for bringing this bill to the House and now to committee. Thank you Mr Chair."