Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm very happy to rise to make a contribution in the second reading of this—I suppose I better get the name right of it—COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill. In the passage of the committee members have been referring to it as the further management measures bill" so it was nice to say the name correctly in the House.I want as other members who have sat on the committee have to acknowledge the work of the officials in drafting this bill—Parliamentary Counsel Office for their work on the way through but the officials for the way they presented to the committee. Clearly they have done nothing else but work on this piece of legislation and its many and varied clauses. The chair Mike Woodhouse on Friday afternoon wished them a relaxing weekend knowing full well that that was not going to be the case—and so it proved to be on Monday at 9.30 when we recommenced our consideration of this bill. The praise that is being heaped on those officials is well deserved and I have no doubt will continue throughout the further readings and the eventual passage of this bill because it is a bill that we can all agree to and agree on.Another couple of reflections if I may about process matters. The Zoom meeting scenario for select committees took maybe one meeting to adjust to the new way of doing parliamentary business but in this instance it certainly worked. It worked well perhaps because it was intensive work. It was essentially day in day out; day in day out; weekend off for members; and then a couple of days and then on into the House. So under these circumstances it has been a way for members to absolutely focus almost in an unbroken chain through the Zoom ability. If that is to be part of our suite of measures for parliamentary consideration then from my point of view it certainly does have a place. I want to acknowledge Mr Speaker that that is an innovation that yourself has brought in that I think in this instance has been very useful.In the consideration of the number of clauses throughout this bill it fell to me to take particular notice of several areas. I'll start perhaps with the shorter area and that was around—if I can find it in my many pieces of paper—changes to notices from bodies corporate. I can't find it so I'm going to have to talk to the House from my memory. There were a couple of changes in clauses in the bill which relate to meetings of bodies corporate so that those meetings could in fact happen by video conferencing or telephoning and another clause relating to bodies corporate which brought the terminology in line with the Unit Titles Act. They may sound small and not particularly exciting amendments but they certainly if members are a body of a corporate—a number of us are because a number of us have apartments and flats—body corporate membership and particularly meetings can be over some quite substantial matters. So the ability to have those without delay and to undertake those in a timely manner are certainly very useful changes and ones which we've supported by ourselves.However my main focus has been on changes in the local government space. The Hon Ron Mark has raised one of those changes already and that is around the ability to delay by-elections. If members think about a by-election in a local community—and particularly those of us who have stood in local council elections—local campaigning is very similar to campaigning for Parliament in that it's very local. Under alert level 2 reaching a number of people just simply isn't possible to happen so it impacts on the candidate themselves and their ability to get out and about amongst their community. The constraints of level 2 also have implications on the electoral system itself. The electoral officers themselves need to be kept safe under those conditions. Furthermore the voters who get to vote in those elections need to feel that when they come to cast their vote—I know it's postal voting in the main but in some councils—for example in Greater Auckland local authority elections there was a polling day as there was in Wellington and that may be part of local authority election voting in the future. So from the simple and very easy point that democracy is so very important in New Zealand even under COVID conditions then amendments like these simply make sense.There was an issue that I did take up with the officials throughout our consideration of this bill and it relates to the ability of a chief executive to delay a by-election in the event of an extraordinary vacancy. [Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! Order! It's not a lunchroom. Jacqui Dean I'll add some time on.Hon JACQUI DEAN: Thank you Mr Speaker. There is a new clause in the bill which provides for the chief executive of a local authority to notify the electoral officer of delay to the commencement of a by-election due to an extraordinary vacancy. The question that raised in my mind was why is that needed necessarily and why do we have to legislate for such an occurrence given that there is no legislative requirement currently for the chief executive to notify the electoral officer in the event of an extraordinary vacancy? So why suddenly do we legislate for a notification to the electoral officer now? I put that to Jonathan Salter of Simpson Grierson and he took a moment to give me a considered reply which was along the lines of surety of people knowing that in the event of an extraordinary vacancy the council had plans to move on a by-election. I accepted his advice and I accepted the advice of the officials that that in fact was the case—in fact people want certainty—but I still reflect and it still grates with me a little and I do wonder if we are legislating because we can. Is that a good way to make law in New Zealand? If there had been a longer period of select committee consideration and members had had the chance to hear from chief executives not just industry bodies and council and officials—had we had the ability to hear from mayors to hear from chief executives on their view of that particular clause I would say that that would have enhanced my consideration and the consideration of the members just on that clause alone. So in the end I am happy to accept—because it is a benign clause. But is it necessary? That is one of the failings of legislating in a terrific hurry: we lose the opportunity to hear considered views of the whole sector not just a selected few. Yes I know the prior Government legislated for the Canterbury earthquakes and legislated for the Kaikōura earthquake and there are always shortcomings in legislation in a hurry but I do consider that legislating in a hurry has its shortcomings. In the case of this bill they were benign but I do fear that in this House we are going to be considering pieces of legislation that are not so benign. That truncated process certainly does have implications for us as parliamentarians but even more importantly for the lives and the freedoms of New Zealanders.Having said that the changes in the local government space are worthwhile. It is around allowing—SPEAKER: Order!Hon JACQUI DEAN: —different ways of notification—thank you Mr Speaker. We support the bill."