Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. Now the National Party supported this bill the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill at first reading in good faith on the basis that we are a bipartisan—for the most part—constructive Opposition when it comes to COVID matters. We wanted to send it to committee to kick it around and then see where we got to at the end of the committee process. Unfortunately we are going to oppose the legislation at second reading and beyond for two major reasons. The first is in relation to the amendments to the Property Law Act that I want to spend a bit of time dealing with and the second is in relation to the matters the Minister has just referred to which is the Local Electoral Act amendments. It is good to see that the Minister will be bringing a Supplementary Order Paper I think he signalled at the committee of the whole House stage in relation to that—that's an example of the Government listening; we encourage that. So we'll wait and see the details of that. But at the moment we are very disappointed in the attitude of the Government to its amendments to the local electoral legislation through this omnibus bill.I want to make a point at the start in relation to process. It was poor form for the Government to only provide around a day's notice to the Opposition before this bill was introduced. Many of the amendments in this omnibus bill are non-controversial; many of them are very sensible. So the Gambling Act amendments in relation to lotteries class 3 operators are very sensible. Some of the amendments around the Land Transport Act are again very sensible. We can have a debate around the climate change amendments. But most of the amendments put forward through this omnibus bill are reasonably non-controversial. But a couple are quite controversial and good process means that they should be sorted out through good consultation particularly when it comes to an omnibus bill like this which deals with a whole range of pieces of legislation.As a related point the process at the select committee was very very shortened—very straitened circumstances. I accept that the Finance and Expenditure Committee did what they could in the time that they had but the point is that they didn't have enough time. So the bill's only just come back to the House. It was referred to the committee in the last sitting period of the Parliament—so not enough time for the committee to get into the nitty-gritty of this legislation.So just with that process point I come to the substance of the legislation. I want to deal firstly with the property law amendments. Members on this side—National members in particular—spent quite a bit of time in the first reading expressing some misgivings about these sections. It is quite outrageous actually what the Government is seeking to do. We voted for the bill at the first reading in good faith to see what the submitters would say and to kick it around a bit at the committee. But the fact that the Government has not made any substantial changes to this provision is quite appalling.The starting point is that retrospectivity is a bad thing and what this bill does is retrospectively interfere in contracts that have been signed by people in the private sector. That is wrong as a matter of principle. It requires a very good justification from the Government before they retrospectively legislate. The reason retrospective lawmaking is bad is because people are entitled to know what the law is at the time that they sign contracts and make decisions on the basis of what the law is at that moment. Obviously Parliament altering what that law was at that particular time undermines the certainty or undermines the very idea of the rule of law because if you can't know what the law is at a particular moment because Parliament might come along in a few years' time and change what the law actually is how can you have certainty in what you are signing? So of course retrospective law is a bad thing. It is terrible obviously in relation to the criminal law. Everyone accepts that you shouldn't retrospectively change criminality; it's not quite as bad but it's still very bad in relation to commercial contracts which is exactly what this bill does. So this bill undermines the rule of law undermines the sanctity of contract law. Now to do that the Government has got to have a very good reason before they do that. What is the Government's reason? It's not actually clear what it is because Kris Faafoi's own rationale for the bill is that he has anecdotally heard from some tenants in commercial landlord relationships that the existing law and existing rental-relief arrangements are a problem. That's it: just anecdotal evidence. This is how Government makes policy that is an affront to the rule of law now. The Government makes policy on the basis of anecdata—anecdotes that someone talked to Kris Faafoi about in the Koru lounge. That's how the Government makes policy that is an affront to the principles against retrospectivity and an affront to the rule of law. It's anecdotal evidence that is it. It's just outrageous. Unsurprisingly everyone involved in the commercial property sector lined up to oppose this bill at the select committee. All the property firms the Real Estate Institute Infrastructure New Zealand Bayleys Business New Zealand New Zealand Law Society the Auckland District Law Society (ADLS) they all lined up to oppose it and said This is a dumb idea." and that the bill doesn't make any sense it won't improve things and you need to throw it out. And what's the Government decided to do? Not listen to people actually involved in the commercial world people who actually are involved in the signing of contracts on a daily basis and enforcing those contracts. No no the Government knows best and instead we are going to proceed with this. Minister Kris Faafoi had an embarrassing little moment when the Auckland District Law Society had to basically put out a press release which is quite an amazing thing for them to do to criticise the Minister of Justice. The Auckland District Law Society had to put out a press release criticising the Minister and correcting him on his claim that the Government had consulted with the ADLS. Nothing was true in relation to that. In fact the first that the Auckland District Law Society heard about the legislation was when the Minister put out a press release about it on 28 September. So there was no consultation with people involved in the sector no consultation with people actually affected by this provision; the Government has just decided to go ahead with it on the basis of anecdote. It undermines the sanctity of contract there has been no consultation as to how it will actually work and the bill as drafted is way too wide. Companies who don't even suffer economic loss will be entitled to seek rent relief. The real issue when it comes to this issue is cash flow. As numerous submitters said to the committee the issue is cash flow. If the Government was serious about solving cash-flow problems for businesses that have disputes with landlords they should pick up Andrew Bayly's suggestion proposed by the Opposition which actually goes—Anna Lorck: No way. CHRIS BISHOP: —to the problem. Members opposite go: "Oh ya ya no way." Well actually Mr Bayly's proposal enjoys the support of people involved in the sector because he's actually gone and talked to them about what would work and has got wide-ranging support from people and that's why it enjoys their support. The Government's proposal the Government's solution enjoys no such support. No one supports it. So the Government should listen to Mr Bayly's proposal.Finally in relation to the local electoral changes—the Government's signalled some changes here so I won't dwell on it too much—it is just appalling that the Government is giving itself the power to delay local elections. Now we accept that there should of course be power in emergency circumstances but what this bill will allow the Government to do is to do that over and over again in six-week increments all the way through 2023. It has never been justified to the Parliament or the committee why the Government needs such a wide-ranging power. That has never been justified. We accept that in extreme circumstances clearly you need the power to delay an election. But the wide-ranging power that the Government seeks for itself has never been justified. And it of course has set people's minds racing out there in the wider community about what plans the Government does have to delay local elections and why they might do that—three waters potentially for example. Now I'm not alleging that that's what the Government's ulterior motive is but I'm saying that the Government of course is going to leave itself open to accusations and allegations like that at the same time as they are engaged in a massive bun fight with the local government sector and people are clearly going to be worked up about—Hon Scott Simpson: Joining the dots.CHRIS BISHOP: —the Government giving itself the power—they're joining the dots as the Hon Scott Simpson says and I think that is precisely the point.So we will oppose this legislation. It's got some decent things in it but we'll oppose it on the grounds that the amendments to the Property Law Act are an affront to the rule of law and the Local Electoral Act amendments are not justified. Thank you."