I would watch the relationship between the government and the banks over the coming weeks if I was you.

The announcement of $100,000 interest free loans came from Grant Robertson with a serve for the bankers, a sense of dissappointment that they hadn't been playing their part.

Their original part was to have a few regulations swept aside so they could hand out mortgage holidays without the regulators and credit agencies taking a dim view of their increasing debt. In that move is risk carried by the banks.

Then came the original $6 billion loan scheme. 80 percent risk covered by government, 20 percent by the banks. What a lot of people missed is that the banks, although willing, aren't in the business of government, aren't running this pandemic response and still have to, at the end of the day make some money and answer to shareholders. They also riding instructions from Treasury about lending to people in places like commercial development and agriculture, and there needed some level of surety from the businesses.

In that is your problem. If you're a small business, and this been the relevant question since day one, is debt at a time of stress really ever the answer? Two things can happen here, either the government helps or the bank lends. Which one is more useful and potentially less damaging in the long run?

So been hardly any surprise that businesses have used debt as a last resort, hence you have all your calls for rent relief. The government has now dropped the request for surety, worth noting in Britain and Australia, they never wanted any from the start.

Can you really blame a bank for asking for it? If you're told to ask, and your bottom line is at risk, is it not more than reasonable to cover your exposure? What many non business people also don’t seem to understand is that lumping in personal possessions as part of your business isn't good business, and isn't generally done.

That's why so called large or wealthy companies have got access to the wage subsidy. Your business life and personal life, quite rightly, are two separate things.

So why's this relationship worth watching? Because as the true economic cost of this thing gets laid bare, and the government is asked for more, and more, and more, they, in part, are going to look to offload more to the banks.

They're going to argue debt is a solution not just handouts. More businesses are going to resist that, and banks are going to resist that.

But never let it be forgotten, at no point was this a discussion. This was an imposition from a handful under emergency powers who told us how it was going to work.

Their plan, their problem, not the banks.