Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill. It's commonly said that the Government makes laws. That is not true. This Parliament makes laws and New Zealanders overwhelmingly and voluntarily follow the laws of this Parliament. Why? Because they believe that our processes are robust that we think carefully about the laws that we are making and that we listen. As a result of that we have a long tradition of democracy in this country that has done pretty well for us.Now lately things have been a little different. We have been facing a global crisis and we've been asked to unite against a common enemy. I think it's fair to say that Parliament has come to the party and given the Government a free pass. Well the anaesthetic is wearing off. This Parliament cannot afford to continue to be a rubber stamp for the Government sweeping its mistakes under the carpet. I think the turning point we saw just last Thursday when I read in the newspaper Parliament passes wrong law". Well actually I often think that's happened but I never imagined it would happen because the Government couldn't even make sure the right piece of paper was on that Table and Parliament really did pass the wrong piece of legislation. It is time to bring democracy back and for Parliament to do its job that New Zealanders elect us for of scrutinising the Government's legislation properly.No member of this House can say in good conscience that the 133 pages that they received less than 24 hours ago have been properly read or understood in terms of their implications. I suspect that there will be serious unintended consequences of some of the headline issues in this bill. The Hon Shane Jones pointed out that the safe harbour against trading while insolvent may well be abused. Well I've had a number of people in the business community raise this possibility with me. They've said that for every director who continues to trade and is able to keep the nexus of a company together because of this exemption you are going to find people who take advantage of it and put bad debts on to other companies and it may well turn out that this so-called safe harbour is net negative.But what of the other major initiative in this bill which is the change in the time after which a bank can foreclose on a landlord who's borrowed from them or a landlord can move on a commercial tenant? Well what I'd say to the Government is that over the last four or five weeks overwhelmingly landlords tenants and banks have come to voluntary arrangements. I know there are some egregious and sometimes heartbreaking exceptions but overwhelmingly people have come to arrangements. I said to the Minister of Finance at the Epidemic Response Committee five weeks ago now "With respect Mr Robertson you have to move on commercial leases and you have to move soon." Well five weeks later he moves but it's far too late. If people have got through the last five weeks they probably don't need his help now. What they do need is a serious cash injection for those companies that have no money—no good passing the buck from tenant to landlord to bank because the buck has to stop somewhere.It's with considerable regret that I oppose some aspects of this bill. I think allowing charities to continue raffles digitally is very sensible. I think some of the local government amendments allowing people to have digital meetings and some of the administrative changes allowing forms to be filed digitally are very sensible. I think extending firearm and driver licences is very sensible. But the question when a member of Parliament decides whether or not to vote for a piece of legislation is not "Does the member of Parliament think there are some sensible things?" but "Can they in good conscience vote for a bill that not one person in this Parliament"—I can guarantee—"has properly read and understood?" For that reason I stand in opposition to this bill on behalf of the ACT Party.I'd go on to say that the regulatory impact statement requirements have been neglected in the case of this bill and that is a great shame. Throughout this COVID-19 response the Government has said "We don't believe that there should be a regulatory impact statement." The Government hasn't taken the option even of using cut-down regulatory impact analysis on this bill. What they have done is said "We don't believe regulatory impact analysis gives any value." and that's in the departmental disclosure statement for this bill. The best they could come up with is a vaguely related regulatory impact statement from another bill which doesn't actually really have anything to do with this particular bill. The fact of the matter is that if the Government thinks that regulatory impact analysis has no value then they believe the impact of their laws on New Zealanders has no value and the property rights and the rights of New Zealanders in general have no value. The fact that there is no—DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry to interrupt the member but the member's time has—David Seymour: —regulatory impact analysis is another reason to oppose this bill. Madam Speaker can we get some clarity on how long this speech is?DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's finished.David Seymour: Oh it's finished. So what you mean is 7½ minutes?DEPUTY SPEAKER: It was my mistake. I beg your pardon.David Seymour: I appreciate the extra time. Thank you Madam Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do apologise to the House. I thought that the Labour member went first and ACT came second in which case no Labour member stood up so I gave you the full 10 but it's been pointed out to me that it was my mistake that you go first and the Labour member goes second. So I will now call the Labour member."