Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill. It is a very good example of why this Parliament and this country need an ACT Party. When everybody else loses their head when even the National Party say This is terrible it's an abomination it's bad policy it's bad process but we'll support it." is when you need an ACT Party to say that this policy is wrong and this process of rushing through retrospective legislation that interferes in private contracts is completely wrong it should not be happening in New Zealand and if it keeps happening the whole country will be all the poorer for it. That is why this country and this Parliament need an ACT Party: to point out these very simple truths.Let's talk a little bit more about this legislation. There are a range of initiatives in here that most people would have no trouble with. Many of them involve processes and procedures where people need to meet in person to sign or submit a form for various legal reasons and all this does is say that you can be absolved of that requirement. In relation to the Gambling Act the Coroners Act a whole range of relatively benign changes made to those Acts around timing and the fact it is sometimes hard to do business under a lockdown that is all OK.But what we object to is the changes that are made to the Property Law Act that undermine private contracts for commercial leases up and down this country. I want to make it clear to people quite how different this is from what Governments normally do and what this Parliament normally does in New Zealand. Sometimes people find that the law changes and they have to change their behaviour but the one thing that we don't do is change the law that affects people who have already made decisions. So if you signed a lease document and you had an expectation that you could continue to collect rent and that you could put in place a notice if a person failed to pay it then that is an expectation written down in a contract signed by two parties. Neither of them were forced to sign it both of them had time to consider it both of them decided it was worth entering into—and both parties believed that that contract was binding to be interpreted by the courts if necessary. Under this legislation this Parliament is saying "Oh no no no. It doesn't matter what your lease says we are changing a private document that two individuals voluntarily entered into."What does that mean? Well what that means is—this is important—that if you sign a contract with another New Zealander under New Zealand law you don't know when the Government might come along and change the nature of that contract. The Government doing that is something that we normally associate with banana republics with countries in South America with countries in Africa with places where if you try and make a deal and you think that your rights are secure a corrupt Government can come along and dash your hopes. That is why those places sadly are much poorer than New Zealand. People don't save and invest to become wealthier in those countries like they do in Western countries like New Zealand because you always take the risk that some corrupt Government will come and take your rights away. Well unfortunately by putting this law in place by Parliament changing the terms of contracts that people may have signed 10 years ago this Government is making New Zealand just a little bit more like those other banana republics. That is unforgiveable.That is absolutely unforgivable because it is something that no future Government can easily change back. Normally if a Government changes the next one can change the law back and say "Actually that was wrong. We've changed it now." But no future Government will ever be able to restore the trust that is lost in the rule of law in New Zealand when a Parliament—this Labour Party – dominated Parliament—goes and interferes retrospectively in private contracts with rushed legislation. Now here is the next thing. It's bad enough that we've got a retrospective interference in a private contract undermining the rule of law in this country—that's bad enough—but they are not even following due process through this Parliament. They are using their majority to rush it through under urgency. So will there be proper consultation? No there is not. Have they prepared a regulatory impact statement from Treasury weighing up the costs and benefits of this law? No they haven't. Will there be sufficient time as they have indicated under a rushed select committee process for people who are affected by this law to come out and say what is affecting them and have their views considered? Will there be time for that to happen in a couple of weeks? No there won't. Will this Government be waiting until that rushed parliamentary process is complete before the law comes into play? No.Here is the third big problem. Not only is it retrospective not only is it being rushed through Parliament the Government is not waiting for Parliament. They say that "We're announcing a law today and it's in place from 28 September." It is in place today. That whole democracy thing putting it through Parliament and the representatives elected by the people of New Zealand voting on it to actually make it a statute law all of that stuff that'll come later. The Government is now making laws by press release and that is banana republic stuff. That erodes the confidence that people have to save for tomorrow knowing that maybe the Government will just take it all away. That is what is at stake with this legislation. That is what you get from a Government of children who don't understand the implications of what they are doing to the future of this country with their immature ill-conceived rushed retrospective interference in the property rights the rule of law and the contracts that New Zealanders voluntarily enter into in a First World Western democracy—or at least it is for now.So what should this Government have done? Well they should have acknowledged there is a problem. Because they weren't prepared for Delta because they now have an interminable lockdown with no end in sight small business is hurting and they should have recognised that problem. What they should have done instead of spending all the time we've had till now investing in bike bridges to Birkenhead investing in the art in Te Papa and spraying the COVID fund every which way they should have been thinking about saving their money for a rainy day and making the resurgence payment for small business weekly. Instead of messing with centuries of contract law and the property rights of New Zealanders the certainty in the rule of law that New Zealanders enjoy they should have used some of that money that they're borrowing by the billion to compensate for small businesses that are actually affected by their ill-preparedness and their unending lockdown by making the resurgence payment weekly. That is what they should have done but no. Instead of that they have decided to do serious lasting damage to the reputation of New Zealand as a civilised country with property rights and the rule of law where you can invest today knowing that your assets and your property will be there tomorrow. That is what they've done instead. They are now beyond an incompetent Government; they are a dangerous Government that does not understand the impact of what they are doing to the future of this country.Once again as often happens at times like this there is one political party that New Zealanders can rely on to stand up tell it like it is and say "No this must stop and if it doesn't every single one of us in New Zealand will eventually be far worse off than if it had stopped right now." The ACT Party proudly opposes this abomination of a dangerous and damaging piece of legislation. Thank you Madam Speaker."