 Yes, David Parker, in your role as attorney general, I wanted to ask a question that relates to a committee hearing we had two Thursdays ago, the police commissioner, the then police commissioner, Mike Bush, appeared, and he was asked on what legal basis the police were enforcing some of the rules that they were purporting to enforce at the time. And he cited that the police had Crown law advice about how they should act when trying to, I guess, enforce legally things that at that time were statements that press conferences are on websites. The committee subsequently requested that that legal advice be released in order that it could be scrutinised. And the police replied that they were unable to do so because it was the attorney general's advice being responsible for Crown law and it wasn't up to them to release it. A couple of matters arise out of this. The first is the obvious one that I'm sure you're personally very sympathetic to, which is that New Zealanders have a right to live under the rule of law under written rules that we can all look at and understand the consequences of our actions under the law. The second is a bit trickier that subsequent to the appearance of the commissioner, the government or at least the Ministry of Health actually did go ahead and release a section 70 notice stating what the rules should be. And it would seem possible at least that the commissioners faith and whatever legal advice he had may have been misplaced given that it was actually necessary for a statement to be made. I think in light of those two matters arising, it would be extremely helpful if you were able to give permission to the committee to have that advice released. So I wonder if you could respond to that and ask if you've been approached by the police asking permission to release the Crown law advice on which they were enforcing rules at the beginning of the lockdown and presumably still do rely on and have you responded to them. Well, the first point I'd make is, of course, as you would expect, have been keeping myself informed on the basis of advice from Crown law about the legality of the measures the government has taken. And I'm satisfied that there is a lawful basis for the making of the orders that I'm also satisfied that they don't breach the Bill of Rights Act and I'm also aware that the appropriate enforcement provisions to give the police enforcement powers lie within the Health Act and the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. And those together with the Section 17 Notice work together to enable enforcement of the Level 4 Alerts Elimination Strategy. So I'm satisfied that there's a legal basis for there and I think the legal basis for that has been fairly set out by the Crown and no doubt looked at by people who are critical of these issues who perhaps think that these things were not necessary, which is they're entitled to have those opinions and explore them. But in terms of the physician on legal professional privilege, there's nothing unusual or different happening here. The Crown, like anyone else, is entitled to claim legal professional privilege and respect to the advice that it receives. And there are good reasons for this, including the need for parties to receive and discuss legal advice and confidence. And I would also observe that successive governments have observed these principles and following the Canterbury earthquakes, the Attorney-General of previous governments only granted access to Crown legal advice in exceptional circumstances. And that was, for example, where there was a good reason why a named organisation needed to see some particular legal advice. Other than that, it was some years before legal advice was released because of the importance of preserving the free and, well, the ability of the Crown to consider legal advice and legal risk and confidence with its legal advisers in the same place to the government. This government is to prior governments. Can I just put this slightly different to you, Minister, than David Seymour has? The Director-General's made a section 70 order, which gives the basis for the lockdown powers of police and so on under the Health Act 1956, I think it is. We have now seen professors of universities, the law society, a plethora of lawyers from across the political spectrum, if I can politicise them, from Stephen Thanks, who have all effectively said, Minister, that the power to do the things in that order is legally questionable. And David has put that reason for releasing that advice as one of rule of law. Well, that's one way to put it. I would simply say it is the most remarkable public interest one could think of. It is the lockdown of an entire country and the complete loss of civil liberties at this time. I simply cannot conceive of a more significant public interest than this at any time, almost in history. As I want to ask you one more time whether you will release or evade legal privilege on your Crown law advice. No, I won't. I would also note that of these matters, I generally take the advice of the Solicitor-General as to when we should or shouldn't waive privilege. And there's no advice that I have that we should waive it. The legal basis for these orders is relatively simple. You've already mentioned that yourself repeating reference to section 70 of the Health Act. Any party who has a contrary view, of course, has recourse to the New Zealand court system who the arbiter of these matters. And I'm confident that the Crown is right in the legal position that we take. We're not releasing the advice, but if people want to contest the legal position, that's for the court. That's not for this country or for me. I put it to you if you were confident you'd release it. Because I remember as a Minister releasing legally privileged advice. Because it didn't make any difference and it didn't worry me. I just say to you, actually, you go through this. What the Act talks about is it requires persons to be isolated. But I actually wonder how you could find a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act-friendly interpretation of isolated that fundamentally can find. Even in these circumstances where surfers can't go surfing. I thought that your committee with Professor Skegg and the backing of you as chair were saying that the lockdown, if anything, was too little and too late. No, no, no. This is not about David. As you know as a lawyer, this is not about what should happen. It's what legally under the rule of law in this country can happen. And if the law needs changing, we've got this place called Parliament. And I don't want to give you a constitution. The law doesn't need to be changed. It's abundantly clear that the government, as prior governments did in centuries past, can, for reasons of public health, restrict people's liberties to people. OK. And what's the problem? Point of order. Mr Chair, point of order. This session was set up to be a session with Ministers Parker and Twyford about economic and trade matters. Over the course of that, Labour members have had a total of two questions allocated. And we're now moving into an extended session on an entirely different issue. We set it up as a separate topic. Michael, you know full well, at the first committee meeting of this committee, we on notice wrote to Minister Parker making quite clear that these matters would be canvassed. And now they're being canvassed. I think the reality of it is though, Minister Parker said no. That to me is the end of that matter. Excuse me, Mr Chair. I acknowledge what Michael's saying, but it would be helpful to be able to conclude this matter given we've started it. Can I ask the Attorney General, if he's not prepared to release the advice, would he release it to the committee in secret? I doubt it. No. No. Look, the law is, in my opinion, able to be read by everyone who has the capability to understand it. And which certainly includes the critics of the Government and their legal advisers. And if they want to challenge the legality of those issues, they have a court process that they can do that through. I don't think it's acceptable to come to Parliament and say there's no answers here, go to court. Look, this is obviously the end of the... Well, there are answers here, and I have given them. It's getting repeated. You want to see underlying legal advice that the Crown has entitled the claim privilege of. And I have told you that we, as prior governments did, are not waiving privilege. Can I just make it clear that in the case of the Christchurch experience, it was because of some decisions the Governor made that could have affected everybody's insurance policy. That was the reason it was withheld. No other reason. In this case, there are some very, very, I think important civil liberties issues that might be cleared up if the Government was a little more open about the advice that it's working on. Or working from. Finally, finally, finally, Mr Parker, just on that, is the public interest in not releasing it in your view simply that it is legally, professionally privileged? Yes.