Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise to support my colleague Chris Bishop's contribution and his proposed change to the title. I think it should be called COVID-19 Response (Retrospective Property Law) Legislation Bill" because for reasons that Mr Bishop has outlined that is the most significant part of this bill. Most of it is administrative but what is far more significant is the idea that a contract that was signed under one set of laws will now be interpreted under a different set of law. You know that's never been the case. You are always judged for your actions on what the law was when the action occurred. The idea that you can have the goalposts moved and be judged under a different set of law that's quite extraordinary.But I actually think that New Zealand if we go down this path is not going to get all of the benefits that come from this kind of legislation. I want to ask the Minister you know can he guarantee that once we start changing the law retrospectively changing people's contracts I want him to guarantee that we're going to be able to grow bananas in New Zealand because actually what would be better is if he can guarantee that what we should do is call it the "COVID-19 Response Retrospective Property Law Banana Republic Bill".Now that's the truth. Because look I mean it's bad having a country where the State's got no restraints and goes all over the show and changes the law in a whole lot of different ways. You know that's a pretty bad way to live. It's hard for people to invest with any certainty. It's hard for people to raise any capital. But at least most places that have that sort of legal framework they can grow plentiful bananas. That is one of life's little compensations for poor legislation. So that is my opening contribution.Some people will say "You're being a bit flippant." but let me just ask this question: how should people respond when you've got a Government that introduces legislation that shakes the pillars of law and property rights and the rule of law in this country and does it based on the fact that they got advised over the Koru lounge? Then when they come out to say "Oh who was consulted?" they say "The Auckland District Law Society (ALDS) were behind us on this." I asked the Auckland District Law Society and guess what! The ALDS know nothing about it they say. That didn't sound like consultation.So unfortunately we've actually got to a stage where the Government's probably going to pass this. Sometimes the only way to deal with a Government that is so ridiculous is actually to ridicule it. You know we should ridicule this Government. What they're doing is damaging. They're clearly too blind to see the damage that they're doing. They're not going to be I suspect persuaded by rational argument so they are worthy of ridicule. This committee should say to this Government "If you want to pass banana republic laws then we're going to change the title of your law to the 'COVID-19 Retrospective Property Law Banana Republic Conversion Legislation Bill'". That would be the logical thing to call it and New Zealanders should be should be laughing because if you didn't laugh you'd cry.I just ask the question: how else are we going to make this Government see sense other than ridicule? That's what they deserve. That is the start of this debate and people like myself and my colleague here Mark Cameron he's a farmer. Farmers are very interested in property rights. They make their living off the land you know? Mark Cameron: Oh not when it gets taken off us.DAVID SEYMOUR: Well yeah. Their net living is made off the land he says. You know we actually look forward to getting into the serious details of this bill but let's just open by signalling that it's actually a law at this time that deserves ridicule.New Zealand has a very fine tradition of getting rid of bad policy by ridicule. What got rid of Muldoon in the end was actually that everybody laughed at him. He laughed for a long time [Laughs like Muldoon] and in the end everybody made fun of Muldoon. That is the New Zealand way to deal with ridiculous propositions from ridiculous Governments—it is to ridicule them and that's why this committee should tell the Government "If you want to make such ridiculous laws we are going to ridicule it and we're going to call your law a banana republic law." With a bit of luck if nothing else even if it undermines the sanctity of contract the rule of law and property rights in Aotearoa New Zealand at least we might get some bananas."