COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I, firstly, thank the Minister Chris Hipkins for his acknowledgment not of me but actually of the committee’s work. Before I go into the details of that, I want to just segue a little bit away into something else that’s been going on during the lockdown, and which is relevant to the process we just followed. I was asked if I would represent the New Zealand Parliament at the World Bank Group Parliamentary Network Briefing on Pandemics and Covid-19, which I was very pleased to do, and I’ll be reporting to Mr Speaker on the discussions on that and the Asia-Pacific World Health Organization forum. In the early hours of Anzac Day, actually, between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m., I was on this virtual meeting and didn’t stand at dawn that day but stood instead at 3 a.m. It was a very helpful dialogue to understand what was going on around the country, but in the chat that accompanied it, I was struck by the number of MPs and representatives from around the world who were worried about the degree to which Parliaments were setting aside the normal scrutiny process of, in our case, the executive. The representative from the Italian Parliament described this as something that was going on in his country but also in what he described as “weak democracies”.

I’ve been reflecting on that in the context of the last bill that this House passed last week, this one, but also another bill that may be before us in the not too distant future. It highlights—for me—that weak democracies are not necessarily developing nations in far-flung parts of this world, with autocratic leaders and family dynasties; actually, Westminster democracies with strong and proud histories of passing bills carefully and over time risk undermining that legacy through the crises. What I would say is that, actually, the rule of law and the process of passing bills is most needed during a crisis, whether that’s a war or a war-footing such as a pandemic. It is not a time to set them aside, and so I was very pleased to see that this bill, and another, was referred to the Epidemic Response Committee last week for what was a very short but, as the Minister said, quite thorough examination of the bills—that came to us in good shape, actually. There’s obviously been a lot of thought, and I commend the Government for what the submitters told us was a degree of engagement with them during the writing of the bill, but also for, clearly, Cabinet’s but definitely the department officials’ willingness to take good ideas and make the bills better.

I won’t steal the thunder of my colleagues who will speak after me, because they are the subject matter experts in areas like the Companies Act and the Courts Matters Bill and so on, but I do want to acknowledge that this is actually a pretty good exemplar and an example of what can be done in emergency without setting aside due process, without setting aside the necessary scrutiny of the executive that is so important in times of crisis. I worry that we are going to fall below that standard again, and we will see what that means for the freedom of movement, the freedom of expression, and the freedom to live our lives without fear of interference from the Government and the State, even in an emergency.

So I commend the Minister for this process, actually, and I sure as heck commend not only the members of that committee who worked so incredibly hard in what I described in the first reading as a herculean effort, but it was made easier, frankly, by the fact that officials burnt the oil, literally—Stuart Smith and I were still examining the proposed committee report at about 11 o’clock last night, having only finished the meeting process but a few hours earlier. And the quality of that support was high. Once again, we can have an extraordinary confidence in the quality of our public sector.

But the public and the public sector have a right, I think, to expect the same in return from its executive, and this is the place where we examine, where we scrutinise, where we make better, where we hold the Government to account for their actions and inactions. I hope, in commending the Minister and the Government for the ability to be able to do that in this case, that we can continue to do that, because we know laws made in haste—and we saw an example of that last week—can be very, very difficult to fix, or can undermine what we’re actually trying to achieve.

Can I particularly point out a couple of the areas that I know my colleagues will elaborate on, that I thought was a very sensible change that the submitters first came up with, and that was particularly around the use of audiovisual equipment and audio equipment only in the courts and corrections process. We heard from our submitters and they said, “Look, this is understood, but we need to have a hierarchy.”—that there was a standard, firstly, of face-to-face, then audiovisual, and then audio only if that was a last resort. I was really pleased with both the nimbleness of the response and the amendments that were made, which I’m sure the Minister of Justice—who is nodding—had a part to play in, but also there were concerns around when that might be used, particularly in relation to the mental health Act but also sentencing. So we had a very sensible amendment—an improvement to the bill—that made that part of the bill better.

The one that was really vexed—and I know Mr Hudson will elaborate on this. We all want to make sure that as many companies as possible can survive this, and, boy, I’m sure colleagues will agree we’re getting some horror stories about what’s happened and what will happen if we can’t give them the means to get through the next period of time. So the business debt hibernation scheme and the directors’ safe harbour is going to be so important in doing that. I hope it works. I think the directors’ safe harbour is one where we’re actually asking directors, who are conditioned generally to be cautious—because the law requires them to be—to be a little less risk-averse, at a time when they are seeing risk at every turn. So while I’m hopeful, I’m not overly optimistic that this will make more than a minor impact on the bill, but we’ve got to give them a go. We’ve got to give them the conditions as best we can to enable them to be able to survive.

But the best conditions—I’ll finish on this point—that we can give them are the conditions that enable them to trade. So we need to get back to a new normal as quickly and as safely as we can, and I do worry that we have the balance not right in that regard, because they’re telling us that they can trade safely, that they can re-open, and it’s only then will we give them the truest safe harbour that they want, and that is something of a return to a normal. But with that, I’m very pleased to have been part of this process and to continue to support the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I begin by echoing the sentiments expressed by my colleague the Hon Chris Hipkins, and indeed the member who’s resumed his seat, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, in acknowledging the tremendous work that the Epidemic Response Committee did in scrutinising this bill and coming back with, in some cases, some quite significant changes. Clearly, the committee understood and undertook their role with due seriousness, gave a detailed examination, and have come back all with very sensible and important changes.

Can I also acknowledge the comments of the Hon Michael Woodhouse, too, in his adumbration of the circumstances that we are in—when I say “we”: this House is in—in a country that, like the rest of the world, is in crisis. We have to be very careful when we adjust and adapt our democratic institutions, and this—this institution, the apotheosis of our democracy. When laws have to be made, when rights and interests have to be legislated for or against, the need for scrutiny, the need for accountability is, as I think Michael Woodhouse said, even more paramount, is even more important. And so, as I think this House has proven on many different occasions, under many different Governments, it is important to be nimble and agile about adapting our processes and our structures to enable that to happen, and I think we’ve demonstrated that that has been possible over the last five or six weeks.

But I also agree with the Hon Michael Woodhouse that we should not get used to this. This is not a set of processes—this not a way to run a Government. We need to be able to respond to the circumstances and we need to restore stability and certainty, and then we need to come back to allow every member of this House to discharge their full privileges and responsibilities. For the Opposition, it’s calling the Government of the day to account; for the Government, it is about proposing and putting up laws and policies and measures that augur for the wellbeing and the goodwill of the country. So I acknowledge the sentiments that Michael Woodhouse expressed. They are the sentiments of a parliamentarian. We are all part of that equation, and it’s incumbent on all of us to make sure we make the system work and that accountability happens.

I just want to comment on a couple of points in the bill, or the Supplementary Order Paper, as it now is, with the changes recommended by the committee, all of which I agree with. I’m thankful for the changes made in relation to the Courts (Remote Participation) Act. I think it was right for the committee to look very carefully at the possibility that sentencing might be conducted on an audio-only basis—I think there was a bit of an overreach there, for which I take responsibility; I signed off the original provision. It is right that that more limited means of remote participation should be confined to procedural matters only, and when it comes to sentencing it is important that there is a fronting-up. So I acknowledge that.

In relation to the Property Law Act changes, which are very important, I think, I acknowledge that apart from one correction to a cross-reference, there is no material change there, and I’m thankful for that improvement and for that provision coming back largely unchanged. That will, I think, make a big difference to both tenants and landlords, but particularly commercial tenants, who are grappling with the fact that they had reduced or, in some cases, no income and have been having to deal with some landlords—not all landlords, because many landlords have done the right thing and come to terms with their tenants—who are still holding out to continue to receive their full rental payments even though the circumstances simply do not allow that.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the significant work that the committee did in amending and, I think, improving the business debt hibernation regime. Obviously, very careful consideration was given. They are good changes that have been made. That’s an important initiative, a temporary initiative, to get businesses through and the New Zealand corporate community through what will be a challenging few months ahead. Some businesses, as we know, will take longer to recover because of the industry that they’re in and the circumstances that they’re in. Others, as consumers return, as markets restore, and revenues are recovered, will be able to restore themselves more quickly.

The initiative is an important one, as indeed are the safe harbour provisions that are provided for in the amendments to the Companies Act in the original bill.

To draw again on the spirit of the Hon Michael Woodhouse and the parliamentary comments that he made, we know that these are measures to respond to an immediate crisis. They should be temporary. They by and large are. I think there are one or two measures that the committee agreed ought to be made permanent, and so that is there, but by and large most of these measures are temporary. If we are to make permanent changes along these sorts of lines, they should be subject to the full level of scrutiny, with the appropriate time taken, and the expertise drawn upon both in the community and from within this House. But in the strange circumstances such as we have them, the committee has done a tremendous job, and on that basis I too commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I rise, too, in support of the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill. I’d like to echo the sentiments about this necessarily truncated process. None of us want to see this as part of the new normal which faces New Zealand and New Zealanders in coming weeks and, possibly, months, but I particularly want to reiterate the comments around the officials who supported us over these few days that we had to scrutinise this bill.

We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that, while it is their job to support the committee to work with submitters and to provide advice, they too are people that are living, as we all are, with the circumstances we are under and the challenges that that presents to our society, to our families, and to individuals. Their work was exemplary and their response was, quite frankly, fantastic. It was a challenging set of circumstances, to do all the work in such a truncated time, but all the more so because the committee members had a number of questions and challenges that they posed to officials, who were very, very good, indeed, at responding to those.

But if I look at the bill and the nature of the process we had to go through and the purpose—particularly to the areas I want to spend most of my contribution on, which are the safe harbour and the business debt hibernation—I look at them and I think of the work that we had to do, and I think the fundamental principle in terms of what we could do with the legislation could be summarised with the maxim “First, do no harm”, because, unquestionably, when dealing with such a tight time frame, there is a real risk of unintended consequences, of overlooking certain things. So top of mind, certainly for me, was to make sure that what we brought back to the House was, first of all, not going to introduce harms, particularly to creditors and customers—or, indeed, risks to directors, if we talk about safe harbour—that would be undue and would actually unravel or undo the principles of what we were looking to achieve. I do believe we achieved that; in fact, I’m very, very confident that we have achieved that. But linked to that is a nagging doubt as to whether or not the measures that will be brought in, should this bill be enacted, will make a large-scale material difference.

We heard that there is a view amongst directors—a misapprehension, we were told—that too many of them believe or perceive that their personal risks, particularly around offences related to reckless trading—they believe that those provisions are all too similar to those that exist in Australia. We were told that that isn’t, in fact, the case, but the fact that the perception persists was one of the principal reasons for instituting a safe harbour for this period of time so that directors who might otherwise be too keen or too pressed into potential liquidation of a company that might otherwise actually be able to trade out of the current challenges might feel themselves pressured into taking a less than optimal route. So the safe harbour provision gives them some confidence that they won’t expose themselves to the sorts of personal liability that they perceive that they could be placed under, even though some advice we received says that that level of risk isn’t there in practice—in New Zealand, at least.

So, absolutely, going into it we supported the idea of the safe harbour and we still support it on the way out. But I questioned in the first reading and I questioned again through the select committee process, if our directors are, quite rightly, quite conservative, quite risk-averse, if we look at the safe harbour provisions and the conditions they still place upon directors, not only must the company have been solvent at the end of December 2019 but the director has to have some confidence that the company will be able to trade out of whatever current solvency difficulties it’s faced with or, in fact, during this period of six months, solvency issues that might arise. They have to have a confidence about the future likelihood of being able to trade out of that, and yet we exist, we live, in extremely uncertain times. I think we could all contend—I would certainly contend—it will be challenging for a director to gaze into that crystal ball and have any view of strong confidence of what the conditions might look like in the next six weeks, 12 weeks, or even more months into the future, because the duration of the economic impacts resulting from this pandemic are equally uncertain.

So that leads me to being concerned that their risk-averse nature could lead to the point of not taking up the safe harbour because they can’t have sufficient confidence in being able to attest that they have the confidence that they can trade out, given those uncertainties. So we could well enact good provisions—good provisions that do provide protection, but which is a protection that won’t be taken up in all too many cases. That would absolutely meet the criteria of doing no harm, but we can’t guarantee that the measures we’re putting in place through the safe harbour will lead to a sizable, a larger scale, material difference. I’m not sure that there is anything that we could have done differently about those provisions, but it is still a worry, because, fundamentally, our objective is to promote that businesses which feasibly could trade out of the difficulties of COVID impacts do so.

So I’ll move on to the business debt hibernation. We heard a lot of concerns there about the complexity of the scheme. We also heard concerns about those general security agreements (GSAs) and how the holders of those might refuse to enter into a debt hibernation arrangement if they were unable to enforce their securities during that process. It could be likened to a case of those holders having their cake and being able to eat it too. Quite frankly, some of us feel it’s quite a difficult position to be in, and for other creditors to be in—that someone has that incentive that unless they get special treatment the business debt hibernation could never work, but in getting the special treatment they do and persist with exceptional special treatment vis-à-vis other creditors, and that leads to a concern as to those other creditors. Where are the incentives for them to actually agree to enter into debt hibernation arrangements, particularly when they know that a GSA holder is going to still maintain extra special advantage over them? So I worry too, with those provisions, that not as many companies that theoretically could take it up will be able to—and that creates a very real worry.

I just want to finish off—because it doesn’t feel like 10 minutes, Mr Speaker—with the Arms Act amendment around—

💬 SPEAKER: It’s because the clock was late starting. I started at five—a bit of time.

—the ability of licences. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll just finish with this point then. It’s pleasing to see—because I got a lot of correspondence from firearms owners worried that if licences expired during the lockdown period, then they were going to be left high and dry. It is extremely pleasing to see that the Government decided to come forward with provisions that do a simple extension of validity, which means the licence is unchanged and, subject to alert levels—whatever they may be at the time—the licence holders will have every right and privilege of the use of that licence as it existed prior to the lockdown during that extended period, along with the very clear pledge that they won’t be paying more because of a late relicensing through no fault of their own. I think that is a very, very sensible way to deal with a troubling issue—we will all have received correspondence from firearms owners over the last year or so, and we know the concerns that they have held and which persist for them. So doing that was a very sensible move, and I welcome it, and I do commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to give New Zealand First’s support to this COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill, and I do wish to start by thanking and acknowledging the work—in Mr Woodhouse’s words—of what was a herculean effort on the part of officials, who were able to so swiftly knock together a good piece of legislation, which has been improved by the parliamentary process and the contributions of all of those parties and individuals who make up the Epidemic Response Committee.

So much has been said about this bill already, and I think to rotary hoe the same paddock again would, in some ways, be pointless. But I think, from the New Zealand First perspective, I do need to note a couple of points. One is very clear: this is a very broad omnibus bill—some 45 different pieces of legislation all contained within the one. I do note with a degree of satisfaction and comfort the changes to the Local Government Act, which are very pragmatic changes and take care of the issues, although there’s no local government elections pending on the immediate horizon, so that—[Interruption] Oh, by-elections, of course. It does take care of those, should we have this—well, we have one local government election under way in Ōtorohanga, as has been said, and I am aware that there are other mayors who have stepped down. In fact, I think—

💬 Hon Member: Two others.

—the current president of the—yeah, that’s right. The current president of Local Government New Zealand is still the president, and there has to be a process at some stage whereby a new president is able to be elected who is, in fact, indeed a mayor, because David is not any longer.

The changes around the company law, corporate law, that are aimed at assisting businesses to survive and also deal with the issue over the lease and rent of commercial properties—it’s an interesting debate and discussion. Listening to some people as this bill was put together, and the discussion that was had prior to the bill going to committee, it’s often the way for some people to be very focused on the tenants and—forgive me—maybe not so aware of the circumstances that often landlords themselves are in. It’s probably fair to say that people look upon landlords, generally, in the same sets of eyes that they have through history, as being the one who is actually profiteering off of the person who’s renting their property.

We sometimes forget that very often landlords are just Joe Blow mum and dad investors, who look at that property—be it a commercial property or be it a residential property—as part of their superannuation plan. And they struggle—they lever in to purchase the property and accept the overheads that come with it, given the market circumstances at that time, and they lease it at what is considered to be a fair, marketable, attainable margin.

Of course, then COVID-19 comes along, and everything changes. So there had to be a way in which we could protect tenants and offer some pragmatic changes to the law that will, at the same time, give some protection to the property owners themselves who were up against the banks and the provisions in terms of their mortgages.

So it is satisfying to see cross-party unanimity and the work of the COVID response committee that has actually produced for the House, for New Zealand, a very pragmatic, workable piece of legislation. Of course, the changes that have happened here go hand in hand with the initiatives that the Minister of Finance and Cabinet have already announced, aimed at alleviating circumstances of people who own properties, who have large debts, and who are struggling to pay staff during this crisis.

I’ve got to say, obviously, as a firearms owner—I acknowledge Brett Hudson’s comments—very satisfying to see a very pragmatic solution. A lot of people, to be fair, are feeling under the pump at the moment—those people who are licensed firearms owners, due fit and proper people, and by a quirk they would have been found to have been in breach of the law and unable to continue to own firearms, simply because their applications for renewal could not be processed.

I just want to congratulate all involved. A great piece of work; good to see it was turned around so swiftly, so accurately, and I commend the bill to the House.

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.

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!

—different ways of notification—thank you, Mr Speaker. We support the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to again offer our support to the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill, and had the luck of speaking to this at the first reading as well. I would like to join others in the House in acknowledging the public servants and officials who have been working so hard in all the stages to be able to get this legislation to this point, and the very, very long hours that are going on right across our Public Service at the moment, as people are really conscious of the work that’s needed to be supporting our communities and to reset even better in the future.

This piece of legislation that’s been noted by others covers 45—it’s an omnibus bill—pieces of legislation, and I think is a real testament to the connection between Government and community and business, and the range of issues that are covered in this. I would like to reflect, not having had the pleasure of being on the Epidemic Response Committee doing this work, but that the tone of the debate this afternoon, I think, reflects Parliament at its best. It has not been without concerns being raised, but they have all been raised in a very thoughtful and constructive manner. It’s very clear to me that all of the members working on this bill have been focused on ensuring that it is the best that it can be to meet the needs of our communities. That’s, I suspect, what all of us hope to be part of when we come in to this place, and may not be that common an experience for many of us.

So just to touch on some of the specifics in the legislation—as I’ve said, it’s hugely wide ranging, from points around looking at changes in relation to insolvency in corporate law changes, from the safe harbour provisions that have been mentioned for directors, and acknowledging that is about trying to provide directors with a sense of security, and being able to make decisions in very, very uncertain times. Acknowledging comments that have been made from members across the House around—legislation at this point, I suspect, is not going to be able to give magic certainty or assurance, but this is a step to give people more certainty. What the committee has done is add a purpose clause and clarify the coverage of these provisions and that they apply to entities incorporated before this announcement. They are specific changes that strengthen, hopefully, the inaction of these provisions to help good decision-making, and also around the business debt hibernation aspects of the bill, which is about providing one other tool to our businesses to help them get through what is going to be—without doubt, for many of them—incredibly challenging times.

Again, to acknowledge the committee, and that they made several changes to this section of the omnibus bill in removing the need for a statutory declaration to be able to enter the business debt hibernation scheme; clarifying the scope of protection to businesses through the moratorium, and making it clear that creditors with a charge over the whole, or substantially the whole, of the businesses are not bound by that moratorium; and clarifying some of the voting rules.

I do just, at that point—again, as we’re talking about the challenges our businesses and, obviously, everyone working for them are experiencing, and may into the future for the next period of time—want to again acknowledge that this piece of legislation and these provisions are not the extent of the Government’s support and engagement in this area. What I’ve seen has been a huge focus for this Government is looking at how we best move through this together and keep as many businesses open as possible. I sense that the public understands that. It’s great to see us all working together on those lines.

Other changes—and just to note the point that was made by the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean, about the changes in enabling delay to by-elections at a local government level. That’s, I think, covering three councils who would be in that situation at the moment, and pointing out that, actually, campaigning at a local level is often very face to face. Having run in a by-election at an electorate level that was full of getting outside the supermarkets and the train stations and going to public meetings—that was very, very face to face. That would not be appropriate or safe in the times that we’re living in at the moment.

I think, while I’m seeing some really fantastic meetings happening on Zoom, bringing more people in who wouldn’t have engaged in those traditional face-to-face fora, I think the chance for us to learn from that is what else we can do on top of the well supported existing democratic engagements that we’ve had in the past to reach new audiences, rather than jumping straight into that world and leaving behind methods of communication and connection that we’ve had in the past.

Also just to note that in this legislation there was also a change, I understand, through the select committee, around the Rating Valuations Act and recognising that it might not be possible for councils to practicably complete a credible general evaluation to statutory deadlines due to the likely impacts of COVID-19 in the second half of this year.

There was a tweaking to the paid parental leave provisions that are in here that I was very enthusiastic about at first reading, because, you know, I was part of the people who fought to get paid parental leave in this country very belatedly. It plays such an incredibly important role in terms of maintaining women’s attachment to employment, but also, most importantly, I suspect, nurturing our families and our littlest ones. This provision enables people to step back into essential work and ensures that they’re not penalised and they are not prevented from going back and finishing their entitlement to paid parental leave. I think that’s fantastic: recognising that most people actually do really care about the jobs that they do, and if they see a gap that they can fill, some of them will want to step in and do that. We don’t want them to be penalised as a result of caring and putting themselves out there for our communities.

There are many other changes in here. Some of them, it’s just about deadlines, and making sure that in this context we are recognising that business as usual hasn’t been possible, and we’re changing those deadlines to give people more time. Others are slightly more substantive. I will pick up on one last point, which the Minister of Justice acknowledged, around the amendment around the audiovisual links, and that the initial legislation included sentencing, and that that was, on reflection and consideration through submissions, pulled back on. I think this is Parliament at its best. It’s an honour to get to speak in a debate where we are all focused on the wellbeing of our communities.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill. We just heard from Jan Logie of the Green Party that politics at its best is when all the politicians agree. That may be true in North Korea, but it is not true in New Zealand, and nor should it be. The truth is that activity does not equal productivity. So while it is right and proper to give thanks to the officials who have worked so hard at all hours over the weekend, and while it’s right to give thanks to the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who was chairing the Epidemic Response Committee, for his efforts—and to all other members of the committee, actually—we can’t necessarily credit them with a good outcome.

I opposed this legislation on the first reading for a couple of reasons: (1) it’s not good process, but (2) while there are parts of it that are very good, to support it is to support other parts that are very bad. One of those parts is the so-called safe harbour provision, which removes the requirement of directors not to trade while insolvent—or, at least, that’s how it was initially sold to us.

I want to try to recollect the extraordinary conversation that was had between members of the committee and officials that Brett Hudson, in his speech, partly referred to. It went something like this. It’s a requirement that the problem we’re solving—by introducing this safe harbour provision, what we’re trying to do here is inform directors that they don’t have strict liabilities for trading while insolvent, as is the case in Australia. The simple question that we asked is “Is it the case that this committee has been asked to change the law to what the law is?” “Yes” was the answer. And then we said, “Well, if the problem is that directors don’t understand what the current law is, then isn’t the answer to tell directors what the law is, and won’t it make it more difficult if we change the law and then, presumably, these directors who don’t understand the law will have to have a new law explained to them?”

Now, if people are finding this difficult to follow, I can understand that, because I think everyone in that conversation was struggling to see what the purpose is and what is actually trying to be achieved through these changes to directors’ liabilities. Certainly, there was no reassurance from officials that they knew what problem they were trying to solve or that the solution being proffered would actually solve them. When we asked professionals who actually were directors from the field—people who did the work that we’re trying to make easier with this legislation—they said, “Well, it’s true. Through cases such as Mainzeal, there certainly are confusions around what the requirements and liabilities of directors are, but the last thing we want is change, particularly at this point in time.”

So I admire people for burning the midnight oil and working through the weekend, and the officials for what they’ve done, but the fact remains that I can’t support this bill when it’s got provisions in it that I opposed on the first reading, raised the question of what the problem was and whether or not this would have more adverse consequences than expected, went and asked the officials on the committee what they were trying to do, and then heard from the private sector that, actually, the last thing they want was this change. Now I read in the select committee’s report that, actually, they thought that on balance this was the least worst option. Well, that’s not good enough.

Then we move to the other really substantial change in this piece of legislation, which relates to the time frames or limits that are allowed for either banks cancelling mortgages on commercial landlords or commercial landlords moving on tenants. This suffers from not quite as bad a problem as what the safe harbour legislation introduces, but the problem is that, if anything, it is going to undermine the basis on which the overwhelming majority of landlords and tenants in the commercial space have come to agreements that work for them.

It’s not good enough to say, “Well, if anything, it will just give them a little bit more leeway—so no harm, no foul.” We find ourselves again, as a Parliament, being asked by the Government to pass legislation that simply does not have a clearly defined purpose and has no analysis—no regulatory impact analysis; no regulatory impact statement; no analysis of what the effects, the unintended consequences, of the legislation are likely to be. That’s a great shame, because I’d like to support this legislation for the sake of all the good things that it does do.

I’ll give you some examples of those. It’s absolutely right to extend the licence period for licensed firearm owners. There is an admittedly small minority of people whose licence, in a 120-month cycle, happens to be due now, this month. But, for those people, it’s very worrying, and I think that’s a commendable part of the bill.

It’s certainly true that there are certain charities which do really great work, and we know who they are, who are reliant on running raffles, and of course they should be able to do that online. The real question is why it’s been prohibited for so long, not why we’re legalising it now.

There are certainly requirements for local government democracy that people are able to participate in elections and do council business online rather than in person, which, in the context of COVID-19, would be a risk.

So it is certainly true that it’s with some regret that I’m opposing this bill, because there are certainly parts, including the ones that I just listed, which are noble and worthwhile. In a way, I’m pleased to know that the bill looks set to pass, for those reasons, but I cannot support the parts of it that have no clear problem definition and are more likely to do damage than they are to help anybody.

It’s worth noting how we got here, because I know people will get up—I know Kiritapu Allan is just about to get up and say, “Oh no. We heard a totally different version of events.” Well, I just put on record what I heard is true—

💬 Kiritapu Allan: That’s correct. That’s what I’m going to say.

—and I’d love to see how she can possibly dispute it. She’s now indicating that she might actually agree with me, just to be difficult. We can look forward—Kiritapu Allan should be grateful. I’m trying to build up some suspense so people will want to listen to her speech for a change. She should be grateful.

She might also say, “Well, it was difficult because we’re under pressure and we had to act fast.” It’s worth asking the question why we have to act fast. Some people say it’s because there’s a pandemic. Well, actually, the fact is the Government has been behind the people every step of the way through this crisis.

We hear repetitively, ad nauseam, that we went hard and went early. Going hard and going early looks like Taiwan, who told the World Health Organization of their concerns about human transmission in December last year and who had their full public health response in play by 20 January.

When I said, on 26 February, that maybe this is becoming a problem and the Prime Minister shouldn’t be in Fiji for three days—she should be here working on the problem—people in the media said, “Oh, David Seymour is scaremongering.” Well, I look forward to hearing an apology from those editorial writers in the media, because the reason we’re here today, legislating at the speed of light, and, in my view, making mistakes, is because the Government’s response has been so slow that Parliament is having to play catch-up. The people who ultimately suffer from that are not us in Parliament but those people who end up with poorly considered and inferior laws to follow.

With that, I cannot support this bill. Thank you.

This is a split call. I call Kiritapu Allan.

That was a rather extraordinary contribution from my friend the member for Epsom, who stands in this House and condemns this piece of legislation on the basis that the safeguards that have been introduced to ensure that those directors making extraordinary decisions in such uncertain times—I would have thought that he would have been rather receptive to hearing from within the business community, who are seeking those safeguards. He gets up in this House and says, “Actually, I’m not going to vote in favour for this bill, on the basis that the officials didn’t give me a good enough answer. But”—he says in the same breath—“I am actually happy that this bill is going to pass, because there are a whole range of matters within this piece of legislation that are exceptionally and extraordinarily positive.”

Now, I’m one of the members on the Epidemic Response Committee, that did contemplate this piece of legislation, and I will say that those officials that contributed—who did, as Mr Seymour says, burn the midnight oil, and we do hold them in high regard, and every single public servant that has spent the last six, seven weeks working extraordinary hours to ensure that we do the best we can in these circumstances, to ensure that (a) we can respond as is required through a public health lens, and (2) that we can do what is required right now to kick-start the economy.

Now, this is an omnibus bill which amends 45 pieces of primary legislation. That shows the extraordinary reach of the impacts of COVID-19. That shows how the entire operation of Government, whether it be in companies law, whether it be in the Resource Management Act, whether it be within the courts—this is an incredibly comprehensive piece of legislation. But what my friend can rest assured of is that there are particular safeguards, including a time limit that means that this bill expires in September. So I’m disappointed with his contribution this afternoon.

I do want to thank the members of the committee, and in particular the Hon Ruth Dyson, who turned to those officials and commended them for their work. This has been an extraordinary effort by many, and I commend this piece of legislation to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak to the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill, a bill that I was able to offer some contribution to in the first reading.

I do want to acknowledge the Epidemic Response Committee. This has been a really good body of work. They’ve worked hard. I’ve been fortunate to be able to somewhat job-share this, and I’d like to acknowledge Chris Penk, who I think was maybe my substitute in the times I was travelling at the period when the committee was actually on. So I’d like to certainly thank those who were part of the committee, and the chairperson, the Hon Michael Woodhouse. A number of submitters appeared in front of the committee by Zoom and submitted in writing, and I think the departmental report—which was compiled very quickly—is a good summary of what we saw and heard. I want to speak to several parts of that.

First of all, the part of the bill that speaks to corrections and courts. This was very much around audio and audiovisual, and it is a component of: can we create legislation or enable legislation that allows audio to be a part of the courts and corrections? And then it expanded to, well, if there’s audio, there’s actually more likely to be audiovisual, and that’s a more fair representation of what we’re trying to achieve. So it then jumped to “and audiovisual”. Then the New Zealand Bar Association and others also commented that there must be the right, on behalf of those who are in front of the process, to decline either of those. I think we only learnt or got to that sort of material from some of the legal submitters, who really did improve and fine-tune the bill.

I think we’ve already heard some commentary around debt hibernation and safe harbour, and a number of submissions where they gave real examples of what that would look like. I want to read just a couple of sentences from one that caught my imagination that I thought summarised the debt hibernation and the safe harbour—I thought it encapsulated it quite well. The submitter said, once they gave their example of suffering under coronavirus, “This is where the hibernation scheme and the safe harbour provisions intersect. The safe harbour provisions provide confidence to directors that they can continue in an attempt to salvage their business without the potential for personal loss if they were to fail in their endeavours. That confidence means they can proceed to put together an arrangement that … be considered by creditors in an endeavour to find a way of restructuring debt.” I think this is exactly the purpose of the debt hibernation and safe harbour.

There was a lot of discussion—again, some of my colleagues have raised—around not wanting to provide a mechanism for those who were maybe struggling significantly and proceeding towards insolvency prior to coronavirus, and to try and nuance the legislation so it mostly solely applied to those who are suffering as a consequence of coronavirus, and that’s quite difficult to specifically focus on, just that reason.

There were health components in the departmental report as well, and I am pleased that the Government took on board a small suggestion I made at the first reading that they take some care with mental health examinations over audiovisual links and how challenging this can be. I see one of the suggestions here is that an examination under Schedule 11 cannot be carried out by audio-only link. I’m pleased that was taken on board.

There are items here for police, very much administrative, around licensing and licensing extensions, workplace relations, and some more administrative areas.

I think, at this point, I want to just also thank the officials for doing a wonderful job with the departmental report. I think that did summarise the submissions, the submitters, who really added value to this process. We listened and changed. If we look at those changes across one, two, three, four, about eight portfolios, that’s quite a few changes. But so there should be, because this bill amends 42 to 45 pieces of legislation, as I recall, so I’m not surprised that that was the fine-tuning that needed to be done. Again, I’d like to thank the committee for getting it to this place in the House, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be able to talk to this bill—my first speech since being back in the House post the COVID lockdown. I want to take a turn where I acknowledge all of those who have been working on it. One of the things that most impressed me was the ability for a whole-of-Government approach to pulling together the 45 pieces of legislation and bringing together those practical pieces of work to enable Kiwis to get on with it, and I think that’s one of the great things about this Government: when issues arise, when Kiwis need to go about their daily work and they need to do that more easily, then we have a responsive ear to them, and this, I believe, helps in every way possible.

I also believe that Kiwis expect that in times like this we do come together, and we’ve heard an opposing view where that may not have been the case on some of the legislation brought forward for amendment, but, all in all, in times like this, Kiwis demand that, actually, we put the politics to one side and get on with changing the things that need to be changed to enable us to live our lives more easily. And that’s what this bill really demonstrates by taking all of those pieces of work, having a look at simple things to make things better, and there are numerous examples of that.

There’s been a lot of conversation around the changes for local government, a passion area of mine but also something that’s really practical. I was unaware of a by-election going on in Ōtorohanga, but no doubt that is hotly contested. Be it in a large metro or a small province, none the less, they are important. They are even probably more important for a smaller town where the local representative can be seen as the go-to for everything, particularly on a small council. So I’m really happy that some of these things have made it into this omnibus bill and those changes have been accommodated.

I am also going to agree with my Green colleague Jan Logie, who talked about the changes to parental leave, and those who are returning to work to assist to respond to COVID-19 won’t be disadvantaged by losing their entitlements to certain leave and payments. That’s been expressed to me by several who have been nervous. One of several hundred constituency queries that come in daily—this has been a feature. And I am proud that I will be able to advise them that this is going through the House now, and with some positive news, because, again, these are the small things. People become nervous about what the impacts are. They are desperate to contribute to the situation. They know they can do it but they just want to make sure that any entitlement or any employment matters that pertain to their roles are going to be kept intact.

The other issue that’s been raised, certainly, is around those changes to the Gambling Act, and the three organisations mentioned in there are the Heart Foundation, the Coastguard, and the Countdown Kids Charitable Trust. I know two of those entities really well. I’ve worked with them. The call’s been made as to why some of these changes were not made previously, and let’s look on the positive side and say, “Look, these will be made now.”, and I’m sure that this will be a springboard for those entities to be able to campaign for further change to legislation post the September deadline expiry date—I think it’s September—and that will enable them to do that. But, more importantly, and I know by dealing with other big charities in the electorate right now, they are nervous about donations. I’ve talked to the Wellington City Mission, who in one case have had a recent surge in one aspect of their business, their operation, but in other aspects it’s not been positive, and that also extends into entities like the Crimson Trust—and if you look at the great work they do with the Trees That Count programme, for example, there are nervous sponsors in there. And they are vehicle sponsors, they are sponsors who are used to providing in kind, and without some sense of certainty for their businesses, and some changing, transitioning, arrangements, it means those charities won’t benefit. So anything that we can do to enable them to continue to receive donations from Kiwis is really important.

I see there that others have discussed a range of deferments to regulatory requirements for Government agencies, the Public Service, who had difficulty implementing new legislation or the requirements. That’s fair enough, and those are practical things. I said at the start that one of the things I like about this bill is that it is practical, and people expect that. So it’s good that I see that those things have been included. It was good to hear from the previous speaker, too, just getting the clarity—he’s left now—around that audiovisual link. I wasn’t too sure what that meant in terms of how that applied to some of the health sector work. But it’s good that we are able to pull that together, and the Epidemic Response Committee was able to play its part and recommend that. And thank you to all of those who participated on that. I hear it’s winding up soon and we can resume normal business, so that will be a bonus as we get into the swing of things in the new normal phase.

Others have mentioned some of the changes to other provisions in the bill. I go back to what I said right at the start and say this is a good, practical omnibus bill, and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

I’ll just remind the member that you cannot mention the attendance or not of another member in the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, my colleague Michael Woodhouse mentioned the process that the committee had gone through to deal with this bill. I think everybody has paid their respects and expressed their gratitude to the officials that worked on the bill, and I, too, would like to do that. I think they did go above and beyond the call of duty to deal with this in a timely manner. I do agree also with my colleague David Seymour in some respects; it’s not ideal. I totally get that. We’re not in ideal times, unfortunately, and there are some things that I would be more comfortable with if we’d had more time to go over them, but we didn’t, unfortunately.

This bill deals with meetings by audiovisual means and other things in the bill, and I’d just like to relay how difficult it was at some point yesterday in the committee meeting. Just before 4 o’clock, our digital connections started to waver, and several of us restarted our computers in the hope that that would actually help, but that wasn’t the problem. For some unknown reason, there was an issue with the network here in Wellington around 4 o’clock, and the most disappointing aspect of that was that I gave what I thought was one of my best contributions in a select committee, which was lost to the digital ether. And when I had the opportunity to have another go, I just didn’t really feel the moment was there, so you’ll have to take my word for it. But it was a wonderful contribution to the bill, and it would have made the bill so much better, but, however, the moment is gone.

But it does highlight, actually, how difficult it is. We think we have got pretty good digital connectivity in New Zealand, and we do, but at times it lets us down. I think the bill’s covered this pretty well, but it’s not going to be a world where we do everything by Zoom. It just simply doesn’t work that well. And I, for one, am looking forward to when select committees can meet in person, because eyeballing the other people in the room and getting their body language actually is a far richer experience and we get a better understanding of what people are thinking and saying.

But as has been said, this bill amends 45 Acts. It’s a significant piece of legislation, and to get it through in the time that we did is quite a mammoth task. It deals a lot with companies, and several people today have alluded to, certainly during question time, about the Christchurch and the Kaikōura earthquakes and getting legislation through quickly to deal with situations of natural disasters and so on—and those disasters still go on for some people. But I know from my own experience of dealing with businesses trying to recover or making the decisions, particularly around these insolvency and company law provisions in this bill, how difficult this is for people. It is a significant issue for a company director or a company owner who’s sitting in their business overwhelmed by the situation that’s around them, trying to assess the economic situation for their business. And then you add into it at this time that we’re in such uncharted territory. Who knows—who knows what’s going to happen in six months? Who knows what’s going to happen in two years? And for a company director who has to make a decision on their company’s viability and whether they can meet their creditors and meet their banking covenants, it’s very difficult.

And we see now Air New Zealand is assessing their company will be back to 70 percent of its prior service, but in two years’ time, yet international aviation pundits are all saying it will be five years. Now, I don’t know what the right answer is, and I would suspect none of those people do either, because we simply don’t know. So when you get into a company sitting around a kitchen table or a boardroom, considering whether they are going to go into insolvency or not, it’s very difficult. These provisions, particularly the business debt hibernation provisions and the safe harbour provisions, do give them more leeway to make those decisions. But it is a human decision in the end, and they’re making a decision on something that—I don’t think anyone knows what’s going to happen in two months’ time, let alone six months, and some of those decisions have to be made on those sorts of time horizons. So these provisions are much needed, and I was pleased to support them.

I do have some concerns about the safe harbour provisions, and I know my colleague Alastair Scott had a very good member’s bill in the ballot, which covered this very provision and, I thought, was an excellent bill. It’s a shame it wasn’t pulled out of the ballot, actually, but, however, we’ve got the one we’ve got. It does have its shortcomings—I agree with that—and that discussion we had, in the end I was confused at the end, but, David, I do have to admit—oh, Mr Seymour.

💬 David Seymour: It wasn’t just you, mate.

Yeah—ha, ha! So, at the end of it, we did what we could and we’ve got the bill in the shape that we have today. As I said, I do have some misgivings on it, but in the end I think we have to do what we think is the right thing and that is to pass this legislation through.

I think the uncertainty, you know, as the point was made in the select committee, might encourage risk-averse behaviour. We can’t really say with any certainty that the bill will do that. I think it is something that will have to be watched for, but, hopefully, that won’t be the case. But people are people and they do funny things, and particularly when they’re under pressure, as I’ve seen through my experience, anyway, dealing with the earthquake.

Company directors and their duties—it is a difficult one, and I think the Institute of Directors covered that pretty well. But, you know, in the end, we got to where we did. It is the least worst option in the circumstances, perhaps, but that’s the way it is.

Property law and commercial landlords—I think the issue we’re seeing at the moment, certainly when I talk to businesses in my electorate, is you have businesses who are getting into significant issues. They’re either trying to come to an arrangement not to pay their rent or to lower their rent; the landlord on the other side of the transaction has significant debts often, and they’re also struggling. So what we’re often having now is just the problem being passed along the line to the next person in the line, and, unfortunately, it is going to be a pretty difficult time in the near future for people in those situations. I’m sure other members who’ve taken the pulse of their business community will be well aware of what lies ahead. It is going to be pretty tough out there.

The paid parental leave provisions—well, yes, it was absolutely essential that it was dealt with. The Gambling Act changes, I do agree also—I’m going to have to stop doing this—with Mr Seymour. But why didn’t we do this years ago? Why do we have to do this—why weren’t they allowed to carry out their fund-raising activities online? It makes perfect sense. I don’t know why we didn’t allow that, but that’s none the less where we got to. But it’s here now, so that’s going to be great.

It was raised earlier that companies are often the owners’ or the principals’ superannuation. Michael Woodhouse made a very good point about keeping a business in operation, because often the greatest intellectual property in the company, particularly for a small and medium sized enterprise (SME), is actually the principal—the people that own and run the company, particularly for smaller companies. So it’s not like handing the keys over for a repossessed car to someone else to take over, where you just jump in and drive it away. Businesses are all about people and they’re all about the processes that go with it—and big corporates, they have all of that documented. But often in SMEs they do not, and then to simply have the keys handed over, you end up with a business not only failing for the principals but going out of existence, and that’s not a good result for anyone. So if we can keep those businesses going as long as possible, then that is the most desirable outcome that we could hope for.

So it was with that reluctance which I’ve outlined that I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m very pleased to be able to stand here on behalf of the Labour Party and lend my support to this bill which we wrote. So the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill is quite amazing, really, when you think about it—that something like this can come up so quickly and deal with issues that only eight weeks ago this Parliament, I’m sure, would not have anticipated that we needed to do. But that is the nature of the crisis that this country and many other countries face, is that is evolving, it is unprecedented, and there is no template—there’s no blueprint as to how to go about this.

There have been many examples of issues that have come from various sectors that this Parliament is being asked to deal with through this process—45 pieces of legislation are being amended in this bill, and I think that’s marvellous. I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the officials for the work that they have done, because they’re often overlooked. To go away and work over the weekend to be able to present the report to the Epidemic Response Committee was, I’m sure, something that no one wishes to do, but they had no choice. They had to do it and they did it because it needed to be done, and good on them for doing that.

I also want to acknowledge—credit where it’s due—the Hon Michael Woodhouse did a very good job of chairing the submission process for this bill, so well done. I think that’s something that this House doesn’t do enough, is acknowledge when there is collaboration across the House. I’m one of the first to point out the foibles of the other side, so I also wish to take the opportunity to congratulate when there has been collaboration. I know that that is a part of the political process, the parliamentary process, that the public don’t see very much—collaboration does not sell newspapers—so it’s great to be able to acknowledge that.

There are various examples in this bill of things that—like I mentioned earlier—I don’t think we would have anticipated would have needed changing, such as, as referenced by the previous speaker, Stuart Smith, the necessary changes to the Gambling Act. Now, organisations like the Heart Foundation and Coastguard and Countdown Kids Charitable Trust needed a law change to be able to take payments for their lotteries online or by phone, and it is astonishing that that is required, but it was. And so it’s great that that has been identified and included in this bill.

There are a number of changes that are significant, such as, for example, allowing the by-election in Ōtorohanga to be postponed. Now, otherwise that wouldn’t have been able to happen, but, obviously, with the conditions that are currently in place as a result of the necessary lockdown that we are undergoing at the moment, that would have impeded democracy. So it’s a good opportunity and a great example of those sorts of issues coming through the hard work of Government departments, the Ministers identifying that including that in this response, and the other side of the House taking it into consideration, hearing submissions on the Epidemic Response Committee, and lending their support to this.

It’s been an extraordinary experience being part of that committee, I have to say, and I want to acknowledge the submitters, because they had to come at short notice. And the submissions that they provided in this allowed the committee to make a number of recommendations for changes in this bill, and that’s been addressed by the Supplementary Order Paper that’s been presented to this House. It just goes to show that even in a short process, the select committee process does contribute greatly to this.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Ah, not for the next bill!

There are, of course, times where urgency is required, as the previous Government knew very well—many, many, many examples of urgency; far more than this Government, I might point out. There are many examples where some bills need to go in through urgency. And the next bill that this House is going to consider is one of those, because—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Give us three reasons.

—of course, the COVID-19 response requires such an approach.

Now, I understand that the member on the other side of the House that wants to take the opportunity to interject is under a lot of pressure at the moment because the response has been so strong and it has been received so well that the other side of the House is running out of platforms from which to try and get attention. So if this is the platform which that member chooses to try and grasp attention, then good on him—good on him. It’s not the approach that we would take, of course, because we are a party of principle.

So—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the bill?

Back to the bill—back to this marvellous bill. I will not concentrate on the interjections from the other side any more. I will come back to this bill. I don’t actually think that there’s much need to go on too much longer to be honest, because—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: No, no, give us more!

I don’t know if I will give them more. They plead for more—they plead for more, but I will not give it to them. I don’t know why, but it seems to me that they want this to continue—they don’t want to get to the next bill.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m happy for it to continue if it’s about the bill.

I don’t really want to continue, Madam Speaker, because the point is that this bill has been covered—it’s been well covered. It’s so broad and so varied. But, in such a short period of time, it has addressed the things that needed to be addressed. I commend all those that have been part of it and I’m looking forward to seeing it progress through the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.