Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I rise on behalf of National as the MP for North Shore to talk on the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2) second reading. Obviously as we've heard just before from my colleague Christopher Bishop National opposes this bill. I was part of the select committee team that has reviewed this bill and what is clear is that this bill deals with the past and not the future. As a member of the select committee along with my colleague Penny Simmonds as well and I acknowledge the other members of the committee from the other side of the House and the chair we went through a number of aspects of this bill. National also obviously opposed the bill and provided a minority report which outlined the key reasons why we felt that this bill was simply unnecessary. I'll cover that in a little bit of detail in my speech.I want to go back a little bit in terms of time in terms of when this bill was presented and that was on 21 September. I must say a lot has changed in the way in which COVID is being managed within our communities across this country since this date. That is the reality of dealing with COVID. It is no surprise. We simply need to look overseas for the way in which this disease is changing and this virus is being managed. But the way in which this bill is being drafted is a bill that is drafted in a world that was in that past. A huge amount of things significant aspects in terms of the way in which we are managing this and the way in which we will manage this going forward are not reflected in this bill.That is a great shame because as my colleague Christopher Bishop mentioned in terms of the impact of this bill this bill impacts our communities and it is a grave shame that we are going to be pushing through some legislation that does not actually put a positive aspect in terms of what we could be doing at the moment—seizing the opportunity that we have in front of us.The key aspect that has changed obviously since 21 September is the introduction of obviously the traffic light system which wasn't envisaged previously. I think that in itself has created a huge amount of confusion in terms of whether it's red yellow or green or just flashing orange all the time. The fundamental changes around managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ)—we heard the Minister you know just quite flippantly I think refer to the fact that MIQ is potentially going to be changed in the future. But I think 99.9 percent of Kiwis would look at the MIQ system for travellers that are coming in from overseas that are double-vaccinated that tested negative on departure—99.9 percent of sensible people would look at that and go Why the hell are we doing MIQ for those individuals?" There is not any logic to that and that is the frustration that is built into this bill and across a number of areas. I must say as part of the process which we are going through it is hugely frustrating to see a Government that is out of touch with the people. I want to cover a little bit more around that.National opposes this bill for two specific reasons. One is in regards to clause 7 of the bill and the introduction of new section 11 which relates to the COVID orders being able to be applied and require owners of businesses and in particular laboratories to in effect provide their services under Government directions. It also includes in effect the ability for the Government to nationalise in effect private businesses. And what we heard from the Minister before is that the circumstances in which these rules would ever be envisaged to be deployed are in extreme or severe circumstances. Well I'm sorry the purpose of this House is not to simply introduce legislation for that one-in-a-thousand-day event that we may or may not see. It is actually to try and restrain the amount of legislation that we are putting in place that allows our communities to get on and live their lives.We seem to forget that for 91 days members of our communities in Auckland and until recently the Waikato have been in lockdown. I recognise that the impact of that lockdown is much wider than Auckland and the Waikato. It impacts people in the Coromandel. It impacts people in Selwyn in the Bay of Plenty in Whangārei around this country and here in Wellington as well. But this Government has simply ignored that fact in this bill and what we are now paying for is the consequences of that inaction.I am worried about the mental health of our business owners across our country but particularly in my electorate of the North Shore. On Sunday afternoon we met with numbers of hospitality business owners. And I hear the member from Northcote laughing across the other side. He has the audacity to laugh about such a serious topic. But members of that community the hospitality community—hairdressers and hair salons—who have not had income for 91 days are paying the price of this Government's inaction.This bill provides those people with no certainty. This bill provides those businesses with no hope. This bill provides those businesses those real people those human beings that are living in our biggest cities with families with children with obligations around mortgages with financial commitments with anxiety and stress that is growing and growing by the day with no plan to move forward. That is the great irony and sadness about this bill. It fails to address the reality of what we face in the future and it simply deals with a past that we are no longer part of.The other aspect of this bill that I wanted to raise is in regards to the MIQ facility and I referred before to clause 22 of this bill in particular. We talked about the fact that the bill refers to changes in terms of MIQ and other aspects. The MIQ system for those international travellers that are double-vaccinated that have a negative test should be abolished today. It has no place in this country. And as we've heard 4000 people are isolating at home at the moment—2000 of those with COVID and only 35 have actually got COVID. What an absolute wasted opportunity. This Fortress New Zealand that we have—this bill simply reinforces that fortress at a time when we should be starting to dismantle this fortress and get on with our lives and get back to normal. Why is that important? Because it is important for our communities to be able to move on to have a sense of hope and that is what's missing again from this bill.I want to refer also to clause 23 of the bill which puts in place regulations for the Minister to set infringements. We had a lot of discussion in select committee around this point. Why are we trying to introduce more infringements more fines that may be appropriate in a highly restrictive environment but again that is in the past; it is not the future. We are starting to relax those environments relax some of those restrictions. Heck the Minister and the Prime Minister can't even articulate when Aucklanders can actually get out of the city when I can get down to the Waikato and see my mother and father who I haven't seen for 91 days; my grandchildren to see their grandparents. There will be stories across this country and across Auckland of that and that is real. The border element is completely unnecessary in regards to that and the element around infringements which have been increased in that is a stick-stick-stick approach which works well in the past but not in the future.I want to finish off by just acknowledging those members of my community in hospitality and here and the businesses that have had no income. We in this House are thinking of you at the moment and we are doing our damnedest to support and get you out of where you are and to where you need to be and that's back into business. Thank you Madam Speaker."