SpeechBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Chair. So we're here on Part 1 to discuss around the purpose. I've got some questions for the Minister David Parker. When this bill was introduced into the House earlier this sitting day the Minister claimed and this has been the case to public media as well that the reason for this bill was to provide powers for enforcement of compliance under COVID-19 alert levels 1 and 2—2 in particular given that that's where we hope to be heading in a matter of hours. And yet it has been determined in this debate or in this committee stage confirmed by the Minister and officials that the powers in this bill are not limited to levels 1 and 2 but do provide a vehicle for compliance edicts and enforcement on any return to levels 3 or 4 as well. So my question of the Minister is: why did he try to sell this bill to the public as being for levels 2 and possibly 1? Why if it is about that are the provisions not limited to COVID-19 alert levels 1 and 2? In the purpose statement could it simply insert a clause in there to make that very clear that this bill and the provisions in this bill and the particular conditions the interpretations—that this bill applies to those specific alert levels? How does the Minister reconcile a need for this bill for levels 3 and 4—how does he reconcile that with his own public statement that there was no enforcement gap under alert levels 3 and 4 and those health notices issued? Because if there was no enforcement gap there is no need to nuance provisions for any potential return to level 3. His statement to the public was that what exists under the existing framework such as the Epidemic Preparedness Act the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act and the powers under that—that they're enough; that there was no gap. So why does this bill need to permit the provisions of this bill to apply to levels 3 or 4 when we've already got law to do that? Because on the face of it it looks like they just find that current law a little bit annoying and instead they want to reshape some provisions so they don't get limited by what the limitations of that law are and we may soon find out in court just what those limitations might be. But if they have that view and the trifling annoyances of the law as it exists today isn't good enough for them then they should say so. And they didn't. So why didn't they? What is the justification? Because most of these provisions are in substance if not in exact wording uplifted from those pieces of legislation anyway; for the elements that might nuance it such as the Minister's reference to marae and enforcement officers those elements could be incorporated into the current structure by way of amendment of those Acts. They don't need inherently a new Act and they could have sunset clauses in those provisions in those amendment bills. So there is no fundamental obvious need for this bill to apply to levels 3 and 4 particularly when the Government and that Minister said that this was all about going into level 2. That fundamentally is important. I mean this is about constraining civil liberties. It was told to the public it's because there were nuances required for level 2 because as we determined yesterday it's difficult to perpetuate a state of emergency under the risk profile of level 2. So yep OK we can understand that there is some need to be able to set compliance conditions and to enforce those but it is not at all clear that those elements need to be able to incorporate conditions for level 3 and level 4. So I'm particularly interested for the justification—one the justification why this has to be level 3 and 4 encompassing as well but also why weren't they honest with the public? Why weren't they upfront when they introduced this bill? Why were they not upfront and saying Actually this isn't about level 1 and 2; this is about our ability to control your movements your associations your actions for any condition under COVID. We're not happy with the constraints that exist on us as Government so we want the freedom to be able to do whatever we want to do when we want to do it over the next two years."?"