SpeechHARETE HIPANGO (National): I take a call for the National Party for the second reading of this bill. As has been indicated there is support for the amendment bill and as has been commented too there is concern about the haste with which this has been rushed through.So ordinarily a second reading is where after an introduction in first reading the bill goes to a select committee for public submission and scrutiny for the public to have input and rightfully to have a say particularly about a bill that has been an imposition and restriction on freedom and liberty of movement existence and democratic rights which the Minister has appropriately acknowledged. Also ordinarily under normal circumstances—and these have been abnormal times for New Zealanders—at a second reading there will be a select committee report back to the House indicating whether or not there should be further amendments to the amendment bill before the House now. There's not been that opportunity to do so.I indicated in the first call I took that the Opposition parties were notified of this bill on Tuesday this week—two days ago—and here we are debating it before the House at a second reading soon to go to the committee of the whole House and a third reading estimated within the next half hour. This is unusual—highly unusual.So this second reading—part of that unusualness as well is—I've done a little bit of research and this would have been disclosed had ordinarily it come before a select committee and public engagement contribution participation—there has been what is called a departmental disclosure statement. That statement is dated 21 November 2022. Here we are today Thursday—the 24th is it?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): It's still the 22nd actually because we're in urgency. So it's still Tuesday.HARETE HIPANGO: So still Tuesday for the benefit of the public today is Thursday. So for the peculiarity and the unusualness of this under urgency it's deemed as Tuesday the 22nd—thank you Madam Speaker. But this is about how it resonates and connects with New Zealanders and the New Zealand public.So I have referred to a departmental disclosure statement dated 21 November made available publicly. As a member of Parliament I had a look through that in the very limited time just noting that the Government has said there has been external consultation and that overall most stakeholders indicated support for the narrowing of powers in the Act to improve its proportionality whilst retaining the ability to implement a limited set of public health responses or public health measures. I'll detail those at the third reading because I do have some questions to the Minister at the committee of the whole House.Also in terms of the peculiarity abnormality the unusualness of this being under urgency I also searched out and had a look at the regulatory impact statement. That statement was dated initially when it had been provided to Cabinet September of this year. Unusually only made available to members of this House on Tuesday—although it's Thursday today under urgency deemed to be Tuesday 22 November. So this regulatory impact statement has been made available to the Government to its Cabinet since September 2022 and here we are today: it's only been made available as of 22 November. What a regulatory impact statement does is identify concerns and associated risks.So my legal eye looked through to whether there are any risks or associated concerns about New Zealanders' rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is well known that when this Act came into force back in March 2020 there was significant consternation concern not only from members in this House but New Zealand members of the public. So I've turned to page 9 of the regulatory impact statement that was dated September 2022 only released and made available on Tuesday 22 November. There's a section there: New Zealand Bill of Rights: Considerations with Respect to Constitutional Issues Regarding Maintaining Powers to Respond to COVID-19. Interesting. That advice has all been redacted. It has not been made publicly available to members of this House or the New Zealand public. Again unusual and a measure of concern to be noted as to why it is that the Government and its Cabinet is not prepared to disclose to the New Zealand public the legal advice that has been received around New Zealanders' rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.It's understood by the National Party the importance of maintaining a continuum for the health and safety of New Zealanders with a concern associated with COVID-19. However there does need to be a balancing off of New Zealanders' rights in terms of their rights but also New Zealanders do have responsibilities and it's about how far the Government goes in terms of imposition against New Zealand's rights around freedoms and liberties and that has been a big issue that has driven a wedge of division in our country.So at the second reading I'm indicating the bill would usually have gone to a select committee for scrutiny I'm noting that under the regulatory impact statement the advice in relation to New Zealanders' rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has been redacted not made available and there has to be some concern associated with that.It has been indicated that the National Party supports this bill because it appropriately recognises the fact that the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act needs to have some of those initial powers removed reduced restricted repealed and limited. At the third reading after there has been further debate at the committee of the whole House I will go through a summary of what those matters are. Thank you Madam Speaker.