Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

This bill contains minor and technical amendments to ensure that our recently announced COVID-19 income relief payment can be implemented on 8 June 2020. On Monday, this Government announced the COVID-19 income relief payment to provide support for people who have lost work since March due to the impacts of COVID-19. Like Australia, the UK, and many other countries, we can’t escape the reality that there will be job losses and people’s lives will be affected. We’ve already taken significant measures to support people, protect jobs, and help businesses stay afloat against the impacts of COVID-19. Just to name a few, we implemented the wage subsidy, which has supported more than 1.6 million employees throughout lockdown; increased main benefits by $25 per week and doubled the winter energy payment; developed a small-business cash-flow loan scheme; injected $27 million into the social services sector; and invested a further $30 million through civil defence emergency management into helping those with immediate needs around food and welfare.

As with the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes, widespread redundancies were expected, and temporary financial assistance was introduced to reduce the impact on those who lost their jobs. The COVID-19 income relief payment will help cushion the blow for families who have experienced an unexpected job loss due to the economic impacts of COVID-19. This payment is temporary financial assistance in recognition of those New Zealanders impacted by job losses due to COVID-19 that may not be eligible for support in our current welfare system and/or find themselves unemployed at a time where the labour market is going to be much more difficult to navigate.

This payment is one of a range of financial assistance initiatives that the Government is providing to New Zealanders. Under our confidence and supply agreement, we committed to an overhaul of the welfare system, and this Government has already taken steps to increase income for New Zealanders. We implemented our Families Package, which was the biggest boost in household income in a decade for thousands of families. In Budget 2019, for the first time in New Zealand’s history, we indexed main benefit increases to wages and also removed the punitive sanction 192. And, as I mentioned in this speech, this year we have increased main benefits and doubled the winter energy payment. We are already seeing the impacts of this. For example, for a person receiving sole parent support with a six-month-old, no other income, and living in Nelson, increases under this Government have meant a total increase of $155.91 compared to a person in the same situation in 2017.

This Government has also delivered a jobs Budget that not only extends the wage subsidy for our hardest-hit sectors but also is focused on creating thousands of jobs. Our $1.6 billion trades and apprenticeships training package will provide opportunities—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I apologise for interrupting the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner adjournment.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

We are investing an additional $150 million into expanding the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD’s) employment services, enabling MSD to respond to increased demand, including providing some services to people before they enter the benefit system. Other investments include $12.5 million towards strengthening employment services for disabled people, and $59.6 million towards expanding skills for industries’ pre-employment and in-work training, to support the Government’s construction accord. These initiatives will make a huge difference to New Zealanders seeking further work or training opportunities, and we also know that unemployment, unfortunately, is likely to get worse before it gets better. That’s why the COVID-19 income relief payment is an important part of the next steps of the Government’s response to COVID-19.

We know that many people who may be faced with job loss might not qualify for a benefit. In ordinary times, we’d expect many of these people to quickly find other work or manage their costs over time without extra support. However, these unprecedented times we face mean many of these families and individuals will be under pressure to get back on their feet quickly to meet their living costs but will be doing this in a different labour market than they have faced before. This payment will provide a cushion for up to 12 weeks for people who experience a job loss between 1 March and 30 October this year and whose partners earn under $2,000 per week. The payment has two rates: $490 for those previously in full-time employment, and $250 for people previously in part-time employment. We know that some people may need additional income support; so, if eligible, recipients can access supplementary and hardship assistance from the Ministry of Social Development.

This bill ensures that entitlement to this additional assistance will accurately reflect people’s circumstances by taking this payment into account when determining eligibility. The bill does this by making a minor amendment to include the COVID-19 income relief payment programme, which I am establishing, as a welfare programme in the definition of income in the Social Security Act 2018. As the payment itself is temporary, so is the amendment in this bill. The provision making the payment income will be repealed as soon as the programme is revoked and not replaced. We’re moving apace so that those who will find some income relief from this payment can access that support as soon as possible. This bill helps us achieve this, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to stand as the first speaker on the Opposition side to speak on the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. I’m not sure that many who are watching this will realise that it is the intention of the Government to put this legislation through all stages under the urgency motion that we are under.

The first thing I want to say is that any New Zealander who loses a job absolutely, totally should be supported with income support. You know, much has been said of the wage subsidy, which I think has been an incredibly important part of the response to date: the ability for—especially when businesses in level 4 lockdown, and level 3, to a lesser degree in lockdown level 2, have struggled to operate—the wage subsidy getting to people who still needed an income is important.

But where the area of disagreement comes in is that we actually don’t see that what’s proposed here is fair. I want to go through that in quite a lot of detail in this first reading debate, because, at the end of the day, what we are talking about here is a scenario where somebody loses their job and, depending on the timing of it, gets twice as much as the next person. That’s where, at the heart of it, we don’t think that what is proposed is fair. Unfortunately, having only seen this bill yesterday morning, we haven’t really had the chance, as we would have liked, to have worked with the Government to improve the legislation and to improve the support available.

Now, one of the things that has been said that I want to put on record first and foremost is that this is what the Government did, the previous Government did, in the Canterbury earthquake recovery. That’s not accurate. It’s not accurate, and I want to explain that clearly for the House and for those who are watching. In the Canterbury earthquake response, there were two packages of support: one was similar to the wage subsidy, which has been picked up by the Government, which is fantastic. That was in place for a short period of time, about eight weeks. Then, at the end of that, what happened instead was there was a temporary lift for all those on benefit: $50 a week for those single people, $80 for a couple. So it is not accurate to say this is exactly the same as what happened in the Canterbury earthquakes. It’s not. It’s not. What happened after the Canterbury earthquakes is the National-led Government increased benefits for those directly affected in the rebuild, and it was a temporary increase related to Christchurch. So it is important to put that on record.

One of the things that is incredibly important when we’re also looking at this is the group of people that are eligible for this support, because I think it is important as part of the context. So this is open to someone who has a partner who is earning up to $100,000 a year. Potentially, that person who’s been made redundant and has lost their job may have been earning a similar amount. So this is a household that’s potentially had $150,000 to $200,000. They’ve got a redundancy package of $29,000, and because they lost their job on 1 March, they get twice as much as a person who lost their job on 1 February. I’m sorry, but I don’t see the fairness in that.

So the other thing that I think is important to understand, and I’m sure we’ll get into questions with the Minister in the second reading, is about the timing of this. So the Government had committed to, and the Greens have pushed for, an overhaul of the welfare system. So which of the 43 recommendations is this? Or, as the Minister says, is this completely something new that’s only because of COVID-19?

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: Yeah.

That’s—no, because actually the Minister in her own answer in question time today also then indicated that this potentially was a permanent change. If it’s a permanent change, is it part of the overall welfare overhaul? So then does that mean that the Government is committing to a two-tiered benefit system and, depending on your circumstances, you get a whole lot more on benefit than someone else?

So the question is—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: Oh dear. You just want to race to the bottom.

Tracey Martin, how is that fair? How is that fair?

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: Honourable. Honourable.

How is that fair? Because, actually, I don’t think it’s honourable—

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

—and I don’t think it’s fair to treat two people very separately. The Minister might think it’s a joke, but I’m sorry—if someone has lost a job recently, recently being in the last six months, they’re not laughing right now. They’re not laughing right now.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I don’t appreciate being misrepresented by the speaking member in the House. I am not laughing at people losing jobs. Please do not misrepresent me.

What was the point of order?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon Louise Upston, do you want to take the remaining time?

Thank you. Usually in this House, when we raise points of order, we raise them for a breach in the rules—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): It might be best just to resume your speech.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So it is a challenging topic. It’s very challenging, you know, for people who have lost their job. They absolutely want to know they’re going to be supported. And so, in terms of support by the State, it’s also a very relevant and very true question about: are they going to be treated fairly? Unfortunately, what we’re seeing with this piece of legislation—and I accept that the intent of it is good. I agree with the intent to support people who lose their job through no fault of their own. So some of the measures that have been introduced—for example, removing the stand-down period—fantastic; get faster access to support for people who need it. But I have not heard the Minister say why it is fair for two different people in two different circumstances—one person gets twice as much as the next. So, as I said, it is not the same as what was done in the Canterbury earthquakes. I think it’s important to put that on record.

We are going to go through all stages of this bill tonight. But I do want to know, given this is, you know, a $590 million commitment, why was this then not about saving jobs? The Minister will well know that it is much easier to keep someone in a job than to get them into a new one. And so, you know, in terms of supporting people at a really challenging, difficult time in their life, actually it’s better if they don’t lose that job in the first place. So the $590 million in terms of investing that in saving a job would have been a far better option than what’s being proposed here.

Sadly, you know, maybe it is a reflection of the fact that the Reserve Bank today have come out and said this is the worst economic hit in 160 years. And they’ve come out and said that, potentially, the number unemployed is twice what was in Treasury documents a week ago, and that’s 18 percent. I don’t want to talk about 18 percent; I want to talk about the individual who wants to be able to put a roof over their own head and food on the table for them and their family. And, in a time of need, no matter what that time is, whether it was December last year, whether it was because of COVID in the middle of March and because of the extension of the lockdown and the ability for a business to open again, you know, they should be supported equally.

On this side, it is very clear for us the fact that we need to support people in their time of need. We need to support them to get back into a position where they are in the driver’s seat of their own lives. As Professor Peter Gluckman said before the Epidemic Response Committee, it is actually giving people agency. It’s giving people agency over their lives, and that’s what, you know, we’re all committed to. But, actually, it should be done on an equal basis and there should be fair treatment.

So there will be other contributions that I will make as the evening goes on, but I do want to finish on the question of: why wasn’t this included in the Budget? Why wasn’t this included and referred to a select committee like other COVID-related Budget legislation so at least, even in a short period of time, there was the opportunity to be constructive, helpful, and for the public to have a say? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is really with great pleasure that I rise to take a call to speak to the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill—a bill which shows that this Government continues to invest in our people; a bill that will help to go a long way, along with other supports, to cushion the blow that COVID-19 has had on people’s lives. And all that that side of the House can do is whinge as though we’re saying on this side that this is the one single bullet that is actually going to make people’s lives better. That’s not true. This is an important part of the economic response by the Government, but it sits alongside the wage subsidy scheme, it sits alongside tax support for small businesses, the targeted packages for the most affected industries. It sits alongside the Budget, where, on this side of the House, we’ve been talking about protecting and creating jobs. So probably the one thing that I agreed with the previous speaker on was the fact that we do need to protect jobs, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. So that should be good news to that side of the House. Maybe that will make them perk up a little bit and be a little less flat.

But the fact remains that the beneficiary bashing that we’ve seen from that side of the House—the fact that, when this side of the House, this Government, indexed main benefits to wage growth, which the Children’s Commissioner said was the single-best thing we could do to address child poverty, that side of the House voted against it. They voted against all the progressive measures that we’ve taken to make people’s lives a little bit better. And this is—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: I thought they said we were being unfair.

They did say we were being unfair, Minister Little. What they want to see is a race to the bottom. That’s why they’re saying that we are being unfair. The minute we take steps to make people’s lives a little bit better, suddenly it’s all unfair! Why didn’t you vote with us, then, to make the lives of those who were the most vulnerable a little bit better?

Now, I just want to quickly put on record the fact that the previous speaker alluded to the fact that this is not a temporary payment. That’s absolutely untrue. It’s for 12 weeks, it’s for those who have lost their job because of COVID as of 1 March, and that has been said time and again. So I’m not sure where she gets her information from, but it’s not correct.

This is an excellent bill. The COVID-19 pandemic that we’ve seen, as many have said, is unprecedented. We haven’t seen devastation of its ilk since the Great Depression, and, on this side of the House, this Government is determined to do everything we can to help people’s lives, to cushion the blow from COVID-19. I don’t feel the need to belabour the point, but I commend this bill to the House.

Look, I’m delighted to take a call—you know, so passionate, actually, about those in need that I’ll take a full 10 minutes, I think, to try and express it on the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill, which is in itself quite a—

💬 Dan Bidois: Tell us what you think, Simon.

Well, I will tell them what I think: it’s not good. Fundamentally, on this side, we’ve actually got no problem with helping people. In fact, we’ve got no problem with using the benefit system. We are actually quite proudly a party that in the last Government was the first in 43 years, I think at that time, to actually increase main benefits. So we have a good history of support. I think the fundamental issue for me here is the how. What we’ve, effectively, got here is a rather inconsistent structure—and I will touch on that in different ways as I go through it. It’s potentially a discriminatory system. I’m going to be absolutely fascinated to see if the Greens take a call, because my understanding is they’re not actually supporting this bill. So I find myself—if true—in the rather odd position that National and the Greens might be on the same side. I don’t know how I feel about that. I’m not sure how they feel about that. It could be a rollercoaster. Or maybe, in the last few hours, some agreement’s been made.

But the key is, again, it’s not that we should be helping people; it’s the how. Once again, we have a problem. So, fundamentally, we do have a problem. Obviously it is COVID-19. One thousand people a day are losing their jobs—1,000 Kiwis a day. That’s the individuals. If you extrapolate that out, of course, into their families and wider community, that is quite devastating. I acknowledge the Minister has touched on that and is trying to fix it, but, fundamentally for me, this is not the way.

First and foremost, we have some structural problems. Not the sexiest of topics, but once again we have a departmental report which is, with no offence to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), pretty light. It indicates to us that there is no regulatory impact statement. They have been, effectively, all done away with because this crisis continues. I don’t completely buy that. I did a few weeks back, but I would expect people to do a proper regulatory impact statement. This is quite a major shift in policy.

Officials say that there is no need to have thought about the Treaty of Waitangi. Again, perhaps quite odd coming from me, but I think they probably should have. I would actually like a little bit of analysis to have been done around unemployment rates and which ethnicities have been particularly affected early on in the piece versus later. Now, I could well be wrong—so I don’t have the answer—but this is a bill which, effectively, starts giving support from 1 March and not before. It would be fascinating to know, in the early stages of the pandemic—so we’re talking middle of January onwards, up to but not including 1 March—what was the breakdown of people losing their jobs there? Was it more predominantly Māori, Pasifika, European, or not? Because if it turns out, for example, that more Māori were losing their jobs before 1 March, that’s a Treaty of Waitangi issue. I could well be wrong, but all I’m saying is that you’d expect that to be looked at.

The other is that MSD’s indicated that it doesn’t actually—this is, again, in the departmental impact statement. They’re asking, “Were policy details given to otherwise test or see that this bill’s provisions are workable and complete?” It’s a little bit jargon-esque, but what it’s saying is “Has the ministry been able to ascertain whether they can make this work?” And the answer is no. That’s a problem because we are talking about spending hundreds—actually, I haven’t even extrapolated what the costs are going to be. I’m not sure the Government has, but we are talking millions and millions of dollars.

I said earlier, why is it discriminatory? The bill starts from 1 March. Now, I’m always the first to say we have to live in a real world and you have to draw a line somewhere, but 1 March is relatively arbitrary. If you lose your job from 1 March onwards, strangely enough, as per this bill, you get the money; so that’s fantastic. But if you were, unfortunately, made redundant—I think this was a leap year—you luck out. There are no provisions. There is not even a transitioning scheme, which is maybe something we can consider in the committee stage if this does indeed pass first reading. That does seem unfair.

We know that the border to New Zealand closed with China—or, rather, we put restrictions on travel from China, I think, on 3 February. And I think, because I can put my Customs hat on, about 38,000 people came back to New Zealand in that period of time—38,000 from China alone. But we had a circumstance that a pandemic was being declared, borders were closing, New Zealand businesses were already being affected, particularly in the tourism sector, and yet, if those poor, unfortunate New Zealanders or permanent residents lost their job then, they do not have any entitlement whatsoever. It seems to me an oversight, particularly from the other side that’s talked about—well, they haven’t used the word “compassion” yet, but I’d put good money that it’ll pop up at some point, and willing to care for beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries. Well, you’d think there’d be some sort of mechanism in this bill to allow people from the declaration of the pandemic onwards to test an entitlement. Maybe there are a few more hurdles, maybe there’s a point of discussion, but this is, I’m afraid, outright discriminatory.

And, look, just testing an idea: I think the fact that we have to have this in place in place of the main benefits indicates there’s a problem with the main benefits. Ipso facto, if the benefit system was sufficient enough, we wouldn’t need to be in the House now, under urgency I might add, rushing this through. That’s probably something for a wider discussion. Again, I’d love the Green Party to get involved with that. I think it would be marvellous; that would be very good.

We noticed that with the bill a person can choose to move from the main benefit to this “COVID-19 benefit”, for want of a better term. Again, I mean, I suppose it’s good to have choice. I am on a party that’s about choice, but it does seem a little odd, out of whack, if you will, that people can move between these benefits. I’d also say, and I’d very much welcome the Hon Tracey Martin and others—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: I will.

I just knew she would; I just sort of had that feeling—to talk to me, particularly around the student allowances side, because, as I read things, someone could be having a student allowance, continue studying, and be eligible for this. I suspect they won’t be eligible for the full payment, but it does seem, again, a little odd that a student, I suppose, like myself in the many, many, many, many, many years past could have been working part time in a cinema, lose my job—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: You look so young!

Look, you’re just so flattering, but don’t mislead the House!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I won’t call the member to order, because I assume it was a light-hearted comment, but it’s not appropriate to accuse a member of that in serious terms.

Indeed, but thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that and the humour it was taken in rightly.

We have a situation that those on student allowances are able to receive this as well and on top of. So again, it just strikes me as out of whack. Also, it’s not wanting to be punishing, but strictly a person is eligible even if they’ve had a redundancy payment up to $29,999.99. Again, a line has been drawn that, if you have a redundancy payment of $30,000 or more, you’re not eligible. I again understand a line has to be drawn somewhere, but I suppose I’m challenging already in this first reading: why is there not more of a graduated approach here? The fact that your partner, significant other, spouse, husband, wife, that person you’ve known for a couple of years, however one wants to term them, can earn up to $2,000 a week; that seems rather high. That turns out to be about $100,000 a year. And that’s not to be sniffed at. Again, I just sort of feel that’s just not quite right, and it’s all just pointing to me, personally, that this has not been well thought through.

I suppose the final part that I’d want to bring up in this third reading is that, if you want to help these people—and we do want to help these people—fundamentally, why do we not focus on the reason they are becoming unemployed? The simple reason is that the businesses are struggling; the businesses cannot retain them. I suppose it’s my final encouragement to Government to consider that this money may be better spent in actually supporting businesses to retain those people, because that not only comes with a financial benefit, but, actually, because I’m sure you’re all great students, on the other side, of Marx, Gramsci, and all the rest—even I’ve read the Little Red Book—say that there’s dignity in work and it’s good for one’s self-identity, and I actually agree with that; I’m happy to put that on the record. There’s benefit—pun intended—in actually retaining work. So it’s an encouragement to Government to consider how we help businesses. How do we help them around their rent, the grants, GST rebates, and so forth? Obviously not within the scope of the bill, but I think it’s misdirected moneys.

But my fundamental concern returns to two points, simply because there’s 20 seconds left. Fundamentally, first and foremost, this is not a good structure. Reading the departmental impact statement is worrying. On the second side, it is discriminatory. It is only from 1 March. It doesn’t allow for people who have one dollar more than $30,000 to obtain. So there are some problems, I’ll talk to them later.

I cannot believe I just sat in the House and had Simon O’Connor quote the Little Red Book. Unbelievable, unbelievable. The world’s gone mad. We definitely have a crisis going on! However, there was much inside that contribution that I’d like to pick up on. But the first thing I want to do for the New Zealand public is just actually clearly articulate what is the name of the bill that we’re currently discussing. It’s called the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. So we’re not actually discussing the COVID income relief payment; we’re discussing how it will affect your tax. Hence why many of the comments from the Opposition have literally nothing to do with the actual bill we are talking about.

But let’s pick up on some of the comments from the National Party, shall we? Because I haven’t heard them clearly articulate it; I apologise if I missed it. I’m going to make an assumption that the National Party’s not supporting this bill. Is that right? Could anybody over there nod? Perhaps the whip could nod. Is the National Party opposing this bill?

💬 Hon Alfred Ngaro: We’ve already said that.

Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t listen. But that’s good—no, thank you, thank you, the Hon Alfred Ngaro. I really appreciate his directness; he’s upfront always—always honest, puts forward when you ask a question. You can always guarantee you get an honest answer from the Hon Alfred Ngaro.

Now, let’s go back to—I did listen to some of what the Hon Louise Upston said. Now, she said that she doesn’t understand why and that the Opposition are playing a game of unfairness. So that’s the word that they’re using at the moment—“unfair”. This is “unfair”. So, just for all those New Zealanders out there who have lost their jobs after 1 March, who are transitioning because of COVID from one job that now no longer exists, but with the other supports that this Government is going to put in place around the Ministry of Social Development and the career hubs and the matching-up of your skills to the jobs that are still there, or the jobs of the future—just as long as all those individuals who are going to use this temporary 12-week payment to make sure that you are able to still put food on the table, that you are able still to actually pay your mortgage, or pay your power bill, because this Government—this Government—doesn’t want this crisis to throw you into chaos. We don’t want you to lose your home. We don’t want more New Zealanders without homes. What we’re hearing from the other side of the House is they would like us not to give you this relief. They would like us to take this money and give it to business.

Now, we’re already doing a whole lot of things for business. We’re still working with business. We’re working with Business New Zealand. We’re working on putting in supports for small and medium sized enterprises. You’ve heard the Prime Minister announce it. You’ve heard others announce it. We are already working with businesses. But we will not work with businesses at the cost of our citizens. So what we’re hearing from the Opposition is that they will oppose this piece of legislation because they don’t want our citizens to be supported; they want us to take this money and give it to business. And it’s not that we’re forgetting business; we just think that there’s a balance here. We just think that we need to support our citizens whose businesses, the businesses that they worked for, have not survived because of COVID.

Let’s go to the 1 March date. Mr O’Connor says that it was just arbitrary—just picked at random, OK? We had the first case of COVID in New Zealand on 28 February. We closed the borders to all bar New Zealand citizens and residents returning, on 19 March. That is why we went as far back and as close to what was the beginning of the restrictions inside New Zealand, and to give it a couple of weeks forward from that because of what we knew had been happening to New Zealand businesses. And that is why we’ve got 1 March. Mr O’Connor obviously doesn’t remember what happened and the time line of when it happened. So that’s the first thing.

The Hon Louise Upston said she couldn’t understand why there were two different sets of payments here: those for the 113,000 to 114,000 New Zealanders who had been on the jobseeker benefit before COVID and those that had lost employment from 1 March. But, in the same sentence, she said, “Two different people in two different circumstances.” I give you the answer. We’re talking about two different people in two different circumstances. One does not take away from the other. One does not take away from the Government’s work to improve what is the safety net that is required for those individuals who were among the 112,000 to 113,000 before COVID hit. Nothing is taking away from that work except COVID. The Hon Louise Upston’s quoted somebody who’s said—I think it was Adrian Orr; I’m not quite sure, sorry; she didn’t mention the name—that this might not be a one-in-100 event; this might be a one-in-160 event. And yet the Opposition seems to have a difficulty with trying to understand why we would move in and actually put in something different. It’s because the circumstances are different.

Mr O’Connor suggested that we should have had a regulatory impact statement on something that actually is not the bill. First of all, he wanted a regulatory impact statement. He spoke mostly to the actual income relief payment—that’s not what this bill is; this bill is about how it will be treated as income—but he said that he was prepared to let it go during a crisis, but, now that the crisis was over, he expected to have all the regulatory impact statements back up and running. The crisis is not over, and if we’re talking about—again, if I go to what his colleague said: if we are going to have unemployment at 18 percent, and the worst case scenario by Treasury was 24 percent, the worst-case scenario—and that is in papers that have been released—if that is where we are going, this is a crisis of mammoth proportions. And this Government is up and running and doing things differently to make sure we support New Zealanders. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I rise to take a call on this bill and in particular just to, probably, address some of the comments that have been made by the Hon Tracey Martin. It’s not all happy campers on the other side of the coalition Government, and they know that. They’ve seen that. The Hon Andrew Little is laughing. He probably hasn’t read the press releases that have come out from the Greens. And either they got it wrong or something’s not quite right. They’re not all happy campers there.

So, just to be clear, the reason why we don’t support this is because it actually does set up a two-tier system. We support wage subsidy. We support the need to be able to support businesses. And the comments that were made about the Canterbury earthquake as an equivalent to when the National Government were in power—they need to look into the detail, and the detail was that that was a particular subsidy that was covering those who were in businesses and covering a subsidy and other unintended costs that they had to cover. This is different. You can’t say it’s the same. But here’s what I’d like to call that—when we talk about the parts of this bill that are important in all three readings, here’s what the Green Party says: “This is a broken promise.” Word for word. Either someone got it wrong or it’s their words. This is from Marama Davidson herself. So where have things gone wrong? Not our words. And, after me, I know Jan Logie is going to have to stand up and is going to have to speak to it. But she said these words: “This is a broken promise.” And here’s what she also said: “We’re not satisfied that the promise has been fulfilled.”

Why is it a broken promise? They’re very clear. They’re intelligent. Here’s what they’re telling us. It sets up, in their words, a two-tier system; not our words, in their words, a two-tier system. Why? Because it actually means that the Government of the day, who has the responsibility, are admitting that the current level of benefits are insufficient, are insufficient to meet their needs. Not my words, their words—your coalition. They’re not happy campers on the other side because they know this to be the truth. So here’s the thing, though, that I find very interesting. I’m going to be interested to hear the speech from Jan Logie, because what Marama also says is this: “There’ll be no retaliation, no action to this response, to this broken promise but we’ll continue to speak out.”

Well, I say to the Greens: where are your principles? You have championed consistently around poverty. And if you want to stand on principles, you’ve challenged us—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, the Hon Alfred Ngaro. Could you please not bring the Speaker into the debate. Thank you.

I have to say to the Greens that the challenges that you’ve made consistently on principle in regards to benefit levels, and here you are faced with this dilemma—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m sorry. Mr Ngaro, could you please not bring the Speaker into the debate. Second warning—thank you.

The Greens, you put this on record and here’s what you said: “It’s a broken promise.” It gets even worse because Metiria Turei also went on the record as well. Now, I can’t repeat the words that she spoke. She was right out there and she said this, Metiria Turei, kicking up the fight of a year, calling her former Government’s partners—I can’t repeat the words, but they’re inflammatory. They’re words that go to the core of what even she believes, that this current Government has broken its promises with the Greens, that what they’ve highlighted is quite clearly that this is a two-tier system.

So what will other people in the community think about the fact that those—and we’re trying to say this, and New Zealand First have talked about the fact that it is for those that have been affected by COVID-19. We all agree with that—the impact. But what of those, say, for instance, who were made redundant on 5 February, not in March. Will they be able to access their funds? Answer: no. They’re in the same predicament. COVID-19 may have impacted their business that they’re a part of, their employment. They get no access to this fund as well. So where’s the justice for them, I say to those on the other side.

Here’s another point I want to put out to you, by the way. And I want to read this: “What about those who are migrant workers? Where’s the support for them?” And this has got to hurt because it comes from Sue Moroney, chief executive of the Community Law Centres. And here’s what she says: “It was disappointing the Government hadn’t used the opportunity to address migrant workers who’d lost their jobs but couldn’t access any support.” There’s a bit of silence on the other side. Why? Because it’s not coming from us. It’s coming from one of your own in the community. If you were truly wanting to meet the needs of those who’re out there, what about those migrant workers? Sue Moroney has declared the fact that there’s disappointment in the Government, who haven’t considered their conditions and the challenges that they face.

It’s quite clear that, on our side, it’s not the fact that we don’t support the need to ensure that those who’ve lost their jobs because of COVID-19 need some support. But the way that this is being done is not right. We know that, in the heart of those in the Green Party, they actually agree. And for the first time Jan Logie is going to have to stand up in the House—and I don’t want to use that political terminology, “swallowing dead rats”, because I don’t think that’s appropriate, especially with the Greens—especially with the Greens—even though I know that she’s used it so many times in this House. When we were over there and she was over here, she used the words “swallowing dead rats”. So, wow, welcome to political life when you’re in a coalition Government. When now you’re on the other side—excuse me, Madam Speaker—when the Greens are on the other side, the Greens are going to have to make their decision about what they will do.

We do want to support our communities, but we can’t support this bill, this Government, in the intent of what they are doing. It sets up an unjust system that we believe is not fair. If they wanted to be fair, if they really wanted to get to a point where they made a difference, then how about investing not just the wage subsidy? How about a GST—what do you call it?—refund that we have proposed? How about the issue around ensuring that they could be able to capitalise back into capital investment, into machinery and so forth, up to $150,000 in our small to medium enterprises and businesses? What about looking at the ways of sustaining our businesses so that they could stay alive, still be able to function, giving them cash flow so that they could ensure they could keep their workers on the books, employed, ensuring a sustainable future for them?

But, no, what we’ve done here is we’ve gone to create again the form of a welfare State. In fact, that’s actually what Grant Robertson said in his speech on the Budget: we’re going back to the days of Joseph Savage; we are creating a welfare State. And that’s exactly what’s happening here. This is the creating of a welfare State. Rather than supporting businesses, we’re now going to do this. I look forward actually in a moment to hear Jan Logie fumble over her words, trying to get her thoughts cleared together to try and justify her position.

As I’ve read out before, she knows, the Greens know, this system, this bill is not right. We do not support this bill. We oppose this bill in all three stages.

It’s a pleasure to rise and speak to this bill and just to point out that the Opposition make it very clear that there is no choice for us, because, if it’s between at least making progress for some versus the drive to the bottom on that side, then, actually, this is a step forward. It may not be what we want, and it’s not, but, boy, is it better than the alternative.

What I want to say is that the Greens—at the heart of our position is a belief that everyone should have enough to be able to sustain themselves and that we want a welfare system that is resilient and works for everyone. And we are a long way from that, and we have a lot of work to do. That work has started, but we’re not happy with where it’s at. We want more work to go on.

I will acknowledge, though, that this is, of course, in contrast to nine years of the vilification of people needing support from the State, of the creation of sanctions that stigmatised people who were unable to work, to the point where the survey showed us that the most discriminated group in this society was people receiving income support, and that was a result of the Opposition’s policies. So to suggest that, actually, we would be better off sitting on your side, well, hello! That is just not the reality. That would not be serving our goals or be consistent with our principles or in any way give respect to the people who are struggling still in our communities. We want everybody lifted. And this does not do it, that’s true, but it enables some people to progress through this difficult time a little bit easier.

So, if we can create that as a pathway for other people to move up to, then I call on everybody in this House to actually ask why we have to have this differential response. And, when are we going to have our next steps towards bringing everyone else up to this point? Because, if we do believe in everyone being able to sustain themselves and get through the precariousness of this challenge and the next ones that are to come, then, actually, we need to implement the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report and, as they said, to do that with urgency.

I do want to point to, for us, a couple of points that we’ve spoken about—that, for us, this is evidence around the fact that it’s not possible for people to transition from work and into our welfare system and maintain and care for their families, because our welfare system and levels of support are not high enough to enable them to do that. The point was raised by the Hon Tracey Martin that we are in a crisis situation. There’s a prediction for there to be, I think, around at least a 160,000 increase in the number of people needing jobseeker support. If all of those people were to be made homeless, as well as their families, because they were forced on to our inadequate welfare system, then we would have a very significant problem as a society—much more significant and more problematic than what we have now. And that’s not an answer. The answer is to push for more for those others.

I do want to acknowledge that, when this policy came out, my dear previous colleague Mojo Mathers looked at this and went, “This is a kick in the guts to all the people on income support with disabilities”, who are vulnerable and have been bearing the weight of COVID as vulnerable people and feeling and seeing their costs go up. And now to see that that sense of isolation and vulnerability means nothing—is how they are interpreting it, and that, actually, people in paid work were again being privileged. And I want to acknowledge that feeling for people, because I get it. It’s real when you are struggling to put decent food on the table, to be able to do the things that you know you need to do for your own health and wellbeing, because your income is just not enough. Then it’s hard to see others being put before you. That doesn’t speak to our experience of being all in this together, and everyone counting, and New Zealanders sacrificing themselves to save the lives of the vulnerable. That, for them, did not connect, and that is one of those reasons that the Greens want more. We want everyone else to be brought up to this point as well.

For us, another point of vulnerability in the welfare system, that this policy demonstrates, is around relationship status, and the fact that this legislation enables somebody to have a partner who is in work and allows them to access the support is great. I’m very, very pleased to see this as a wedge into changing our welfare system to remove this enforced pre-emptory dependence that does not match the way any of us live our lives in the 21st century. And I do want to acknowledge how much of a shock I think a lot of working people got to find out that, if they lost their job, they wouldn’t be entitled to any support as an individual if their partner was still in work, or that they would be forced into having joint finances under this policy. Because that, for most people, is just something that they believe: in a relationship, they should have the choice of when the time comes to merge, or if they ever want to merge, their finances. And, for many women, in particular, financial dependence brings risk. Many women, for very, very good reasons, actually seek to maintain independent finances from a partner, to be able to have options in terms of managing their own safety if need be or their own sense of autonomy from their own past experiences. So it’s really pleasing for us to see this piece of legislation provide an entry point for that change in our wider welfare system. We really look forward to that work being extended throughout the welfare system.

Another point I would just like to make, though I do know there will be more speeches through this time, is just about the fact that this is so necessary, because, in part, New Zealand, we have very, very low rates of redundancy in our employment relations contracts. In fact, if you look across the OECD, New Zealand is at the bottom of the graph when it comes to support for people’s incomes after leaving a job or being made redundant. We had the welfare system as one answer to that; compulsory redundancy is another. But it’s got to be either/or a mix of both of them, and this piece of legislation just really shows us how pivotal that gap is at the moment.

Well, that was almost 10 minutes of a fascinating insight into the thinking of the Green Party. So are we all clear on their position now? For those who may be confused, let me see if I can summarise it simply for them: the Green Party deeply dislikes this bill; the Green Party members think this bill is fundamentally unfair—you with me so far? Green Party members around the country loathe this bill and are speaking in the most unflattering and most unparliamentary terms about the Labour and New Zealand First parties, with whom they are in the current Government, and I certainly couldn’t use the terminology that was used by the former Green Party leader, who is no longer a member of this House, and I wouldn’t want to, but we certainly have taken that on board.

Tim van de Molen: So, surely they’re opposed to it?

So, from all of that, one would, as Mr van de Molen has brilliantly just deduced, assume that the Green Party would oppose this bill. But, for those who are unsure, the Green Party have noticed that the National Party also considers this bill to be very unfair, and so, for that reason, you put all the other concerns to one side and you vote for the bill, because you couldn’t possibly vote with the National Party. That’s it in a nutshell—that’s it in a nutshell.

Well, perhaps that’s why the Green Party and the National Party aren’t all that often on the same page, but we actually are in our thinking on this bill and on the important principle that it is fundamentally unjust. Of course, we were also on the same page on that despicable waka-jumping legislation that went through Parliament, which they loathed and which their members were appalled by, but, just as Ms Logie has indicated that they are doing on this bill, they swallowed an enormous, marinated dead rat.

The Green Party, of course, would love to support the National Party’s initiative to implement a marine sanctuary in the Kermadecs. We have fought continuously to try to get that bill introduced. They want to support it, but their good friends in New Zealand First won’t allow them to do it. And, just a few weeks ago, disgracefully, the Green Party supported the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill that went through this House under urgency, as this bill is tonight, with no select committee process, no opportunity for the public to raise their very sincerely held concerns, but they voted for that as well.

So every time the Greens could have the opportunity to exercise the power that their numbers would give them to defeat legislation that they find repugnant, they bottle. They turn and go in the other direction because, for them, it is more loathsome to be on the same side as the National Party than it is to be on the side of principle. Jan Logie is shaking her head, but she knows that to be true, and I’ve just given her four very clear examples of why that is true.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Macindoe, feel free to slide into the content of the bill that we’re debating.

Madam Speaker, I am talking about the principle that is leading to a party supporting a bill that we think is unfair and they think is unfair. I cannot see why that wouldn’t be relevant, because New Zealanders have a fundamental sense of—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, Mr Macindoe, could you just resume your seat momentarily. You’re an experienced and competent member of Parliament. I asked you to refer to the bill. Directly challenging my request is out of order, and I would ask you to refrain from doing it again. Please address the content of the bill that we are debating. You had three minutes. I think I was pretty generous and fair, but I would ask you to now debate the content of the bill. Thank you.

Kiwis have an innate sense of fairness. This bill is fundamentally unfair. They feel injustice keenly even in the best of times, and these are not the best of times. No one doubts, as the Hon Louise Upston indicated when she led off for the National Party in this particular debate, that those who lose their livelihoods, lose their income, lose their jobs during a downturn should receive support. No one questions that. That is fundamentally fair—that we come to their aid in those times of need. But, once this Government sets itself on a course of action, they reject any attempts by other parties to work with them to come up with something that is fair, and we would’ve done that with them here. Instead, they plough on, very poorly researched, very poorly led, to make a really fundamental error.

I want to suggest that a bill that locks in a two-tier benefit system will cause enormous hardship and unfairness, and it is going to lead to further problems down the track. So, as I say, the Hon Louise Upston pointed out that unfairness—and she also asked the question of “Why this bill? Why this measure?”—wasn’t included in the Budget that was delivered in this House less than two weeks ago. Has this issue suddenly arisen over the last 13 days? I don’t think so. Could it have been anticipated more than 13 days ago? Absolutely, it could have been. Should it have been part of a package of measures that a responsible and integrated Government would introduce at that time in order to ensure that they responded to the needs of people who were going to lose their livelihoods? Of course it should have. But, instead, it’s more indication of a shambolic Government that flies by the seat of their pants.

It’s almost as if they’ve had another idea on the back of an envelope, just a couple of days ago, and they’ve come in and they have failed to recognise that what they’re doing here is locking in a real injustice. I’m happy to speak about that again at a later stage but, for this point, I ask the next speaker simply to indicate to us why this wasn’t even thought about at the time of the Budget, and why this Government is quite willing to discriminate against those who have been beneficiaries for a longer period of time, who may have lost their job before the commencement date for which this bill applies, because, if they can’t answer those questions, they should not support this bill.

The next call’s a split call.

Well, isn’t this an interesting evening in the House? As we cast our eyes to our friends in the Opposition, there is one thing that is very, very telling: that is not the party that John Key and Bill English led. That is not the National Party that John Key and Bill English led, and isn’t it interesting to see that the member the Hon Paula Bennett isn’t in here speaking to this bill tonight? Do you know why that’s interesting? Because, in 2011, it was the Hon Paula Bennett who—

💬 Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you. There’s been a long tradition in this House that you can’t mention the absence of a member in this Chamber.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Oh, I’m sorry; I misinterpreted it. I thought that the member referred to the other member not taking a call. If you did say that the member was absent, then—

I said, “Wasn’t it interesting that the Hon Paula Bennett is not taking a call this evening on this particular piece of legislation?” Because, in 2011, it was the Hon Paula Bennett, speaking as the Minister for Social Development, who, in a time of crisis—when the Christchurch earthquake hit, what did she introduce, and what did that Opposition team lament in this House? It was the job loss cover. And, in 2011, who was the member, on 16 March 2011, who got up in this very House and said, “I am proud of this Government, who understand the needs of those that have been impacted and who will provide a wraparound service.”? Yes, it was indeed the Hon Louise Upston who spoke with such fervour about how the job loss cover, a subsidy payment which put $400 in the hands of Christchurch people who were impacted and had lost their jobs—it put $240 in the hands of folks who had lost their job as a consequence of those Christchurch earthquakes. She lamented how significant that job loss cover was then.

So too I now turn to the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, who at this time, as the Minister for Social Development, has to respond to a crisis and is doing exactly what any caring and compassionate Government should do: ensuring that we look after the most vulnerable in a time of crisis. She is looking after those that have lost their jobs, because this side of the House know that that is the right thing to do. So I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my first call since we’ve returned from the COVID lockdown break, so I’d like to start with talofa lava, everyone. Malo le soifua maua ma le lagi mamā. Happy Samoan Language Week.

Here we go again. We’re being asked to pass a bill under urgency that has far-reaching consequences for our welfare system and our country. Again we are being asked to do this under the banner that these are unprecedented times. Job losses hit at the heart of families—all the more reason that the way that we support New Zealanders through this crisis, through job losses, is given due diligence.

So these are unprecedented times. Let’s talk about unprecedented. Let’s talk about this Government’s decision to suspend Parliament during lockdown; whilst National agreed that at level 4 lockdown it was necessary, we do not accept that the Government was allowed to fall asleep at this time. A crisis is the time that our country needs our Government the most.

The fact that there would be job losses was known as soon as lockdowns were proposed. So, despite the Government’s attempts to gloss over what will be the biggest economic challenges that we face in our lifetime, despite its attempts to smile and wave at the wave of job losses its decisions have caused, despite its attempts to avoid admitting that people requiring wage assistance are actually unemployed now, the reality is that it knew that a huge number of jobs would be lost. The Government has had nearly three months since lockdown to develop an effective and comprehensive income relief response to the tsunami of job losses that were on the horizon. Whilst we were getting daily health announcements from the Prime Minister, Ministers who should have been front and centre in the response to job losses were missing in action. Now, late in the game, we get this.

Let me be clear—and it’s been made very clear by members of this side of the House that we support income relief for New Zealanders victimised by the lockdown. Our New Zealand people cannot be blamed for the economic devastation that we now face, where we have estimates of unemployment anywhere from 10 percent by the end of this year to something predicting double that number.

I agree that the Treasury forecasts of unemployment and then the recovery are wildly optimistic. Whilst I don’t want to get into a discussion about the economy at this point, I cannot, under any scenario, see how Treasury can forecast unemployment to drop to just 5.7 percent in just two years. These numbers are gerrymandered numbers, and New Zealanders will see through this. So New Zealand faces a prolonged and deep period of unemployment, and, yes, we have to face the reality of providing income support to New Zealanders who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed.

So a prepared Government, an organised Government, a Government over its brief, a kind Government would have been doing the hard work over this period during the lockdown, to prepare this work, to have their bills ready to go, to have the opportunity to engage with us on this side of the House, giving us adequate time to appraise the bills and be ready to go through and debate a rigorous process; that hasn’t happened. It has come to the party late. It is ill thought through. It is punitive. It penalises New Zealanders who lost their job in February by paying them half of what New Zealanders who lost their job in March will be paid. Merely by the timing of when you lost your job, you get a better golden ticket than someone else.

So that willingness on our part has been sorely tested. To work and to engage with the Government, we’re willing to engage, at a time of crisis, to make sure that we provide solutions for all New Zealanders at this particular time of crisis. I do not support this bill.

The next call’s a split call. I call Willow-Jean Prime.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly on this bill tonight. It does appear—I’ve listened to all the speeches in this debate—that they are actually debating the scheme itself but not actually what this bill is addressing, which is that the income relief payment is to be treated as income so that, when assessing the other types of support that you might be able to get from our welfare system—accommodation supplements, for example—they are actually assessing what people’s actual incomes and financial status is. That’s what the purpose of this bill is.

I do want to commend both the Minister of Finance and the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, Minister for Social Development, for the introduction of the relief payment. This aligns the timing of that payment coming in on 8 June. So it’s important that this bill that we’re debating right now passes all stages so that that can be done and the additional support that they may be entitled to can be assessed according to the payment and support that they are actually getting. So I commend the bill to the House.

Talofa lava, Madam Speaker. Good evening. I’m very happy for the opportunity to speak to the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. The finance Minister, the Hon Grant Robertson, has said on many occasions that the Government cannot save every job or business it wants to—while the Government cannot save every business, it wants to make sure people are in the best position to respond and recover and rebuild. But, in the proposing of this social security amendment bill, establishing a separate benefit on top of the jobseeker benefit for a certain type of people over a certain period of time, which is to be debated now in urgency, does not really get to the point of making that rebuild, that positioning, to be able to respond and recover.

The issue is not really that the income relief payment shouldn’t be made. In fact, it’s going to be made, and it’s a good thing. The issue really is that, by creating this bill, an inequality arises from people who have been receiving the jobseeker benefit and from people who will then be able to receive the income relief payment. The Government estimates that about 230,000 people who will lose their jobs due to COVID-19 between 1 March and 30 October this year will get either $490 a week or $250 a week. Also, all 305,000 people who were on benefits on 29 February will stay on normal benefit rates. The income relief payment is $490 a week, tax free, but after tax, the jobseeker benefit is basically half that—$250 a week. Sole parent support is $375 a week. We all know that these are amounts that are just the basic, but that inequality is the one that raises the issue of unfairness. The question really just needs to be asked: why this bill when the jobseeker benefit already exists, and why in urgency?

Also, another issue is that the businesses do not really get support and have not been receiving support. Throughout the week of the recess, I had been able to drive through and meet with businesses—medical practices, restaurants, bakeries—from Wellington down to Auckland. For the average restaurant, owned by a couple who both work in it with, let’s say, five workers, who have survived through the wage subsidy, the business itself gets to a position of not being able to continue. They asked the question of why they have not been given support, the same with a medical practice that was established just before the lockdown, and while the wage subsidy pays for wages, it does not give assistance to the business for it to be able to continue.

Finally, I would like to just point out also that the migrant workers, who are really, really, really suffering, have not received any special payment as well—and just to raise that in this debate. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill contains minor and technical amendments. It needs to be done. It needs to be done to be able to give the relief that needs to be given. And they laugh and they cackle and they carry on, despite the fact that, when the Christchurch earthquakes hit, they did exactly the same. And here we are, only a matter of days after they wobbled and they changed their leader and their leader stood up and said, “We will not do opposition for opposition’s sake”, what are they doing a couple of days later? Doing exactly that. We know that this bill, if they were in Government at this time, would be debated today—introduced by them. It is a classic example of Opposition screaming out for a platform. It’s only a good idea if they come up with it, and I think it’s a shame. There’s no point in delaying this any further; it needs to get done, and the National Party would do well by themselves for just putting the politics aside and getting behind it.