Seymour David; Dean JacquiDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well thank you very much Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill. This bill is what they call an omnibus bill: it amends quite a wide range of laws and the people putting these bills forward always claim it does so with a common purpose—to manage COVID-19 in this case. Hon Simon Bridges: Like totalitarianism.DAVID SEYMOUR: Simon Bridges says Like totalitarianism." and he's not entirely wrong about that. I was amused actually—Simon Bridges will like this. One of the new Labour members—I'm sorry I can't remember their name right now but one of the Labour members was talking about the policies being cooked up in the Koru lounge. That member might like to reflect that because of the Government she supports the Koru lounge in Auckland's been closed for 62 days. You know they can't go to the Koru lounge because Auckland Airport is more or less closed and much of Auckland is closed. It's a very strange thing. We're counting the days that it's been closed. As I was saying this legislation it makes quite a number of relatively benign adjustments. For example it allows a charity running a raffle to do it digitally so people can still raise cash for good causes under COVID restrictions. That's a pretty good idea and something that could be put through in a bill like this in an uncontroversial way. We could even rush it through and get rid of the usual consultation: have a couple of weeks for select committee just rush it through don't worry about giving the people a say because I don't think there's a lot of people in New Zealand who would be worried that a charity could run a raffle digitally under COVID conditions. There's a bunch of changes like that that are well worth supporting. So we're not opposed to a lot of it. But there are two parts of this legislation that most certainly did deserve a much greater debate and consultation than they've had and indeed the ACT Party believes should never have been introduced to this House and should never have been passed. The two parts of this legislation that we are absolutely opposed to on principle are: the Government's ability to delay local body elections. Well most local body elections are done by postal voting and you think about this: this is the Government that just two months ago said this Parliament can operate by Zoom. That was the big idea. We were all going to come together by Zoom and that was going to be enough democracy for the whole of New Zealand. We were going to ask questions pass laws raise taxes off people spend the money—all of that according to this Government was going to be done by Zoom. Now they're telling us that under COVID conditions it is too hard to have a local body election which by the way is all done by postal ballot. Now someone might ask: if you can have a Parliament by Zoom why do you have to delay a local body election by postal ballot? It's not as though—Hon Scott Simpson: Three waters.DAVID SEYMOUR: Scott Simpson says it's three waters. He's been going on to some of those funny websites getting some theories. Well the real issue is this—Greg O'Connor: The ACT website.DAVID SEYMOUR: Greg O'Connor says it's the ACT Party website. Well let me just ask Greg O'Connor: how would he know? Has he been on the ACT Party website? Hey hey—oh! I'll tell you what. I'll tell Greg O'Connor we're going to try and get it down to an 11-year-old reading age and then he can come and visit the ACT Party website. But until that time he should probably stick to the picture books.Greg O'Connor: He might let his own MPs speak then.DAVID SEYMOUR: In any case there is no logical reason—there he goes yapping away. You wait till after dinner Madam Speaker; he'll be much looser. Here's the question: why would a Government that believed in a Zoom Parliament want to delay a postal ballot election? There is no reason for this Parliament to delay people's right to elect their councillors. That's the first step.But far more critical than that is this: this legislation changes the results or the meaning of commercial rental contracts that may have been written 10 years ago. This is far more important than any other legislation that this Government will try and pass in this two-week sitting block and perhaps actually this year. The significance of it is that normally when we pass a law in this Parliament we pass a law but you can't be done for it if you broke it in the past. For example if somebody was to catch a fish that was undersized now if we raise the length of snapper that you're allowed to catch you can't be prosecuted for having caught a fish that was too small 10 years ago by today's standards. You caught a 25-centimetre snapper. That was legal back in the day. Now the limit is much longer: 29 I think. You can't get done for catching an undersized snapper by today's standards 10 years ago. The laws don't apply to things you did in the past. But what this commercial lease law says is it doesn't matter. If you made a contract 10 years ago to lease a premise a commercial premise well actually we're going to change what that contract means. It doesn't matter that when you signed the contract the law said you will be paid according to the contract or you will pay according to the contract. Actually we're going to say "Here's the new law and it doesn't matter what you agreed back then you have to follow the law today." That's what they call retrospective legislation. The problem with retrospective legislation is that people who want to be good citizens who want to follow the law who want to plan their futures can't do those things if they might find the goalposts get moved after they did the thing. That's the problem—that's the problem—and this Parliament as far as I'm aware certainly not in the time I've been here has never changed the legislation in a way that is retrospective in any significant way. We've never changed the law on people after the fact not like this. If we live in a country where you make a contract you sign an agreement between two adults voluntarily and the Government comes along maybe 10 years later and says "Actually it doesn't matter what the law was when you signed it here's the new law. You no longer have to pay the rent or you can no longer expect the rent we've actually just changed at all." that is a very dangerous precedent for any country. Labour Governments National Governments all sorts of Governments we've had in this country over a long period of time have never gone where this Government is going. What's interesting and it's one of those observations about New Zealand politics is that only one political party stood up three weeks ago when we first voted on this law and said it is wrong on principle. The National Party stood up and—you know I mean the Greens you can forgive them. The Māori Party they don't always remember to vote on legislation. But the Labour Party I mean they're behind it they wouldn't have a clue frankly about business and law in the real world that actually provides the wealth they tax and give out to their supporters. But the National Party even they got up and voted for it and said "Well maybe perhaps in some circumstance we could support retrospective legislation." I think that's frankly unforgivable. They should have opposed it right from the start. The ACT Party stands for a country where the laws are reliable. You know what they are. And you don't change the laws so that what people did in the past can be judged by laws they couldn't anticipate at the time. That is the rule of law. That is property rights. That is the environment that allows wealth creation. This law more than anything Parliament's done violates that and the ACT Party is proud to stand consistently alone against it.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member's time is expired."