COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill

I move, That the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill be reported to the House by 14 October 2021 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

I had hoped that we would not find ourselves back in the position of having to deal with one of these pieces of legislation. The Government has taken the approach right the way through the pandemic that we should only use expedited procedures for emergency provisions as much as is absolutely necessary to deal with the immediate COVID-19 response. So when we passed the two omnibus bills that we’ve previously passed dealing with very similar provisions to this one, we deliberately put in them sunset clauses that meant most of those provisions then expired, even if some of them were desirable for the longer term.

I have taken the view that if there are longer-term changes that should be made, like things like being able to file documents electronically and affix electronic signatures, things that make common sense in the 21st century—if they’re desirable in the longer term, we should bring forward separate legislation that goes through a proper and considered process to make those changes, rather than to rush though changes that are then in place permanently. So we’ve taken the attitude that when we’re doing these types of approaches, we should do them for a specified period of time, and if they should then expire and things should either revert back to the way they were or where there’s a desire to keep them, that we can do that with a proper legislative process that is subject to the regular level of scrutiny.

Many of the measures that we are now re-enacting were going to expire or have expired or weren’t potentially foreseeable as necessary a couple of months ago. The Delta outbreak that we have been dealing with has meant that we do have to bring forward another bill, so there’s been some criticism from the members opposite: why is it that this bill, which has only been introduced this week, is now being progressed in such haste? I’m always open to conversations about progressing legislation through Parliament in haste. It is something that, as Leader of the House, I try to avoid doing. But when it comes to dealing—

💬 Hon Member: Not very hard.

I’ve actually used less urgency than most people who have held this role, and, actually, the Government does try and avoid the use of urgency unless there is a very good reason for doing so.

Dealing with this particular Delta outbreak, we do need to provide some of these relatively sensible common-sense measures. For example, the ability for the courts to clear their backlog of cases is dependent on this bill passing its way through the House, and of course we want to be able to do that very quickly. It is important that people do have certainty about knowing what the law is going to be, and so we want to make sure that for those who are currently finding themselves potentially on the wrong side of the legal ledger, we need them to know that we’re fixing that for them so that they can become compliant. So if there are deadlines that they have missed because they’ve been unable to—if they’ve not been able to file the documents or sign the documents that they needed to—because of COVID-19 restrictions, this bill will give them the certainty to know that they will be compliant with the law. So we want to get that in place as quickly as we can.

The last two bills didn’t have any select committee scrutiny. The reason that we’re now having another debate now is that we are sending the bill to select committee, but we’re only doing that for a period of a couple of weeks so that it can be scrutinised. The alternative would be just to pass the whole bill through under urgency, and then we wouldn’t be having this debate that we’re about to have now. Actually, our view is that if we can do a select committee hearing, even if it’s a short one, that’s better than nothing.

I move, That the words in the motion “14 October 2021” be deleted and replaced with “14 November 2021”.

It’s not hyperbole to say that when democracy dies, it dies slowly. It doesn’t generally die by revolution; it dies by the thousands of little cuts into people’s freedoms and the ability to have their say on the place’s and Parliament’s actions and laws. This is an outrageous motion and one which must be strongly rejected by this House. I hear the Minister talking about how reluctant he is to use this power—how reluctant he is, and how reasonable and rare it is. Well, frankly, the words don’t stack up with the reality. We have seen this on far too many occasions. Now, I understand COVID provides a very, very difficult backdrop for policy makers and lawmakers to be able to respond nimbly when the occasion warrants it. All parties in this House have supported urgent legislation in order to give what I think are situational, extraordinary powers, necessary and appropriate but limited in their scope. But to suggest that this Government has used them reasonably and rarely I think really stretches belief.

We have a bill in front of us which is 43 pages long and is going to amend something like 17 pieces of legislation—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: 17?

—17, Mr Bridges—and we’re going to give the public of New Zealand who are affected by this 16 days, fewer days than the number of Acts we’re actually amending. The Minister says, “Oh, well, we’re going to give ourselves the power to sit when the House is sitting.” The House won’t be sitting; it’s school holidays. Now, that’s no reason for the Finance and Expenditure Committee not to meet, but he’s giving himself powers he doesn’t need, and that’s actually, I think, consistent with the theme of this Government.

Now, let’s go into some of the significant amendments that I think warrant a much, much longer consideration. I am absolutely amazed at the degree to which the Government is prepared to inject itself into the private property rights and contracting obligations through Schedule 5. I think a number of speakers—Mr Seymour, others; Julie Anne Genter, for goodness’ sake, has revealed what an interventionist, socialist party she represents, because this is without doubt a significant incursion into the private contracting rights of individuals. It’s true: COVID has created an enormous amount of tension. My party has advocated for increases in rental supports for commercial rental lessees and lessors who are facing difficulty through these times. That’s a better way to deal with this, and I expect submitters to actually come and tell the Finance and Expenditure Committee just that. But I think we need to hear from legal scholars, from constitutional lawyers, from property lawyers, from property owners, lessees, lessors. And we’re going to do that in 16 days and actually pretend that the committee is able to give itself an ability to say, “We listened carefully, we reacted.”? I find that incongruous and completely implausible in the extreme. It pays lip service to the select committee process, to the parliamentary process, and to democracy itself.

And let’s talk about democracy, because there’s a little thing in here called a local election, and there’re going to be many of them next year, right across the country, unless the Government doesn’t want them. The Government has given itself the power to amend that, notwithstanding—actually, my understanding is that the Electoral Commission already has similar powers, basic powers to suspend elections in an emergency. So I think there are some serious questions about the question of legislative overreach in the amendments to the Local Electoral Act 2001. It’s not just one; they could do a few: “One or more further orders may be made under this section”. Councils, voters, lobby groups will want to come and tell the Finance and Expenditure Committee what it thinks about those changes.

As some colleagues have said, there are some sensible, necessary, appropriate—albeit incredibly late—changes rendering this, effectively, retrospective legislation. Well, if it was that retrospective, one begs the question as to why it’s taken the Government so long to bring this bill to the House and why it thinks it’s appropriate for it to give itself and its officials and the Cabinet weeks, months at least, to prepare this and then give submitters 16 days, and then to look the public in the eye and say that is consistent with good parliamentary process, good democratic process. I, frankly, think that will massively fail any sort of test of consultation and of communication. I don’t know how long—I would like to hear from a member on the other side, if they can explain, how long it’s taken them to prepare this legislation, because, frankly, if it took less than six months, let’s give the public the same respect. Let’s give the public the same amount of time that they would need to give a considered response to what the Government believes is a considered bill.

The Government has thousands of public servants dedicated to building a policy picture and framework that’s informed this bill, amending 17 separate pieces of legislation, and the small industry groups, the Property Council, the people who support open democracy—there’ll be any number of groups. Tenants’ lobby groups support—what are they called?—the tenants’ union, I think. There’s a number—in fact, Ricardo Menéndez March may have been an employee of one of them. They won’t have very much in the way of resources to be able to respond to these changes in a manner that gets them ready to make an intelligent, articulate submission effectively by next week, because that’s when they’ll have to hear them. If there’s more than a handful of submissions, what will the Finance and Expenditure Committee do? It will take them as read and not hear oral submissions, or it will make those oral submissions so short as to render them effectively redundant. That’s the lip service that we’re paying to a process that is changing 17 pieces of legislation.

Nobody who believes in good parliamentary process could possibly support that motion, and so the sensible thing, I think, and the only thing that we can do, is to give them a little more time. My motion has added another month on to the period for consideration.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: That’s more than reasonable. Should really be longer.

It’s still not long enough—that’s right, Mr Bridges. I agree it should be longer, but we’re trying to find sensible solutions to a situation the Government has found itself in, not of COVID’s making but of its own making. We came out of lockdowns last year, and not a single member of Government went, “Gee, maybe it could happen again.” No, they wanted to call themselves best in class, leaders in the world, front of the queue. They were too busy giving themselves plaudits and congratulations and pats on the back to actually go, “What if this happens again? Have we got the legislative framework we need to be able to respond without that level of urgency?” Nobody asked that question. Well, I’m asking it now, and I think we should take at least 6½ weeks to be able to do that. That is why I have tabled this motion. It’s the least we can do. It will at least give my colleagues, who are actually pretty jaundiced about this bill—and we are supporting it, on a very, very fine basis. Unlikely, if we’re not going to get some decent answers to the questions that we have, to continue to be able to support it, and we’re not going to be able to get those answers if we give just 16 days for the select committee to come back and tell this House what they found. This is an appalling process, and it can’t be supported.

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand, somewhat regretfully, in favour of Michael Woodhouse’s amendment. It’s definitely what you call a second-best alternative. He’s saying that a six-and-half-week select committee process might be the best we can get. I think that speaks to the quality of law making and the respect for Parliament that this Government and this Leader of the House really have. When he’s challenged on his respect for Parliament, he says, “Well, other people were worse.” Well, that’s got to be the lowest standard of leadership available—when things aren’t going well, find someone else who has done even worse. It’s hardly inspiring and hardly reassuring from the Leader of the House.

The reason I’m so concerned about this process being shortened by any length, whether it’s to two and a half weeks or to six and a half weeks—and it would probably be more honest to round it six or two; even the half’s not quite there—is that even the Minister himself has admitted in question time today that he hasn’t heard from the people affected. I asked Kris Faafoi, the Minister of Justice, the Minister responsible for Schedule 6, the schedule of this legislation that is being put together by the Ministry of Justice, who he has asked about the commercial tenancy aspects of this legislation. Who did he consult?

You might be able to make the argument that the consultation that took place before the legislation even came to Parliament could maybe make up for the lack of a select committee process. The Government’s made that argument with the counter-terrorism legislation. They said, “Look, we don’t need a full select committee process because we have actually done lots of consultation in the past. So we’re not going to get so much new information from the select committee process.” I think that’s a bogus argument, by the way. I think it is disrespectful to the institution of Parliament to say that just because the Government did its own consultation, Parliament, this House, these MPs, and its committees don’t need to do their own consultation. I think it’s a bogus argument but it’s an argument that could be made—that at least the Government asked people before it introduced the legislation—but, unfortunately, we know that that’s not the case. And here’s Kris Faafoi, only three hours ago, in question time in this House, saying, “I don’t necessarily want to rely on the impacts that the Government may think.”

Now, we’ll pass over various grammatical problems with that sentence, and say that I think what Kris Faafoi was trying to say is that he didn’t think the Government knew everything, because he went on, and his next sentence, which is a little bit better constructed, says, “I’d also be interested in some of those people who might be impacted by this.” Now, I just want to help. I think what Kris Faafoi was trying to say is he was interested in the views of those people. If he was trying to say he’d be interested in those people, as he literally said, then that raises more questions about what sort of interests Kris Faafoi as the Minister of Justice actually had in those people. But let’s assume he was trying to say he’d be interested in what sort of views that people impacted by this legislation might have. Well, you’d think he might have actually gone ahead and asked some of them what would happen to people who were parties to commercial tenancy contracts—how would they be impacted by that?

Well, it turns out that he actually hadn’t really done that. I asked him, and, again, this is only three hours ago, so it’s fresh but it bears repeating: what consultation, if any, and with whom, did the Government take on the commercial tenancy measures announced yesterday? He said that small business owners had talked to him and that they were feeling the impact of the Government’s alert level measures, and he’s absolutely right—they are. But just because people are affected by one thing, doesn’t mean it’s right to punish another group of people. The Minister then said that the Ministry of Justice met with the likes of the New Zealand Law Society and the Auckland District Law Society, and he wasn’t able to say that they had spoken to anybody who was a lessor. So when asked, “Who have you consulted?”, the Minister couldn’t come back and say, “Yes, we’ve spoken to people who are actually the people leasing out their property.” I think that’s a real shame, because we’ve got the Minister saying he’d like to hear other people’s views but also that he hasn’t heard from a whole half of this condition. So he’s talked to the Law Society. He’s talked to the Auckland District Law Society, and I think it’s worth talking to them. He didn’t tell us, by the way, what sort of advice he got. I guess that will have to come out under an Official Information Act (OIA) request.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just want to remind the member what we’re actually debating here.

Yes, Mr Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: The comments that he’s making—he needs to relate them to the shortened report-back time, which he hasn’t done yet.

Well, Mr Speaker, with the greatest of respect, I certainly have done that.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you have not done that in the last—

I—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I’m not going to argue. I’ve made the ruling, so the member should note it and carry on, not comment on the ruling.

Well, Mr Speaker, I make no comment on your ruling. I’m simply—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, just answering, it is. So just carry on.

OK, Mr Speaker. The structure of my speech to date has been to point out that the select committee process might be forgiven in its shortness and brevity if the Minister had done a large amount of consultation on the law prior to its introduction to Parliament. I’ve stated that I don’t think that that’s a valid argument, but nevertheless, it’s an argument that might not be made, and so you see, Mr Speaker, the logic here is that I’m commenting on the lack of pre-introduction consultation on the basis that the Government might believe it was a substitute for the length of the select committee process. It’s not especially difficult logic to follow, but I thought I would restate it for you.

The thing is that they haven’t heard from anybody. They’ve talked to these law societies but they haven’t heard what these law societies advised, and I was making the point when you interrupted me, Mr Speaker, that it’s going to take an Official Information Act request or other method to find out what that advice was. Now, Mr Speaker, here you go—the shortness of the consultation by the select committee means we won’t get there, because to get an OIA request, there’s 20 working days—four weeks—and the Government is proposing only two weeks. So, logically, we’re not going to be able to find out what sort of advice was received that the Minister referred to in his answers to questions about the legislation. So I hope this is all making sense to you, Mr Speaker. I certainly think it’s a very important matter.

Now, Mr Speaker, here’s the next thing. This legislation has a huge effect on all of those people from the property side, those people who are lessors. Now, to give a sense of the depth of feeling that will not be properly considered, hasn’t been considered so far because he didn’t say that he’d spoken to the Property Council, and it won’t have time to be considered at a two-week select committee, because they won’t have time to prepare their advice, and if they do that, there won’t be time to submit, and even if they did that, there won’t be time for sober consideration, and even if they did that, there wouldn’t be time for the select committee to draft alternatives.

Property law, especially for a simple electrical engineer like me, is pretty complicated stuff. [Interruption] Scott Simpson’s saying a grammar education doesn’t get you anywhere when it comes to property law. It’s very tough stuff. But here’s what people who are engaged are saying. Leonie Freeman, the chief executive of the Property Council, has said, funnily enough, “It’s a great day to be a lawyer, but a terrible day for property owners and tenants who’ve suddenly had their contracts changed without notice or consultation.” That’s what the Property Council are saying. Are they going to have the technicalities and the details that they’re raising considered during this process? Well, it wasn’t considered during any kind of pre-consultation, and there won’t be time to consider it in the time that remains. She goes on—and I actually know Leonie Freeman; she is a very impressive and smart person—to say, “What the Government fails to realise is that these property owners are the same people who are working hard to keep construction development and housing projects going. They’ve, effectively, dropped a bomb on their most vital industry.” So is this select committee going to be able to consider the flow-on effects from this legislation on housing and construction? Of course they’re not going to have time for that. That’s why this motion must be defeated or at least amended.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s, like David Seymour says, regrettable. It seems to me that we have to be debating this motion advocating for Michael Woodhouse’s proposed amendment to it for more time here. Of course, just very briefly, because I want to get to why more time is required and spend all my time on that, but just to record, of course, for those watching at home, the reason we are able to do this and debate this procedural matter, if you like, about time is because it’s not the usual amount of time. It’s very significantly less: weeks instead of, what is it, Michael Woodhouse? Four months.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Oh, it’s usually six.

It’s usually six months, I should say. So that is why we are in this position, and on that narrow point we are able to make the case for more time than literally just, on the Minister’s say so, submissions being heard if the committee decides to by 14 October.

What Michael Woodhouse has proposed is not another five or so months to give us the normal time frame. So as I think he said himself, he is being very reasonable with this amendment. He’s not going for a longer period; he is simply advocating for about a further month. So instead of 14 October, that would allow due consideration of this bill to 14 November of this year. Not a long time, and actually, frankly, a bit like National’s position on this bill, where we’re supporting, but I think we’ve got very serious concerns, I say I’ve got very serious concerns about Michael Woodhouse’s amendment, because it seems to me, actually, we could, possibly should, be arguing for longer.

Why is more time needed? Well, I’ll give a few brief reasons. Actually, there’s a question of fairness or proportionality. This bill—I know the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I think they used to once be a level under my purview as a leader of this House for a short period of time. It would have taken months to draft. It would have taken months for the instructions and to get all of the offices to say what would be convenient for you to put in this bill, and the Ministry for the Environment came back with their wish list and the Ministry of Social Development came back with theirs—months to draft and—

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Only under a National Government.

Well, under Labour it’s a surprise they actually get anything achieved, frankly, but here they have brought a bill to the House, so we’ll give them that. Months to draft or to come up with, weeks for submissions—that’s a fairness thing to me. That doesn’t seem fair. More than that, it’s just—point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m trying to make some thoughtful points here and I just can’t hear them because the member standing up has his back to us now.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Thank you. It’s tradition that, one, members don’t turn their back on the House for any extended time, and, two, having a loud conversation should actually go out into the lobby. I apologise to the member.

The second reason why more time is needed—again, I suppose it’s a fairness point or some would say it’s around an issue that begins with “h” but we don’t use, and that’s this—

💬 David Seymour: Housing.

Housing—well, they don’t mention that word either, David Seymour, but that’s not—I want to stay on the point and purpose of this discussion. They have given themselves—that is the Government of the day and the Hon Chris Hipkins—in haste, powers, and they’re going to go through this hugely truncated process, to use at their leisure. These powers, above and beyond the usual powers that would be in place, are right through into 2022. So, again, I suppose it’s—I mentioned the H word, but it’s another fairness point that I would make here.

💬 David Seymour: Fairness starts with “f”.

Well, that’s true. But the third and most significant reason I give as to why more time is required is the simple but, I think—and this is a very powerful point around the shared breadth of this bill and the complexity of its component parts. I want to demonstrate that in contribution. On the breadth, I think it’s 17 bills that are amended here, and of course it is an omnibus bill. I’m not challenging that; that’s something that the Government can rightfully do in a bill, but they are—

💬 David Seymour: You learnt that in high school.

I learnt that in high school; it’s something—I don’t know. That’s Climate Change Response Act, Contract and Commercial Law Act, Coroners Act, Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, Criminal Procedure Act, Gambling Act, Land Transport Act, Local Electoral Act, Property Law Act, Rating Valuations Act, and so on and so forth.

💬 David Seymour: What years?

Well, no, because I’m not filibustering here, Mr Seymour. I’m actually making, I hope, on point points—

💬 David Seymour: Laser.

With a laser-like focus on the issue.

💬 David Seymour: How many bills?

No, no, please, please, please, please, please. I’ve only got four minutes left and I want to use them on the things that matter.

So it’s the breadth of this bill. But allied to that and very much part and parcel—these aren’t simple laws. These aren’t the bee-keepers allowed to bee-keep laws; they are some of the most complex on our statute books.

💬 David Seymour: Has the member talked to the bee-keepers?

Well, they certainly didn’t consult them in the making of this law, David Seymour, but they are the most complex laws, and I want to demonstrate that with just three of them.

The Climate Change Response Act and the climate change position here: well, what this bill does and why it requires significantly more time is it amends the Climate Change Response Act 2002 by extending statutory time frames for key climate change policy decisions. Well, that’s euphemism for putting on hold the ability to do things on what I think is one of the most pressing issues of our time, but what a huge swathe of New Zealanders see as the most complex and biggest issue of our time. Actually, while I’m just on that, think about the people who would have submitted on this. Young people consistently say it’s the most important issue to them. It’s their future; it’s intergenerational. There’s the climate action groups, there’s the various high schools and so on, and that’s before you get to the likes of the significant NGOs and individuals. I have a constituent, Gray Southern, in my electorate who is hugely dedicated to the sole issue of climate change and the international response. He would absolutely make a submission, but if he does, I think the reality is he’s going to get three minutes if he’s lucky, if he’s even heard on this. So that breadth, that complexity, and the significance of that issue means more time is required.

The other example I wanted to use is the local body law and that issue. Well, if climate change is complex and significant, this literally goes to the democracy of New Zealand. And it’s not some minor technical amendment that’s being made. This is the power of the Government of the day to literally delay the elections. If for some reason—it doesn’t actually state the reasons—they don’t want to. They decide “Look, 2022 kinda doesn’t work for us. Tauranga, sorry, you’re not going to have it. We’ll keep Anne Tolley and her band of merry men to do their jobs.”—at $1,800 a day to Anne Tolley, I might add, not that I’m bitter. So just that issue alone would see submissions from the Tauranga Ratepayers’ Alliance, the taxpayers’ unions, just the Tauranga bit, and several others are there as well that would want to be heard.

The final one I want to mention is that very complicated—and I appreciate it’s a point David Seymour spoke about in this contribution—intricate area of law: property law and commercial contracts around landlords and their tenants. And just those words—they are new words, I believe. What is it, “fair proportion” or whatever? They are not words that have ever been used before. And given that there are, in some cases, many millions of dollars involved with commercial landlords and tenants, that should be something they should be able to submit on. It will literally see, one way or the other, millions of dollars of benefit to one side or the other. By the way, it isn’t always the tenant who is the poor one in the relationship. So these are all reasons why a period of a few weeks is not good enough.

We ask, and I agree with Michael Woodhouse wholeheartedly, for another month so this can be done, not properly but just a bit better, actually.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the amendment, which was going to be moved by me but was actually moved by Michael Woodhouse in the end—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: We’re a team.

We are a team here, with a bit of nifty footwork—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: It was very deft.

It was very deft. Anyway, he moved the amendment.

I want to make two or three points. The first is that an extra month is an eminently reasonable request of the House. It’s eminently reasonable, and when we were drafting the amendment, we had to move quickly because this bill was dropped on us yesterday, and we have to take urgency to introduce it. Totally outrageous, the bill could have been—I don’t really understand, because the bill could have been introduced on a Monday and debated on Thursday, or it could have gone to Cabinet last week and been introduced last week, and then we could do it in normal time, so the Government has made a boo-boo there. But, anyway, when we were quickly moving, I said to Michael and I said to some other colleagues, well, let’s go for a month. Because the Government clearly wants to get it through by Christmas, and there’s some things in the bill which sort of sound reasonable and we do want to invigilate it at the committee a bit, so OK—let’s go for a month. Because two weeks, I think—I hope—if members reflect on it, they will acknowledge that two weeks is just no time. I mean, how can you really get to—this is a massive piece of legislation; it’s just impossible to get to grips with it in two weeks. That’s not reasonable.

So, 14 October is the motion moved by the Minister. It’s been sent to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and it will have two weeks there. Our position is—not unreasonably, I think—let’s just take the extra month. We can get it through by Christmas. Parliament’s not lifting until, I think, mid-December. I forget the exact date off the top of my head, but normally it’s about the 16th or 17th when we rise and we have the gallery party—that tradition started by Gerry Brownlee has been well-continued by Mr Hipkins, and we thank him for that, belatedly. So we can get it through by Christmas, but an extra month is pretty reasonable. And I know the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s got a lot on, and Duncan Webb runs a tight ship, I’m told—he’s a bit of a hard taskmaster, he’s got them meeting during the recess weeks, which, to be fair, not all committees do. They’re meeting during the recess, they’ve got the Zoom now, and he’s making good use of the functionality, and my colleagues on the committee, Michael Woodhouse and Nicola Willis, have mentioned to me before, there’s others that have told me he runs a good ship, and so I’m sure he’ll do a good job. We’re just saying, take the extra month. So I just think, as a matter of principle, that’s a good thing.

Then I want to come to, specifically—I’ve got to stop saying that word, specifically—some of the things that I think people will want to get into that justify the extra time. The first is the area I talked about in my contribution on the bill, which is the local electoral changes. Now, I have put up on Facebook the powers that the Government wants to give itself. Man, you would not believe the response—it is unbelievable. People are asking the question in the comments on Facebook—and on Twitter, to be fair; I don’t spend a lot of time on Twitter, probably spend too much time as it is. But people are asking “why?” Why does the Government want to give itself the power to delay the election without limit, on a six-weekly basis, all the way through 2023? Now, I could understand 2022—because that’s local body election year and the very difficult circumstance of level 4, maybe there’s an argument that you can’t even do a postal ballot, although I’ll come back to that. I think that even that argument’s erroneous, frankly—maybe, but 2023? Are we seriously saying that the Government can arrogate to itself the power to delay the local body elections on a six-weekly rolling basis for over a year? I just do not understand the justification for that.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: How does COVID get in the way of a postal vote?

Well that’s a really good point, Michael Woodhouse. It’s an extremely good point. How does COVID get in the way of a postal ballot? We don’t have polling day any more in local body elections. Some people think we should go back to polling day for local body elections. To be honest, I’m actually one of them. I think that would actually raise the turnout rate. We went away from them on the basis that it would raise turnout. It did momentarily but now the numbers are way back below what they were, so I think we should go back to polling day, but that’s beside the point. Some people think we should, but the point is we don’t, and we’re not going to any time soon. The Justice Committee’s doing their inquiry. I think they actually recommended in the last triennial review that we should go back to polling day—it was certainly discussed.

But the point is, it’s a postal ballot. And are we seriously saying that things are going to get so bad next year—I mean, what does the Government know that they’re not telling us? Are we seriously going to say that things are going to get so bad in 2022 that the Government wants the power to, on a rolling basis—just to be clear, the existing law says the Governor-General, which is essentially the Cabinet, can delay a local body election, polling day, or nominations day, for six weeks, and they can do that once. OK? That’s probably about right, probably about the right balance, because you may have circumstances. But on a rolling basis, all the way into the year after an election, is just ridiculous. I’m sorry, it’s just ridiculous. I’m telling you now, people are going to link—and they already have—they are going to link this power to three waters. And the other thing they’re going to link it to is the Māori ward decision that was made earlier in Parliament this year.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those points might be correct, however the member needs to argue them in the context of a shortened report back time, which he’s failed to do in the last couple of minutes.

So the point I’m making, sir, is that there’s going to be widespread angst about this. I just indicated some of the social media angst you’re seeing already. There is going to be widespread angst about that, and what that indicates is that there’s going to be a lot of people going to want to make submissions. I predict—I’m going to say this right now—the select committee will be inundated with submissions in the next two weeks as the committee considers this bill, and they’re not going to be able to get to them. That is precisely the reason why the House should vote in favour of the motion moved by Mr Woodhouse to give the committee extra time. Just a month. Frankly, even with the extra month—if we go through to 14 November—even then I’m not sure the committee would get through all the submissions which are going to want to consider the issue of the local body election issue in the bill.

The other issue that the committee really needs to take its time over, that justifies the extra time to get advice from the officials, is the issue raised by Mr Seymour and also other colleagues in relation to the Property Law Act changes. Let’s be very clear. This is quite nitty-gritty stuff. This is very tricky. Now, when I was at law school, I did not enjoy property law, and the reason I didn’t enjoy property law is because it is very complex. I was all about the public law, arguing about rights, and all that sort of stuff—that’s for me; it’s probably why I ended up in Parliament. But property law is very complex. Land law, the rights of tenants, commercial tenancies, covenants, all the stuff that I thought I’d forgotten that I haven’t. All of that stuff matters, and you’ve got to get it right. And this is retrospective legislation. That’s the other point. I’m telling you now, there are going to be potentially learned law professors and other scholars who are interested in this stuff who are going to turn up and castigate the Government for the retrospective nature of the legislation.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: If they have the chance.

That’s right, if they have the chance. People are not going to be happy about this. Parliament does not retrospectively legislate very often, and we only do so normally with a very good reason. The Government, frankly, so far has not—to be honest, I don’t think—pointed out a very good reason for the retrospectivity, and so people are going to be upset about that. So there’s going to be submissions. So, firstly, there’s going to be a lot of submissions on that point, just as a matter of principle, and then, secondly, you’re going to get the Property Council—I understand that they have some concerns around some aspects of it. The Property Council were going to submit, small businesses are going to submit; there’s an argument for some of the things the Government is doing. You’re going to see a bit of debate either way. That’s the point of the committee process. You go through the debates, you hear the submissions, and the committee comes to a determination as to which way it wants to go. That’s all fine, but the point is you can only do that on a committee if the committee can do its job. And 14 October is not anywhere near enough time.

And I have not even mentioned the rest of the bill. There’s 17 bills here. I mean, the Climate Change Response Act delay, in itself, is actually quite massive. I haven’t even mentioned that. I mean, that’s the issue—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Jacinda Ardern says it’s the biggest issue there is.

That’s right, Simon Bridges says it’s the biggest issue—you know, the nuclear free, might be the third generation. Well, there’s a delay to various aspects of it discussed by the Hon Scott Simpson. I haven’t even mentioned that yet, and I’m telling you now there are going to be some people out there—I’m thinking of Russel Norman from Greenpeace, and others—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: He’ll be scathing.

He’s going to be scathing, I mean he’s never happy about anything, but he’s going to be very unhappy about this. He’s going to turn up and want to submit as well, and he’ll probably make a very lengthy submission—and I welcome that, good on him, that’s his right—and the committee’s going to have to go through that. Is it a good idea or not? The point is, the committee’s going to need more time than the bare 14 days. We’re not being unreasonable here. Just give ourselves the extra month, let the committee do its job, and consider it properly.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. This debate is interrupted for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

The House is resumed. When we broke for the dinner break, we were debating the referral motion for the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill.

I move, That the question be now put.

I have no problem with taking this motion. I have watched the last couple of speeches and I’m convinced that the issues have been dealt with. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: A point of order?

Yes, please.

💬 SPEAKER: Right. Well, this is going to be interesting.

Well, there are 17 pieces of legislation that affect several spokespeople—

Order! Order! The member’s not arguing with me, is she? You’re not suggesting that I reverse my call when I ask that the motion be put? That is—if the member was more experienced, I’d be convinced that she was grossly disorderly, and the result of that is to go.

💬 Maureen Pugh: Can I seek your advice?

Well, if the member wants to risk having an early night, take another point of order. If it is out of order, the member will have an early night. I don’t know if that’s regarded as a reward or a punishment at the moment.

So, Mr Speaker, I just don’t know where, then, I would sit a point of order or where I would put a point of order if you’ve already put the motion. So how do I get a chance to put my point of order if you’re putting the motion?

Well, the—it’s after dinner and I’m going to be reasonable, because the member did actually do exactly what I asked her not to do. There is no point of order that a member can take to debate whether the Speaker is going to put a closure motion. There is no point of order whatsoever.

The question now is that the motion is agreed to.

💬 Hon Member: No, there’s an amendment.

Sorry? Oh, sorry. I apologise. There is an amendment in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.