SpeechBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill. I'm going to limit my comments predominantly to the matters relating to commerce and the matters particularly relating to changes to insolvency laws to give some protection to businesses and particularly to directors of those businesses and also to the debt hibernation scheme as proposed.I'm going to speculate that clearly Ministers and Government members had the same sorts of conversations that many National Party members had with business owners and directors preceding and then into the early stages of the lockdown. Given previous issues in our history there are very stringent requirements on directors and their obligations regarding their oversight of companies and particularly where they might be trading when they are insolvent. If we actually look at the conversations that we had with people in those roles and the situation today and in the weeks preceding it's quite possible—a debatable point—that there are any number of businesses whose directors should possibly already have instigated measures towards potential insolvency simply because the outlook has been so bleak and remains to a large degree that it is completely uncertain and their very clear legal obligations would no doubt and did in fact given the conversations we had lead many to believe that they were at risk of being deemed to have failed to have met those obligations and were permitting a company to continue trading when they had every or sufficient reason to believe that insolvency was in very severe doubt.So if these measures were not to be taken unquestionably we would have many more businesses folding in very short order in New Zealand. Now this is no guarantee that they won't but it is very clear that without these measures there would certainly be any number—and probably a great number—of businesses that would have to be put into insolvency because of that gross uncertainty of the outlook and the legal obligations that rest upon those that govern those businesses. So we support the principle of the measures. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that they are guaranteed to work and it doesn't mean that as they are written they will have the consequence that they intend.If we look at it the fundamental issues that are facing businesses right now—yes there is the future uncertainty a massive uncertainty which persists and will probably persist for some time to come but the immediate greater issue actually is a lack of cash flow. So many businesses have been shut down if not completely as near as complete as possible. Many are still either unable to trade or unable to trade anything like their normal levels under the current alert level 3. What they really need is income cash flow to help keep those businesses solvent and going.Just today the Leader of the Opposition announced plans that National had it the opportunity would do to help to address those very immediate issues which are things like the GST cash-back the ability to recognise capital investment very rapidly—things that would help to keep a company trading today and give a greater sense of optimism and certainty about the future to maintain themselves or to sustain for some time. Alas we're on the wrong side of the House at the moment. We can have great plans but we can't legislate for them.In the absence of being able to put that very good plan into action today we would instead say that these measures are important but they are just a part of it. There is no bill on the Order Paper that seeks to do anything like what the Leader of the Opposition proposed today. There is this these measures around the safe harbour and the debt hibernation but there is no other side of the equation which is putting cash flow into businesses money into businesses in the immediate sense. So it's about a half of the puzzle in that respect.But further to that—and we are absolutely going to support this through to select committee—I note with some trepidation as I went through the provisions related to these measures yet again—and I have at least been consistent in my criticism of Government bills which have large broad powerful regulation-making powers riddled throughout. I've done so on the Arms Legislation Bill on the Fair Trading Amendment Bill and the conduct of financial institutions and these measures are again measures that have enormous scope of regulatory amendment to them once this bill should it be enacted is enacted.The worry I have with that—it's two: one is really that as I've said previously in other bills it's a bit of a sign that the Government hasn't actually got its policy sorted out. Now the circumstances we're in sort of justify that to some extent: there simply isn't the same time that there would normally be in the formulation of policy and the translation of that into a bill. But none the less it's indicative of the fact that the policy is not concrete in its detail yet so that is an issue. But the worry I have about it is: what will it mean for directors of companies who may be relying on these—the safe harbour and this debt hibernation and the certainty that it's supposed to help to bring—if the regime is one which can be changed readily without recourse to Parliament?Almost any manner of the provisions of these items can be changed. For instance in the debt hibernation there are certain excluded debts through regulation. Excluded debts can be changed at any time over the period that these protections would otherwise apply. So what a director signs up for today may change before the term of the crisis and the term of the provisions of the bill apply or expire. So my question to that is: how are directors going to respond to that? Are they going to say it introduces uncertainty which might limit their ability to actually sign up and take advantage of the debt hibernation and safe harbour provisions? Or will they say No we're comfortable." and that the intent of Parliament is clear and "Although the power is with Government to change things almost at a whim we won't hold that that introduces so much uncertainty as to prevent us from using the provisions." that they might think differently?So my point is: to raise this is not to say it's a reason to not support the bill but to emphasise with the Government that it is important that they listen to the submissions that are made in the very short select committee process this bill will receive. We know that the Epidemic Response Committee will give it very good attention but it is important that the Government is prepared to listen to what submitters say and the implications of the bill as written what it will mean for them perhaps being able to take up the intentions which rest behind it. Because if they say "It's fine no problem." well that's all well and good. But if we have submitters that come and say "Well actually the way you've written it is good from a legislator's point of view but from a director's point of view actually you've not given us the certainty around the regime that we need in order to be able to sign up to it." then I would implore the Government to heed that if those are the messages that come through and make changes.It may actually be better to have the regime very clearly articulated in the primary legislation and accept that if during the course of events it is determined that something was not quite right well that's what an amendment bill is there for rather than have a very broad and almost unrestricted regulation-making power if it is the case that submitters tell us that having that would create an uncertainty which might make it difficult for them to use the safe harbour or the debt hibernation provisions that are being put there to protect—or the idea to protect and sustain businesses.So we support the bill. I note comments made from the ACT member a few moments ago. We will support the bill. It's not enough on its own; it is a piece of the puzzle. Really the Government should be looking at how they can get cash into the hands of businesses now so that they can sustain themselves alongside these sorts of measures which do help to a degree deal with the fact that there are so many uncertainties into the future yet. But we will support the bill to the select committee."