Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. The Green Party is supporting this bill. We understand the reasons for why we might have a curtailed select committee report-back period because most of this is just pushing out legislative deadlines for really obvious reasons but there will still be plenty of opportunity to scrutinise at the select committee and of course our member looks forward to that.I just wanted to briefly talk about a few things that we have concerns about even though we are supporting the bill. I mean obviously at the time last year we did not support the fast-track consenting bill—so the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020. This is one where the sunset clause is being extended. We still don't see that that is the appropriate way to address any particular hold-ups to infrastructure delivery. Like it's really important that we get it right and that we have proper processes around protecting the environment. I do think that the Minister responsible has set a very high bar for getting through that fast-track consenting but ultimately that is not the way to solve the particular challenges that we face with the Resource Management Act and we're looking forward to the new legislation that will replace the Resource Management Act in order to get better outcomes both for the environment and for communities.The residential tenancies changes are welcome but I don't think they go far enough. Restricting terminations during outbreaks of COVID-19 is clearly something that needs to happen but also there's the issue around 90-day notice. So if somebody is issued a 90-day notice but then we go into a level 4 or level 3 lockdown for an extended period of time it's actually impossible for those people to look for alternative accommodation. For that reason I think that probably we should be looking at whether or not the 90-day notice period is basically not counted during a level 4 or level 3 lockdown—Hon Simon Bridges: This is crazy talk.Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —because it's not possible for people to look for alternative accommodation. What are they meant to do? They're in a level 4 lockdown; they're unable to visit other premises. Basically everything to do with real estate is suspended at level 4 so it doesn't make sense that the clock would be ticking on a 90-day notice to move out. It's simply unfair for the people living in that property. I hear the Hon Simon Bridges saying that's crazy. Obviously the owners of private rental accommodation should have the ability to cast people out and make them homeless during a goddamn pandemic! What sort of morals do people in the National Party have that they actually think that the owners of property have more rights than the rights of New Zealanders to have a secure place to live in the middle of a pandemic? That explains why we have a housing crisis in this country because that sort of person was in power for nine years while the supply of housing did not increase there was no addition to the supply of public housing. It's absolutely shocking and disgusting and immoral that anyone would hold that position that owners of property should be able to profit at any price while we let people go homeless in this country during a pandemic.Finally when it comes to the changes to the Local Electoral Act it will be interesting to see. It's pretty obvious that if we were in a situation of a level 3 or level 4 lockdown we wouldn't be able to have public meetings. We wouldn't be able to run a normal local body electoral campaign. So I think this is a pretty reasonable provision that has a number of safeguards attached to it. I don't for one second believe the sort of bizarre conspiracy theories that were being peddled by Chris Bishop asserting that the Labour Government is going to use this power to somehow get an advantage in the Wellington mayoral race and not have to hold a by-election. I mean that just sounds quite frankly a little bit deranged—although I guess that is where that party's getting to. They're really desperate at their 20-25 percent or less in the polls and making all sorts of random accusations.But one concern I do have and that is not addressed in this bill and that really should be is the ability for New Zealanders overseas to participate in elections in New Zealand. That is a right that actually is very much jeopardised by the global pandemic and the fact that we have this strange constraint in our law that says you have to visit New Zealand every three years in order to participate in an election. Well clearly since the pandemic started people have been advised not to travel. It's extremely constrained their ability to return to New Zealand and it's quite possible that that constraint will extend for a period of—you know now it's been 18 months; it's going to be over two years at best-case scenario.To be honest Andrew Geddis wrote a really excellent analysis of this. The requirement for New Zealanders to visit every three years in order to participate in elections is quite unusual and if they are citizens of New Zealand I really believe that this constraint should be removed completely. There are many citizens of New Zealand who for whatever reason are residing overseas. They still actively care about democracy in New Zealand. They want to participate in it—they are citizens and they should be able to participate in it. I think that is an issue that really should be addressed in this legislation or very urgently because the Government is going to miss the opportunity to address this disenfranchisement of a huge number of New Zealanders who are stuck overseas at the moment and cannot return to New Zealand.