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 second time.

This bill ensures that the COVID-19 income relief payment can be treated as income for the purposes of income-tested assistance paid under the Social Security Act 2018. The COVID-19 income relief payment was announced by Government on Monday to provide support for people who have lost work since March due to the impacts of COVID-19.

Can I say that I’m very disappointed that the other side of the House has made the decision not to support this bill and have expressed their opposition to job loss cover during what really is an unprecedented time where, unfortunately, a large number of New Zealanders are going to be impacted by job loss. When I reflect on some of the comments made in this House tonight and I reflect on the previous Government’s response to the global financial crisis, when they implemented the ReStart package and also the equivalent to job loss cover following the Canterbury earthquakes, I also have to reflect back and have looked into what our response whilst in Opposition was, and I can’t find any opposition to either of those measures, because during unprecedented times when New Zealand is experiencing crisis, even if we are not in Government, this side of the House knows that we need to support what is in the best interests of New Zealanders, and so we supported.

The only opposition I could find to the job loss cover that was implemented following the Canterbury earthquakes was actually opposition from the former Minister and former member of Parliament Clayton Cosgrove. That wasn’t in opposition to the implementation of job loss cover, but was in opposition to the ceasing of it, with him wanting it to be extended to provide further support to those who had lost jobs because of the Christchurch earthquakes. So it is incredibly disappointing—very genuinely.

It is also very disingenuous when we hear from the other side of the House that this measure is unfair. How can they say that it is unfair when they have implemented a similar scheme during a similar crisis but at a lesser scale—a similar crisis but, as I said, at a lesser scale? Not that we’re downplaying the impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes in any way, but how can they say that it is unfair when they did something similar and we, whilst in Opposition, supported it? We have never said that this was the answer to the overhaul that was asked of us and that has been actively sought by the Green Party, and I continue to say that there is more work that needs to be done with respect to the overhaul. But I have been disappointed also that with respect to this particular job loss cover scheme, which is temporary in nature, on so many occasions, people have quoted the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s report, limiting their commentary to benefit increases, which of course are important, but ignoring the other recommendations that are in that report. We need to also acknowledge that, actually, recommendation No. 37 of the expert advisory group’s report on welfare was to strengthen the Ministry of Social Development’s redundancy support policies to better support displaced workers.

Now, this is a temporary measure, but our Minister of Finance has come out strongly, with the endorsement and support of this Government, to say that, yes, we will explore social insurance for us as a country, and why would we not? Why would we not? Other OECD countries have similar schemes in place. The Council of Trade Unions have asked us to do this, Business New Zealand has asked us to do this, and, in fact, whilst we were in Opposition and we undertook the programme of work around the future of work, we actually talked about it and put it into that report at the time. It’s not an immediate action. This is not a permanent fixture in terms of what we are actually implementing here—it is called temporary for a reason. But we should explore this, because on too many occasions New Zealanders lose jobs unexpectedly. This just happens to be an unprecedented time where, unfortunately, as I said before, more New Zealanders will lose jobs, and they will lose jobs during a time when the labour market is going to be incredibly difficult to navigate.

Now, this is only one initiative that we’re putting in place to support New Zealanders at this time. If it was the only one, then I think the public would have just cause to be worried, but it is not. We’ve injected millions of dollars into apprenticeships and into employment support as a response to COVID-19. We also did, as a first response, lift benefits on 1 April by—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would be good to talk about the bill, though. It is a second reading.

I’m only mentioning those things because it’s important that we look at this particular measure alongside the other measures that have been implemented, given the criticism from the other side that this measure—this temporary income relief—is not only, in their words, unfair but that it won’t be the silver bullet or answer to all of the challenges that we face. Of course it won’t, but it is very, very important in light of the challenges that we face as a country.

New Zealanders are going to need time to find other employment. We want to support them during that period. Some of them may not be able to find employment during this time, and that concerns us greatly—as, I know, it concerns the other side of the House too—and so they may need time to adjust to their financial circumstances. But we will do everything in our power to make sure that we provide the support that we can to businesses to continue. We will do everything in our power to support New Zealanders to find alternative employment where they are able to, and we will do everything in our power to support New Zealanders during this period of time to upskill and train, if that’s what they need, to be able to get into that alternative employment.

So there’s no reason for us on this side to apologise for the temporary relief that we are putting in place here, for the temporary job loss income that we are putting in place here. It is a necessary—a necessary—action that any responsible Government would do during a time like this, and can I reiterate my disappointment that the Opposition could not see past the politics and do what was in the best interests of New Zealanders by actually supporting this temporary measure to support New Zealanders during an unprecedented time.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I did put on record in the first reading—but it appears the Minister wasn’t listening—a clear distinction between the job loss cover package, which, as one of the speakers quite rightly said in the first reading, the Hon Paula Bennett introduced in the Christchurch earthquakes. It’s the Ministry of Social Development’s own website that actually talks about the job loss cover. That is the equivalent of the wage subsidy.

So when the Government was looking for solutions to support employers who weren’t able to open the doors to keep people employed, the wage subsidy is a great solution, because—absolutely—first and foremost, we want to make sure people are connected with employment. So the job loss cover that the Minister referred to actually is the wage subsidy. So Minister, it would be really helpful to not confuse the two, or to be blatantly political in terms of misrepresenting it. So the job loss cover in the Canterbury earthquakes was temporary and it was the wage subsidy.

What followed that, as I said before, was an increase across the board for every beneficiary, depending on whether they were single, partnered, or had children, and the Minister has said they have lifted benefits in response to COVID-19 by $25 a week. Actually, she’s also admitted they were going to do that anyway in the Budget, so that wasn’t actually a COVID-19 response. Actually, in the House, that’s something that the Minister has already referred to. But in terms of income support, in a time of crisis you absolutely need to tailor a response to that set of circumstances. What we have here is the very real effect of having as many businesses locked down for longer periods of time than, for example, in Australia, which is we will see greater levels of job loss, right? So we will see greater levels of job loss.

So the first thing we would have liked to have seen—because, obviously, the Government has choices about how they spend money, and this wasn’t in the Budget, even though the Budget was only two weeks ago. The $590 million could have gone to the tourism industry to keep people in tourism jobs. It could have gone to the redeployment plan.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, but this is a second reading, so we stick quite closely to the bill.

So in terms of this income support bill, actually, it is inaccurate to describe it as a technical piece of legislation. There is $590 million that goes along with this piece of legislation. What we have seen and what we are reasonably puzzled about in terms of the process is why, two weeks after a Budget, legislation is being introduced under urgency, all stages being passed today and tomorrow, with no public opportunity for scrutiny.

So the Minister quite rightly said we’ve been very constructive as an Opposition. We encouraged the lockdown; we encouraged the lockdown to be earlier. We wanted to make sure that people were getting support through things like the wage subsidy, but part of that is actually being able to be involved in the scrutiny of legislation that is then part of the next steps in recovery. So it is still puzzling, and the Minister hasn’t answered the question as to why it is being introduced in urgency, why it’s being done now, and why, when there’s been several months now into this crisis and there was a known quantity, unfortunately, of people losing their jobs, there wasn’t a situation where the legislation could have been scrutinised, like the other COVID-19 legislation was, through a select committee for even a week—even a week—because then you have the ability, and the House has the ability and the public have the ability, to tease out some of these issues.

It’s not that often that National and the Greens agree with welfare policy, and we both agree this is not fair. So if I think about the contact that I have had from people receiving benefits—someone who has been on supported living payment for years—why is it that they aren’t entitled to more during this crisis? Why is it that the person who’s newly unemployed, whose partner’s potentially earning a hundred grand, and who has got a $29,000 redundancy payment is entitled to twice the amount of the person on the supported living payment?

I listened to your speech, Jan Logie, and I accept it was probably a very hard one for you to give, and I know you are very connected to the very people that will miss out as a result of this bill. You made the comment that in a crisis like this, you would expect that we are all in it together. Unfortunately, this legislation doesn’t do that.

So in my electorate, a third of the workforce in Taupō are in tourism, and there’s no mistake: we’re expecting a significant impact on the tourism industry. If someone was employed in the tourism industry in the second week of February and they lost their job because the borders to China were closed, they’re not entitled to this support, but if you lost your job in early May, you are. So how is that fair?

We’ll continue to raise the issue of fairness and whether it’s someone on a supported living payment, whether it is a sole parent who’s lost their job, who doesn’t have the resources of the sorts of people that are getting twice the level of support proposed by this. It might be someone who’s got a mortgage, who has the opportunity to get a break on their mortgage for six months or the opportunity to get an overdraft to kind of cover them through this rough patch—and I fully accept it will be rough. But for the people that will get twice as much benefit under this piece of legislation, many have many more resources than the person who’s on supported living payment and has been for 10 or 20 or 30 years.

So, yeah, if we want to have a debate in this House about how we better support people, let’s have a proper process. Let’s have a proper debate about what it is that people need during a time of crisis, but actually everyone; not just some.

My colleague talked about migrants. Where was the consideration for migrants if there’s an interest in supporting people who’ve lost their employment? If it was a proposal that was just looking at the fact that a partner had kept their job, why wasn’t that a consideration at the job seeker rate? Why does it have to be twice the rate that another job seeker is getting? These are the sorts of issues that if you’d had Action Against Poverty, if you’d had the Salvation Army, or if you’d had the Children’s Commissioner in front of the select committee, we could have actually pulled those issues out. Actually, as we’ve seen, a lot of those advocates who stand alongside the people outside the Ministry of Social Development’s office and outside Work and Income—the beneficiary advocates—they’re pretty angry today. They’re pretty angry because this is clearly a piece of legislation that disadvantages and treats the most vulnerable New Zealanders unfairly, and that’s why it’s on the issue of fairness that National isn’t supporting this legislation.

It is not the job loss cover of the Canterbury earthquakes. That was the wage subsidy, which of course we support. [Interruption] No, don’t misrepresent me. The members of the Government don’t understand their political history. This is about making sure that those who are the most vulnerable in New Zealand right now are treated fairly. Actually, they’ll have no voice in this—they’ll have no voice in this—

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Ah!

—and I’m sorry that this bores the member opposite. Generally, she’s quite enthusiastic for groups like that to be able to have their say in Parliament, but, unfortunately they don’t. Even if it was a shortened process, they would have had the ability—

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Read the bill—it’s a technical bill.

A technical bill: $590 million—$590 million. Did you get that? Yeah. So it is a change to the Social Security Act that comes with a price tag of $590 million. You could have actually spread that across every beneficiary. This Government chose not to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I came to the House early tonight to listen to this debate, with a real hope—a real hope—that, actually, we would have the Opposition’s support. I’m dashed. My hopes are dashed.

I remember a time back in the 1990s—this is going back a long time, I know—when I was a single mum, and I remember the “mother of all Budgets” and I remember the cuts at that time. I think about that, and then I hear the Opposition talk about the fairness and I think to myself, “When did they change their spots?” Suddenly, today, they care about our most vulnerable. It really disappoints me. I genuinely hoped that the Opposition would support.

Now, we often hear that this is an unprecedented time. Actually, it’s an overused term, but the reality is we are in urgency putting in place support so that people can keep their homes. We are in urgency supporting people to manage a crisis that is not just local. It is not just national. It is across the world and is unprecedented.

So I rise to speak in support, obviously, of this bill. It is a very small bill, actually. It makes some technical amendments which have a lot of meaning—that is true. But it is nevertheless an incredibly important bill to give people some breathing room, some opportunity to survive a period of time where they are not prepared and have not been prepared, and we as a country have had to spend a lot of time thinking. I want to acknowledge my Minister the Hon Carmel Sepuloni for the work that she and Grant Robertson have put in around trying to support people in this situation. Do we want to do more? Of course we do, but the reality is that right now we have to do the most urgent and the most important things. We’ve put in a whole pile of things to help support people across our community, and this is just one of those.

Now, the bill has got an interesting name, and I think it’s really important that we make reference to the name, because this is the crux of the bill, really: Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. Under clause 5(2), inserting new clause 8A into Schedule 3, it ensures that a person’s income includes a COVID-19 income relief payment received by that person. Essentially, it means that those people can earn income as well. So if they have a redundancy payment and if they have a partner, then they’re able to access this short-term support.

We are in unprecedented times. This does not mean that the world is turning on its head. This does not change the way that we think about things, but it actually enables, at a time in history, support for people. It is similar to the earthquake job loss cover provided back in 2011, which the National Government, of course, put in place and I hear from the Hon Carmel Sepuloni that we supported it wholeheartedly. So, therefore, I would like to just ask the Opposition: if they really meant that they are not just going to be in opposition for opposition’s sake and if they genuinely want to help and support at a time when we are in absolute crisis, then just support this bill. Let’s get on with it. Let’s help people in this country survive a crisis. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I said in the House, I think it was last week actually, addressing another bill that was being rammed through the House in urgency, that you can often see the problems with rationality and inconsistency when emotion replaces reason. The member who has resumed her seat—and I appreciate her contribution, of a sort. The Opposition is opposing this for valid reasons, which I’m obviously happy to outline.

But it’s also the duty of an Opposition—triply so under urgency—to put pressure on the Government to make sure any bill is fit for purpose. But I’ll also point out to the member who has resumed her seat, who’s so worried about opposition, that she might want to look at the party sitting in front of her who actually do oppose this bill—that being the Green Party. It had to swallow, as was well noted in the first reading, the dead rats, because we can see from their press releases and supporters that they are incredibly unhappy with that. So I encourage the Labour members to have a talk to the genuine opposition to this bill, if you will, from the Green Party.

Look, the problem with this bill is, again, it’s being rushed. A colleague of mine, a fine colleague, Tim van de Molen, was pointing out through brief interjections that this has been—and, in fact, the member who took her seat, Angie Warren-Clark, was saying this is urgent. Well, OK, let’s take that prima facie: it’s urgent. Well, why did it not come up in Budget urgency? In fact, we spent more time talking about forests and customs than we did about this, so it makes no sense. Again, emotional? Tick to that. Rational? Not.

We’re also here at a second reading speech, which normally comes after a select committee stage. We haven’t had it. That’s a problem. We are talking almost $600 million of New Zealand spending as a consequence of this bill. I’m very happy to accept those members who say this is a fairly technical bill—it is. But what it enables is almost $600 million worth of spend from taxpayers, by the way—by taxpayers. It’s one of the great ironies. I’ve often used the phrase in this House “to be bribed with your own money”. That’s to complete the phrase: taxpayers’ money being given to taxpayers, who pay the taxes. It’s sort of a great giant circle. The left have never quite got their head around that.

But we haven’t had a second—sorry, the second reading has come in without a select committee process. We haven’t delved into the inconsistencies that I was pointing out in the first reading. Why an arbitrary date of 1 March? I know there was a glorious attempt by the speaker after me in the first reading to point out why 1 March was not arbitrary. We danced around a little bit. We didn’t seem to note the pandemic declared on 31 January, or that we closed the border to China on 3 February. Somehow, 1 March just popped up. We haven’t looked at those inconsistencies. We haven’t looked at why a redundancy payment of $30,000 is the right limit. This House has not addressed the question yet, and maybe it will in the committee stage, of why there are not transitional phases, if you will.

We haven’t addressed those who have been deliberately excluded, such as migrants. I’m very pleased the likes of Paulo Garcia have raised that. It’s a major issue and I know the likes of Paulo have been working very, very hard on behalf of their—well, not only New Zealand, but migrant communities.

The other problem we have is that a select committee is normally where people come and speak. They share with us their views. I think the irony is that normally the people who would come on a bill like this are friends of the left. It’s probably slightly naughty of me to say at one level, but normally it’s the friends of the left who come in and talk, yet they’re not allowing those people. In fact, when we look again at the departmental report, the only people that are being consulted with are bureaucrats. Now, they do a great job—kudos to them—but you’d expect in a select committee stage, and then coming to a second reading, that we would have heard in a space like this from benefit advocacy groups, from those who run budgetary services, the Salvation Army, and the churches. Of course, they’re not de rigueur at the moment with the left. We can keep them closed. We don’t want to hear from them. But the irony, of course, is that you can close the churches, but they don’t close the multibillion-dollar services which the churches provide. But that’s another debate.

But we’ve had no external consultation whatsoever. In fact, officials here say that the bill only makes consequential changes to the Social Security Act and, therefore, we don’t have to talk to people. Well, the little words put on a piece of paper are not all that consequential, but I would say—particularly hearing from others on the other side just how important and urgent this is—that’s pretty major. You’d want to hear from people. The fact that it’s almost $600 million is pretty substantial, too, but they have not been heard from, and my little note here against what officials are saying: “Oh no, we don’t need to talk to people.”—my very erudite and deep thinking says “Rubbish”.

Fundamentally, too, we have a little bit of a problem that the bill is trying to say this “payment” to only a specified, if not discriminatory group of people is income. So OK, that’s fine, but it’s not going to be treated as income for tax purposes. Now, I’m not advocating that it should be, but we have this funny contradiction beginning to develop that it is not a benefit, it’s not a grant; it’s income. Now, normally, income would be taxable, but we’re not going to tax it. Now, again, it’s one of those strange things which normally a select committee might just tease out, look at the consequences of that, but we haven’t had it. Why is that? Why are we rushing it through?

So, on that, it’s my little gift to Tracey Martin, I’m going to finish early for her benefit.

Just a small package, wrapped up in a bow, from the Hon Simon O’Connor. I’m not sure I want to accept the small package, but there you go. It’s been a very interesting contribution, and so what New Zealand continues to need to understand as they’re listening to this and watching this is that the Opposition doesn’t want you to get support. So that’s the basis of the argument from the Opposition—“We don’t want you to get support.” They want to take the $600 million and they want to give it to businesses. Recognising that businesses are getting a whole lot of other supports from this Government, we’ll continue to support business and we’ll continue to support our citizens, but the Opposition says, “No—shouldn’t do it.”

I understand that the Opposition also said that this is nothing like Christchurch and that Christchurch was a wage subsidy. It was a wage subsidy and it had nothing to do with replacing income after job loss. This is a press release from 29 March 2011. The title of the press release, the headline, is “Job Loss Cover”. Now, this is a press release from then—it was the National Government. I am looking for the talent. Mr Muller says that those benches are full of talent; I am looking for the talent. I’m not quite sure—oh, Mr Macindoe has waved.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m actually looking for the member to talk about the bill.

Oh, I am. I am, ma’am. So this bill is about an income relief package and how it will be treated as income, but up to this point, there have been comments by the Opposition that this is nothing like what has happened in Christchurch because that was a wage subsidy and this is actually about people who’ve lost their jobs. If I could just quote here: “People who lost their jobs and have no option to stay with their original employer will get support as they look for alternative work,”—Ms Bennett. Oh dear, oh dear. It’s always interesting when the Opposition members forget what they did when they were in Government, and we’re still looking for the talent. We endorse the bill.

I am going to talk in the second reading about the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill, and talk, in particular, just around some of the details. So, as the Hon Tracey Martin has said in her opening statement, this side of the House don’t want people to receive support for their situation, especially those who’ve lost income. I’d like to correct the record: on this side of the House we do want to see that they get the support, but it’s the how. It’s not the why that we are not supporting, it’s the how that they are doing that.

I just want to go on the record, when I look into this bill, and I want to read from the departmental disclosure statement, which is, again, part of this bill, and, in particular, just about the fact that this is who can and who can’t and what the conditions are. On page 3 of the departmental disclosure statement it’s quite clear that, obviously, those who are on an income-tested benefit cannot receive this. However, what they can receive, on top of receiving this income relief package that’s being proposed in this House by this Government, is a supplementary assistance payment and a hardship assistance payment. I’m sure the Greens will be taking consideration of this, because what that does is it actually increases the amount even more so on top of the $490 that they will be able to access. So I just want to put that on record. It is an increase—right—and it’s part of a contribution. I believe the fact is that what we are saying here is that this is an increase that does raise the level of the ability for those that are currently on a job seeker benefit and for those who are currently going into this situation and on to this benefit system as well. It is income relief. I do want to state that as well, and I think that’s really important.

I do also too want to just correct the Hon Tracy Martin. I’m sure she went up to her office, she researched it, and she came back with the press release as a way of making a statement. I know she did, because she went out and she came back in—so she’s correct. But I want to just correct two things. First of all, the earthquake support subsidy actually was the wage subsidy that we put forward. It was a subsidy to help companies to operate while keeping their staff and paying, so that’s equivalent to that.

It’s quite interesting, because what this Government is doing, even in this bill that it is introducing, is exactly what the previous National Government had done as well during the earthquake relief. So it’s great to see that you’re using the same framework, the same ideas, in order to be able to do that. But I would say that the previous National Government implemented both these at the same time earlier on. We’re now nine weeks out from when we started under lockdown, and now, finally, they’re getting into a plan, finding a plan, couldn’t find a plan, they looked at what we did before and said “Hey presto, here’s a good idea.”, and now we have this bill coming before the House in urgency. It could’ve been done earlier. It could have been done in the Budget where there was an opportunity. We didn’t even complete the urgency during that period of time, but no. Why? Because it was all purpose and no plan. That’s what this Government is.

So, I put before you that the fact is that the reason why we don’t support this bill to the House, even in a second reading, is because it misses the point about where it can target the most need. The target that we had during earthquake wage support subsidy—I encourage the Minister, the Hon Tracey Martin, to go and dig a little bit deeper rather than a press release. Read the detail of the two elements that were put forward. It’s called the earthquake support subsidy—I’m sure you’ve got plenty of staff that can look there for you—and the earthquake job loss cover, similar to what’s actually being proposed here. Similar to what’s being proposed here, look into the detail. Number one, they both came into existence at the same time. Number two, they were particularly focused—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is interesting, but it’s actually not about this bill in front of the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate it’s a hot topic of conversation.

They were particularly focused in an area, and if we look at the social security legislation that’s currently before us at the moment, it actually replicates exactly what happened during the Christchurch earthquake, as well. So I just put on record for the House that, again, we won’t be supporting this bill to the House.

Thanks, and happy to take a call in the second reading on the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. Before getting into the substance of this, I do just want to respond to some of the comments from the Opposition trying to characterise the National Party and the Green Party as being in agreement on this issue. The precondition for us being in agreement is your wanting to urgently implement all of the recommendations of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG). If you’re on board with that, and if you want incomes to be at a level where everyone is able to sustain themselves and to do a 360-degree turnaround on your entire history in Parliament, then, yes, we are on the same page. But until you get to that point, we are not on the same page.

So I really just also want to say we are supporting this bill, and the reason for that is, well, we want everyone else to come up to this. I do just want to talk to the fact that the reason for that is we know that people in our communities are struggling. We know that the queues for food parcels and outside Work and Income offices are growing and that the Auckland City Mission—

💬 Hon Alfred Ngaro: Talk to the details of the bill. Talk about the bits that you agree with and that you don’t agree with.

—in 2002, were issuing 3,000—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: He is right. It is my job, but I would like to come to the—

This is on topic, Madam Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Relate it to the bill.

It’s about people and hardship and need, which this is about addressing.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, but the second reading—look, just a procedure thing. I’ll just stop the clock for you. But remember that the second reading normally comes back to the House after a select committee process where the House accepts the premise of the bill, the contents of the bill as discussed. So the background and the scene-setting for everyone is normally your first reading. The second reading is a much more focused debate. So if you could come to the bill, it would be helpful.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just to help me in terms of clarification, because my understanding was that in terms of going through urgency, there was often some leeway in terms of being able to provide that context, because it doesn’t happen through the select committee.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yep, that’s right, and I gave the member leeway to talk about the relationship with another party, which is nothing to do with the bill.

I was just responding—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: And I have given some leeway, but I am saying to you, you actually need to refer to the bill and the contents of the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, specifically, what this does is ensure that the Government’s initiative to provide support for people who lose their jobs in response to COVID-19—that they are able to access the additional support.

💬 Hon Alfred Ngaro: You’re reading the Government’s PR.

No, I’m not. I’m speaking about the bill. This is—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Keep going, keep going. You don’t have to respond to it.

Madam Speaker, I’m finally doing what you ask, and I’m being challenged by members of that party. Never mind.

So it’s about the support and the implementation of the funding for that, and to ensure that those people, while they get that support, are able to—

💬 Hon Alfred Ngaro: Oh, you’re just reading the PR—the Government PR.

Madam Speaker, I’m finding it quite difficult to hear myself, actually. Is that—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, look, in fairness, it is a fairly robust debate. If it becomes a barrage, then I will interfere. But I really do think that if people make statements, they can be challenged, and they interject. He does have a loud voice; I accept that.

I really was just struggling to hear myself. So it’s about ensuring that those people are able to access the support. If they meet the criteria for being able to access additional support through Work and Income, they are able to do that. To meet those criteria, it’s pretty much required that they demonstrate hardship and there being a gap between their income and their outgoings that needs some measure of support in between. If we are to ensure that the impact of this is delivered, then that’s actually quite valuable.

So I do just want to say in terms of the reason where we’re being challenged for supporting this, because we’ve pointed out that as a party, we want everyone to come up to this level. But when you know and you see the degree of hardship that exists, I just don’t see how anyone in any conscience could want to see 160,000 more people subjected to that hardship. That’s why we’re supporting this legislation, because it prevents that many people and more from experiencing that. It gives us an entry way, and we hope that this discussion will really help the country understand the need for fundamental change to the system, because that’s what we all need. That’s really—

💬 Hon Alfred Ngaro: The very thing you argue, the very thing you criticised us for from this side—welcome to Government.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: In fairness, the Hon Alfred Ngaro, that’s starting to become a tirade.

It was—thank you. I will also point to the fact around this and the discussion that was picked up by the Minister in talking about the ministerial welfare programme and the fact that this initiative has the support of the Council of Trade Unions and that there was a reference, and a whole chapter in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report, about the need for more active labour market policies and support for people as they transition in and out of unemployment, and this we’re experiencing right at the moment on a mass scale that we have not experienced since the Great Depression.

I think it is also useful to link that, which I’m sure would have come up in a submission, but the Productivity Commission, who’s been looking at these policies recently, has looked at the fact that in New Zealand, relative to other countries, we really are just so out of step with other countries around the world. OECD countries place little or no obligation on employers to pay redundancy, but New Zealand is unusual in having neither mandatory redundancy pay entitlements, except for certain vulnerable workers, nor any earnings-related element in its income support system, and that this also was referenced by WEAG.

This is at the heart of what this initiative is. I think that is in the long term a conversation for us as a country, where we’ve heard very clearly that people do not want a two-tier welfare system—and we agree with that—and that people really are now coming towards realising we need to increase main benefits and ensure everyone can live in dignity. Where does our support sit for the interconnection between redundancy and that welfare system? The Green Party does believe there is work to explore in this space, and at this moment in time, this policy is a response to that.

I never thought I’d say this, but tonight I fear for the rat population of New Zealand. I think that rats must be becoming an endangered species in this country, because the Green Party seem to have eaten just about all of them. We have heard so many dead rats being swallowed—watched them over the course of the period of this Government—that, as I say, they must be an endangered species, and the more serious point is that the Green Party has now shown yet again that all of those principles that they used to champion when they were in Opposition have gone out the window.

We are debating this measure under urgency. Which was the party between 2008 and 2017 that most frequently and most loudly railed against the use of urgency? It was the Green Party. Tonight, not a murmur about the fact that this is a bill that is being pushed through under urgency, despite the fact that just 13 days ago, when the Budget was being delivered, it wasn’t even in contention. Now, if it is such an important part of the recovery package that this Government is delivering, with the support of the Green Party, one would have expected it to have been mentioned in the Budget, or at least for it to have been signalled that it might be about to come.

Now, we’re not hard-hearted over on this side of the House. In listening to the second reading speech from Jan Logie, we saw her in such pain trying to defend her party’s indefensible position that we do actually feel for her, over here, because we do recognise that this is one of those occasions that the Green Party is having to do what they don’t want to do to ensure that the Government that they prop up has the numbers to pass the legislation, and that’s often an uncomfortable position for a minor party to be in.

💬 Hon James Shaw: How would you know?

Thank you, Mr Shaw. Well, while Mr Shaw is now taking such an interest in the matter, let me remind him that that’s when his party could exercise real power, by exercising their ability through the numbers that they have and holding the balance of power tonight to side with the National Party to say, “No, this measure is not fair and, therefore, we’re not going to support it.”

Now, Madam Speaker, you observed before, and so did many others, that ordinarily, when the House is in a second reading, we would have the opportunity to reflect on what happened during the select committee process—excuse me, there’s a glass down there; I just kicked it—and we would have in the select committee heard from submitters, who would have raised valid points for our consideration. I have no doubt at all that if this bill had been allowed to go to a select committee, even if only for a short time—and we accept that sometimes select committees have to operate under very tight constraints because of a truncated select committee process. But even if it had only been for a short time, I have no doubt that we would have heard from a host of beneficiaries’ advocates, and they would have told us why they felt that this bill is so unfair. I’m sure we would have heard from the Council of Trade Unions. I imagine we would probably have heard from the National Council of Women, because I really admire the fact that just about every aspect of public policy that comes before this Parliament attracts comment, submissions, and sincere advice from the National Council of Women. But they’ve all been shut out of this process, and you’d have to ask why.

If it couldn’t have been a full select committee process, why couldn’t it have been a short one? Why was it so necessary to announce this bill just a day or so ago, bring it in here tonight, and say we’re pushing it through all of its stages without a select committee process? Well, I want to suggest to you that irrespective of the issue covered by the bill, this Government should be asking themselves why are they abusing democracy so badly. The answer is that they’re a chaotic Government. For 2½ years, they have filibustered—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Come to the bill—come to the bill.

Well, Madam Speaker, I do think it’s relevant, surely, to talk about why we’re being asked to consider something under urgency—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, but you’ve done that, so—

—and the point that I’m making is we had 2½ years of nothing, a huge amount of filibustering on that side of the House, and, now, suddenly, time after time after time, they are making use of urgency—the very urgency that they used to abuse the National Party about whenever it was used in Government.

I accept the fact that urgency is sometimes valid. We all accept the fact that in times of national emergency or usually after a Budget or whatever, there will be times of urgency, but this is not a post-Budget piece of legislation. The legislation that we were asked to consider just 10 or so days ago after the Budget was absolute nonsense. It was trivial. It was not the sort of thing that you would have expected to have arisen out of a Budget in any year, and particularly in a year when we are dealing with the most devastating setback that this country could possibly have faced, arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.

So they brought this extraordinary hotchpotch of legislation. It went through quite quickly because there was very little to—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, that’s got nothing to do with this bill. This is a second reading speech.

Well, I do want to make the point that rushed legislation, under urgency, without select committee processes, frequently embeds failings and unfairness and leads to things that have to be corrected. Now, I accept the fact that this is a bill that will only be in place for a short period of time, so it’s probably not going to have to come back to the House at a later stage in order to be corrected. But it is flawed and it is very unfair.

Let me give you some examples of why it’s so unfair. The National Party has no problem at all with supporting workers who, because of what has happened recently, have found themselves out of work. Of course we’re sympathetic to them. Of course we are concerned for them and for their livelihoods. After all, as electorate MPs, we worked incredibly closely throughout the lockdown, and have done since, with the small businesses in our electorates and with those who were losing their livelihoods, to do what we could to assist them to obtain the wage subsidy and to assist those who were needing to go on to benefits to get through to Ministry of Social Development (MSD). I paid tribute to MSD staff before and I’ll do it again. Boy, they were swamped and they really had to work hard, and I admire them for the way that they stepped up.

We as MPs, particularly in our electorates, worked very, very hard to assist our constituents, so nobody should suggest for a moment that this is about beneficiary bashing. I heard Priyanca Radhakrishnan say in her first reading speech that it was the same old, tired beneficiary bashing from the National Party. I can assure Ms Radhakrishnan that in 12 years as an MP, I have never bashed a beneficiary in this House, and I never will, but this whole approach is not about beneficiary bashing. It’s about objecting to the fact that this embeds a two-tier system that is deeply unfair to those who don’t fall within the ambit of the dates and the particular categories that have been established here. So our party and the Green Party do agree on the fact that this is simply not right. It is an aspect—

💬 Hon James Shaw: Put in an amendment to the bill on the remaining benefits.

Well, what a good idea. I look forward to the co-leader of the Green Party doing that tonight to oppose a significant aspect of this bill that he and his party generally do not agree with.

When a single mother who lost her job during the lockdown will qualify for this, a single mother who lost her job before the lockdown will not. I have asked Labour members and New Zealand First and the Greens—but they have not got any more calls in this reading, so I ask the next Labour speaker—to stand up and explain how that is fair. How is it fair that single mothers, many of whom work on the minimum wage in very difficult jobs with antisocial hours, etc., and who struggle to raise families as well, will continue to be paid at the lower rate while this Government seems to think that it’s fair to give others a higher rate? I look forward to Ms Radhakrishnan telling me (a) why that’s beneficiary bashing to point it out, and (b) why it is fair. I hope that she is going to sort that out.

Somebody who lost a job in tourism, say, because of the border closure earlier in the piece before the lockdown—particularly from China—would have not qualified for this income relief package, despite the fact that they lost their job for that very reason.

So this is a split call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to clarify a couple of things, so I’ll take a short call, because, frankly, there wasn’t a lot coming from that side of the House that warrants a response.

In response to what Mr Macindoe said when I talked about the stigma that his colleagues have repeatedly brought upon beneficiaries and the most vulnerable, who need support, it was the words of his colleague Mr Simon O’Connor in this House tonight. He talked about those people as “those people”—the people who needed a little bit of extra support. It was about those members’ track record of voting against things like the indexation of benefits to wage growth. Those are the things that I pointed to in my previous speech, Mr Macindoe, when I said that the track record of that party across the House is woeful when it comes to those who actually need support.

Now, in terms of how this is different to the job loss cover extended after the Christchurch earthquake, Mr Macindoe, you said that this piece of legislation is unfair because someone who lost their job before 1 March wouldn’t be eligible for it, and you asked how it was fair that somebody losing their job after that would. Now, I’ll take you back. You obviously can’t remember the job loss cover that your party put in place after the Christchurch earthquakes, where somebody who lost their job before the earthquakes wouldn’t have been eligible for that specific, temporary, additional support. It’s exactly the same. So when that side of the House says that this is unfair when they did exactly the same thing, there’s a word for that that we can’t use in this House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m happy to make a contribution on the second reading of this bill. Much has been made, perhaps even defensively from members opposite in the House, around this bill being temporary, as if that’s a licence that it shouldn’t be applied fairly. It isn’t. Being temporary is not a licence that we shouldn’t be giving it due diligence and applying these measures fairly across. Job losses don’t fall neatly into this eight-month time frame. There are job losses before this period, there’ll be job losses in waves during this period, and there will be job losses after this period. So it isn’t fair.

I would think that for New Zealanders who have either recently lost their jobs or perhaps are in a process where they are anticipating losing their jobs, or even those who are not sure how long their businesses will be able to sustain them, there would be some anxiety when they look at this bill. They’re sort of thinking, “What’s going to be there for me when I might lose my job, which could be outside this period?” That would cause some anxiety, and it does create uncertainty when you’re providing a temporary measure. But, again, it’s in a fixed period and there’s no plan of what happens afterwards, because, as we know, job losses are going to continue in waves after this period due to COVID.

I want to talk through some of the issues that have arisen as we work through this very hasty, ill-thought-through, and disorganised piece of legislation. I realise that that description fits every bill that’s been passed under urgency these past three weeks, and I want to highlight what I mean by this. Earlier today, the Hon Louise Upston noted to the honourable Minister Carmel Sepuloni that the current rules would see a woman with a husband on $99,000 per annum who loses her job because of COVID-19 and receives a $29,000 redundancy payment be eligible for this income relief payment of $490 a week, tax-free. In the meantime, a woman—perhaps a sole provider for her home—who loses her job and receives a $30,000 redundancy payment will not be eligible for the income relief package. Where is the fairness in how this is being applied?

But it gets worse: a person who lost their job in March will be able to receive a $490 weekly payment. A person who lost their job pre-COVID will only receive $250 a week. Where is the kindness that has been applied here to these two different situations of people losing their job? This two-tier welfare system is still papering over the cracks in this Government’s performance, because it is two-tier. It says to people who recently lost their jobs that their loss is worse than someone who lost their job four months ago, and this creates resentment. That sets Kiwis up against each other at a time that we’re meant to be kind. At a time when this Government cynically says that it’s the team of 5 million, it turns around and says, “The team of 5 million, except for those of you who lost your job a few months ago. Sorry, not for you.” That’s not kindness, and that’s not what this National Party stands for.

So let me be clear: we do have to make provision for the wave of job losses coming through—job losses that will see New Zealanders struggle to keep their homes, struggle to keep their families on track, and struggle to manage the devastation that job losses cause—but this Labour Government is not making provision for supporting our fellow New Zealanders. No, it’s doing a job half done. New Zealanders don’t want welfare; they want their jobs. This bill stops at welfare, and the Prime Minister was clear she had no intention of going the extra mile to try and save those jobs. That was a burden to be carried entirely by small-business owners. Those small businesses we talk about—the local butcher, the hairdresser, the dressmaker—they too have to now borrow. They’ve been told “You’ve got to borrow to survive.” That’s not kind—that’s not kind at all. I do not support this bill.

This is a split call.

Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this bill, but not in opposition to the Government that is trying to solve a very urgent and difficult problem. The problem that they’re trying to solve is that the unemployment insurance, such as we have it in the form of jobseeker support, has been a rip-off for a long time, and a lot of people thought that even though they knew this, it would be OK because it wouldn’t happen to them. What we’re seeing now is tens of thousands of people suddenly dependent on a very, very small benefit in comparison with the taxes that they have paid in, often over many years. So there is a need to ensure that what people get paid out is somehow proportional to what they’ve been paying in, and there’s no proportionality in this legislation that we’ve had to date.

The bill on the table tonight is designed so the Government can basically say, “We acknowledge there’s a problem and we want to give some people who have lost their job more recently more money.” Now, I can understand they’re very bluntly coming at the problem. The reason I oppose the bill is that we don’t vote on the intentions of the Government; we vote on what the bill actually does, and what the bill does, as far as we can tell, is it legitimises an incredibly blunt response where if you earn less than $100,000 or if your partner does, then you get money. If you lost your job on one side of a date, then you get money; if you lost your job on the other side of a certain date, you don’t get money, and it is just such a blunt instrument. It’s going to create, as some of the other members have said, massive and perceptible unfairness, and it’s going to build resentment as it does it.

I’ve thought a little bit about what the Government could do and how it might use this legislation counting COVID payments as income, if it had the wit to do it. I think the long-term solution for New Zealand out of this crisis and this realisation that what you get out of unemployment insurance is nothing like what you pay in is that we’re actually going to end up looking to the Canadians and following their model, and how does that work? Well, it’s very simple. You pay in a percentage of your income, and if you become unemployed, you get 55 percent of your income. So there’s actually some fairness and proportionality to what you pay in and what you get out. How simple and how fair is that? Of course, there are a lot of other adjustments built into it. Depending on how much unemployment there is in your region, they’ll tell you how long you’re eligible to stay on it and what sort of work sanctions you have. Well, that makes a lot of sense because it means that people get treated fairly, based on the circumstances they face and how much they’ve paid in in the past. It’s not the kind of blunt tool that creates unfairness that we have proposed in this bill tonight.

So my message to the Government and ACT’s message to the Government is that we understand the problem you’ve got, folks, and it’s a big one. How do you make a welfare system that’s not fit for purpose work in a short period of time for a major problem that is affecting people up and down New Zealand—an inadequate benefit system for this kind of event?

Well, my next message to the Government is: nice try, but must try harder. A much more elaborate scheme, much more proportional to need, and much fairer could have been designed in the time available. But, as with some of the other COVID programmes such as the business loans scheme, which nobody took up, this one’s been done on the fly. It’s been done bluntly and, I’m afraid to say to the Minister, it’s shonky work. So for that reason, ACT can’t support it, but I hope the Government will take the message and try a bit harder. Shonky work; not shonky person.

💬 Hon Member: The member is shonky.

Bitter, bitter.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don’t see any need to delay this.

It’s very clear to those watching at home that this bill is needed. It is needed to provide exactly the same provision that the previous Government provided after the Christchurch earthquake. Despite their creative attempts to argue otherwise tonight, the facts remain the same: after the Christchurch earthquake, there was temporary relief brought in to top up the unemployment benefit for those that were directly impacted by the Christchurch earthquake, and yet here we are, after another shock to this country, proposing exactly the same thing, and the National Party, because they are desperate for a platform, because they are tanking in the polls, and, let’s be honest, this has been a shocking week—the saviour has turned out to be a flop—says “So we may as well oppose something.”

The question that the National Party have to answer, and the thing that they will need to justify to people when they go back to their electorates at the end of this urgency, is why they voted No to prevent those who lost their job as a result of COVID-19 from getting extra support. I imagine that those that are in that situation will take the opportunity to write to their local National MPs and ask them to explain.

I have sat here all night and I have seen nothing but political games and empty rhetoric. I hope that between now and when they go back to their electorates and answer those emails, they’ll have something based on principle and values, rather than on just playing silly games. I commend this bill to the House.

I stand briefly to speak on the second reading of the bill. The issue really isn’t whether the extra payment is good to make. The concerns have been raised: the bill creates inequalities, it is a doubling up, it is something that is on top of something that already exists, and it is being considered in urgency, without the opportunity to flesh out these concerns. There has been talk about history and the similarities of the efforts to provide extra assistance, but could the $590 million be better spent? Maybe it could. I am not an expert, but the question is there.

💬 Hon Member: No, that’s right.

Yes, I am not an expert, and I’m not shy to accept that. The question exists, and that is why the truncated process doesn’t seem appropriate.

In a matter of four days, I met with four restaurants, two bakeries, a medical practice, and a small chain of hotels—a total of probably five employees here, four there, 10 there, 100 there, coming up to, let’s say, 500 people. Each one, each business, had been focused on what could be coming to assist them to keep them going to bridge the gap to get to the next stage and keep open. The wage subsidy pays for employees, not the business. The Government has said to them, “Go to the banks.”, and they have. Banks will not lend when you have zero income and an uncertain future. Then Government loans, through the IRD, were offered. Businesses could not be approved loans, even with the offered guarantees by Government. At least for these businesses that I have been able to speak to—for them, they struggle to want to keep going, not just for the desire to keep going and keep their people who have been working with them over time for longer, but they just wouldn’t be able to do so.

Is it possible that $590 million could have been used in this unprecedented time a little bit better than the history has shown? That’s all, Madam Speaker. Thank you.

It’s a delight to take a brief call on this bill at 5 to 10 in the evening. I would like to acknowledge the work that the Minister has done during this incredibly challenging time. We have heard the word “unprecedented” and the reality is that what we’re facing hasn’t happened since 1918, and I won’t use that word. But, look, it certainly has been a challenging time. Unfortunately, a number of people have lost their jobs, and this is an example of a Government providing support for people who have lost their jobs due to COVID-19, to provide support for a 12-week period at a rate the equivalent of the wage subsidy.

Now, we’ve heard a number of arguments from both sides. Obviously, the Government here support it. The Opposition have made their views known, but this bill is basically about supporting people, caring for people, while they’re going through difficult times, and I’m certainly proud of the work that the Minister has done on this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. Do you want to take a point of order?

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m sure we all appreciate that by the time that you call in the Chair to resume the committee stage, then we will have struck 10, so I therefore move that we adjourn until tomorrow.

Well, I’m sorry, I asked the member to help us out. We can’t do that because we are in urgency.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: But that’s all right, because I’ve used up the time.

Not quite—not quite. You could take another point of order and help. So the House is now in committee for consideration of the Privacy Bill—oh, sorry, I’ve turned the wrong page. Let me find the right page.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I really don’t want to point this out, but I believe it’s not the Privacy Bill that we’re about to bring into committee stage there. So I just thought I’d take a fortuitous point of order to give you time to find the right name of the bill that we are about to discuss in committee, but, actually, I believe I may have used up all the time now, so I’ll just sit down.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. However, the House is suspended. I will resume the chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.

In Committee

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)