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

Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’m actually really pleased that we’re going to be focusing in on particular parts. I think that when we are scrutinising in the committee stage, it’s always actually incredibly important in and of itself, but it’s doubly, if not triply so when it comes to a bill that’s rushing through urgency, and a bill that, look, rightly the Opposition has pointed—not the Opposition. Sorry, that’s a bit of a prophecy.

💬 Hon Member: Flashback.

Actually, it could be a flashback as well, thank you. But, no, in all seriousness, the Government was pointing out that this is actually not a very lengthy bill; however, what it is enabling is in itself quite substantial, including almost $600 million of spending. What this is doing: Part 1, of course, is amending schedules in the primary Social Security Act. I suppose one of the first questions I wouldn’t mind the Minister for Social Development answering is: I completely understand why this is the legislative way through, but with something that is arguably as financially substantive as this, why were we not putting it as a separate piece of legislation? Again, that’s not taking away from the very fact that this enables what the Minister wants, but I suppose it’s just been part of the confusion, even if, I admit, from this side, that very technical changes are bringing about rather substantial consequences.

I would certainly like her to address the question that we’ve been told, and it applies, I suppose, to all parts but equally to Part 1, which is substantive. We’ve been told in the previous debates that this is the same as what happened in Canterbury. I suppose there are two questions there. One: is this an exact replica, and, if so, were we not just able to tap that, or was there, obviously, a sunset clause in the previous one? I wouldn’t mind her addressing too, just to clarify for the House, I think Canterbury was a six-week scheme and this is a 12-week scheme. I know it’s minor, but we’ve had many, many discussions, arguments, and debates in the House, particularly last night, saying that this bill is exactly the same as what happened in Canterbury. So three initial questions there, if I might.

Just in response to the questions from the member Simon O’Connor—actually, before I respond to the questions, I might just speak more broadly to what this bill does. From the speech that was just given, I get a sense that the Opposition may want to go down the track of debating the actual relief payment, but this is not to establish the COVID-19 income relief payment, as that will be established by a welfare programme approved by me as the Minister for Social Development, which is what happened in reference to the Canterbury earthquake job loss cover. It was actually established via a welfare programme as well.

Expediency is very important at these times, as was the case following the Christchurch earthquakes. Obviously, we are in a period where there are going to be job losses, unfortunately at a much larger scale than we have seen previously, potentially, so we need to put the relief payment in place as quickly as possible. So the 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. This includes payments such as the accommodation supplement.

The bill amends the definition of “income” in the Social Security Act 2018 to ensure that the relief payment is considered income when assessing people’s entitlement to further income support from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). This includes but is not limited to the accommodation supplement, the disability allowance, and special needs grants. This includes assistance that MSD administers which may not sit in the Social Security Act but uses the Schedule 3 definition, including community services cards and the residential care subsidy. So it is really important to clarify that we’re not trying to set up the relief payment via this particular bill. We’re actually just setting it up so that we can treat it as income.

There were a couple of other questions, I think, that were asked by the member. I think I’ve responded to the question around why the actual payment was not set up as a separate piece of legislation. And that is because we could do it through a welfare programme, as was done with the job loss cover following the Canterbury earthquakes, as I said. Is this the same as the job loss cover that was given after the Canterbury earthquakes? Very similar. The difference, as was mentioned, was the time period. The one following the Canterbury earthquake was six weeks and then extended for another two weeks. This is 12 weeks. And then the other difference is that the one following the Canterbury earthquakes was not treated as income in the same way as we are doing here.

Thanking the Minister for Social Development—thank you; that’s actually appreciated. Again, acknowledging what this bill does around, effectively, a change of income, is the Minister able to explain to the committee—because I think it’s useful on record—and probably the public, then, the powers that the Minister is using in order to bring about the actual welfare payments. I think it’s probably a useful decision—you’re using an Order in Council or a regulation. I mean, that is the substantive part, and I think it would be useful for the committee to understand how an almost $600 million payment is to be generated. In effect, it sounds that the Minister has the power, in this case in her own right, to develop that and, as a consequence, also have to pass a piece of legislation to, in this case, define it as income. So, if we could put it more broadly, does the Minister of Social Development have, in effect, huge power just to declare a whole new set of—[Interruption] Yeah, sorry, I’m not as up to speed as others who may be here.

This is not an individual Minister making a decision here; this is Cabinet approved. So it has gone through Cabinet. It has been supported by our coalition partner, also supported by our confidence and supply partner, and it has gone through Cabinet. The legislation has been drafted—hence, what we are debating today that is on the Table.

💬 Simon O’Connor: What’s the power though?

The power is the power of Cabinet to make decisions around how we spend money and the measures that we will put in place to address and respond to COVID-19.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to follow my colleague’s line of questioning, because some of where this comes in—the decisions that Cabinet have made that are being enacted by this particular piece of legislation—one of the areas is, for example, the $100,000 partner income limit, the redundancy package limit, and, you know, why it was that the Canterbury earthquake policy where every beneficiary had an increase to their benefit limits who were directly affected by the earthquake wasn’t considered. So I’m particularly interested in this first line of questioning around the $30,000 redundancy package and the $100,000 partner income—first of all, in terms of eligibility, because that is the group that’s affected and, you know, basically, this piece of legislation then enables that change—and then I’ll have other lines of questioning I’ll wish to pursue.

The threshold with respect to the partner’s income was assessed around, basically, the threshold for what people can earn before they stop being able to access accommodation supplement and then also Working for Families. So that was the roundabout alignment. With respect to redundancy, I’m going to ask my officials, because I can’t recall, off the top of my head, what the basis of that decision was. So I can get information on that shortly.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So it is interesting in terms of that $100,000 limit, because what we’re looking at is a household that potentially had twice that amount going into this issue of a loss of job, and I want to be clear in terms of the lines of questioning. This side of the House absolutely agrees that people need income support during a time of crisis. We agree that this is a crisis unlike any other, and that’s why, yesterday, in my contributions—and this morning—I’ve asked the question about why isn’t it that there is an across-the-board benefit increase for a temporary period of time for every beneficiary, which is what was done in Canterbury. So it’s not about the actual job loss; it’s the decisions around what those thresholds are.

Also, a second line of questioning, once the Minister for Social Development has got answers from the officials on the redundancy one, is around timing. Lots of comparisons have been made with Canterbury, and, around timing, Canterbury was, obviously, a date—an earthquake—that everybody could attach to. This comes in on 1 March and operates for six months, but, as we know, there are people who lost their job—and if this is only COVID-related, there are people who lost their job prior to that.

💬 Stuart Smith: Lockdown related.

Yep, and, as my colleague quite rightly said, it’s the decisions around how the lockdown occurred that has had the greatest impact on the number of job losses. So level 4, absolutely, not much disagreement, right? Except for the fact that Australia was able to have a number of industries open that New Zealand couldn’t. But, you know, if we roll forward and say, because the time frame is up till the end of October, there will be more people that lose their jobs, that’ll be a result of level 2, level 1, whenever. So the time frames is another question that I want answers from the Minister on. Why was it that time frame? What will happen if someone, as we’ve stated cases in this House yesterday, lost their job in February as a result of the borders with China closing?

So my questions are still around income thresholds and around timing and why those decisions were made, and the third question is around why the benefits haven’t been lifted for everybody that receives a benefit. Why is it that those who come on to the benefit for this six-month period of time get twice as much?

I think I have responded to—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Sorry, if I just interrupt. I’m sorry. I don’t understand why my timer is not working in the House. So just to let you know that I’m using the timer. Are you using the timer? OK, well, that’s fine. Carry on.

I feel that I’ve responded to the income threshold question. As I said, it’s aligned very closely with the thresholds for eligibility to supplementary supports, so that is the response. For the member, I’ll try and work through. So the timing, in terms of why 1 March, is because it was really in March that we started to see the impacts of this. There do have to be decisions made on time frames for anything that we put into place in this House. So that was the call that Cabinet has made. I think it was a responsible call, and we’ve put it up to the end of October.

Obviously, we are hoping—like, I’m sure, that side of the House is—that we will not feel the impacts, in terms of job losses, to the extent that many other countries are feeling it. But we have been given forecasts by Treasury that are dim, so for now we are responding as we go to the needs of New Zealanders and particularly here with respect to those that may lose jobs in light of what is happening.

I was asked by the member why no temporary benefit increases. I just need to remind the committee that on 1 April we did increase benefits across the board. The last benefit increase was put in place by the previous Government—I acknowledge that. That benefit increase was only for those with children. We made the decision to actually extend that to all beneficiaries. One of the big rationales for that was, actually, when I looked at the numbers and I realised we would miss 136,000 people who have a health condition or disability but do not have children, then clearly there was an argument to extend that benefit increase.

We also not only lifted benefits but, for this year, because of the stresses that New Zealand is going to be under and the concern that we had for our most vulnerable, did double the winter energy payment. The additional benefit to that—primarily it is that people who are on the lowest incomes will be better off—the additional impact of that, is the economic stimulus impact, which is also very important during these times. I think, from memory, it was a $2.8 billion injection. We know that people on the lowest income spend that money, so it is an effective way to actually stimulate the economy. So it did serve more than one purpose, and, in response to the member, we did do it.

I know that with Canterbury, following their job loss cover, which was a smaller time frame—as I said, six weeks and then extended for two—they did top up benefits for those affected in that area. We are talking about not a regional event; we are talking about a global pandemic with global impacts and, obviously, nationwide impacts for us as a country. So the scale of this is much larger, and that’s reflected in the job loss cover that we have put in place here.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do appreciate and acknowledge the comments that the Minister for Social Development has made in regards to the scope and the breadth and dealing with some of the complexities. My question to the Minister is just in regards to whether she had had any conversations in regards to migrant workers. And, in particular, I made comments last night from the chief executive of the Community Law centres, who talked about the disappointment that she had in regards to the ability and the opportunity to meet migrant workers’ needs that were there. So just a question to the Minister: has she had any representation, and, if so, was there any response in this current scope? If not, does the Minister perceive there have been other conversations in other areas, but particularly to this particular bill? Has there been any conversation to cover—and as I quote from some of the comments that she has made—particularly in regards the income loss that these workers may have had? And, in regards to that, migrant workers, I’d imagine, would also include Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workers as well, on the RSE scheme. So, in the scope of who is able to apply—and, under this current scheme, as I understand it, they’re not—if that’s the case, why not? And what advice did she take in that regard?

The same rules apply with respect to who can access this as does for anything within our welfare system—so it is New Zealand citizens and it is permanent residents. With respect to the issues that have been raised by the member Alfred Ngaro, this is not a package that’s been put in place to support people here on work permits or who are foreign, stranded nationals. However, I will say that through the injection of, I think it was, $30 million to the civil defence emergency management (CDEM) efforts that the support is in place for anyone who is a New Zealander or not a New Zealander who may be experiencing hardship because of COVID-19. It is not just support from CDEM for food; if they need support with respect to accommodation because they are experiencing hardship or other supports, then they can get that through the CDEM efforts. So I think that responds to that member’s question.

Just wanting to return very—well, still in Part 1, of course. I’m wanting to touch on a couple of points, if I might. The first is still just coming back to that fundamental question around the Minister for Social Development’s powers. I really want to stress that it’s not a question of whether the Government agrees or not; I suppose it’s just wanting to get absolutely clear in my head. I assume it’s in section 101 of the Social Security Act that the Minister, effectively, has the ability to create any new categories within the social development space, as in this case she sees fit. Again, I just want to stress to the Minister that I’m not trying to make an overtly political point here; it’s just trying to understand, for the sake of the committee, that in any Government, red or blue, coalition or otherwise, a Minister—obviously with the approval of Cabinet—can, in effect, create a whole new category.

What then does become a political point—and picking up a little bit on what Alfred Ngaro has said—is: seeing this is an amendment bill, was there not a chance within the substantive amendment part to insert some support for migrants? It possibly is outside the scope of the bill, because this is very much and particularly related to the income relief payment, but it is making a number of exceptions, particularly around the notion of income, so a question of whether the Minister may have considered a further clause around migrants. So I actually just might leave it there—I think those questions are related—and come back to a few more.

That was not a consideration. That was outside the scope of this. As I said, the civil defence emergency management supports are in place. We’ll continue to monitor the situation, though; but for now the support for food, for accommodation, and for any hardship that people may be experiencing is there.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to come back to the question of timing. My electorate in Taupō is heavily affected by the forestry industry—it is one of the top three industries—as I know are other parts of the country: Tai Rāwhiti, for example. The forestry industry absolutely was affected in February when the borders with China were closed, and these are large numbers of workers. One of the comments that the Minister for Social Development made in the House yesterday was about looking at ways to make the welfare system fairer. I want to just dig into this issue of timing a bit more and ask the question of the Minister: how is it fair that a forestry worker in Tokoroa, for example, who was made redundant in February will get standard jobseeker benefit and someone maybe who works in a retail store somewhere else or works in a law firm who was made redundant in May gets twice that amount?

I’ll respond to an earlier question from the member first, and that was with respect to how we set the $30,000 redundancy limit. Previously, when the Government put into place the post - global financial crisis package—under the previous Government—there was a redundancy amount then set at $25,000. So it’s been adjusted for inflation but is in line with what has been done before.

Secondly, with respect to timing, again, it is that issue of, when you are faced with an unprecedented event, then you have to make decisions around the time frame in which you will allow a temporary measure like this to operate. The point raised by the Hon Louise Upston could also have been applied in the Canterbury earthquake situation, where people were given job loss cover that was at a greater rate than benefit but the person who may have lost their job the week before the earthquake had occurred would’ve received less. I think that responds to it. You have to make decisions around time frames. This is temporary—it is temporary; I don’t know how to explain that any further—and it is very, very similar to what was put in place under the previous Government.

I do need to reiterate I can’t find anywhere any opposition from the Opposition party—that was Labour and the Greens, at that time—to that measure being put in place then. So I am surprised that there’s opposition on this now.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m interested in that further because one of the clear differences between the two was, with the job loss cover, lots of people physically couldn’t get to their job or they physically couldn’t contact their employer. I know the Minister for Social Development isn’t making an assertion that the circumstances are the same. One of the comments that the Minister made in the earlier contribution was the fact that this was New Zealand wide was a reason why all benefits weren’t lifted, as opposed to Canterbury, which was localised.

So in terms of the issue of fairness, we’ve traversed the issue of date: this is a COVID-19 income relief payment to be income, and those that are made redundant in February as opposed to those who lose their job in May are going to be treated differently and, in the National Party’s view, unfairly. And the second part of it is then those that were made redundant a year ago weren’t eligible for this $100,000 partner limit, and nor were they eligible for the level of redundancy that is now in place. So they are significant issues around fairness that I think the Minister still needs to answer.

And so, in terms of this income relief bill, this is the committee stage, and I also just want to make sure, given that this is progressing through all stages in urgency—the committee of the whole House would normally be bringing in the views of the public and those that had the chance to submit, and they don’t have the opportunity to submit in this process, to raise the very questions in this House. So the Minister might shake her head in terms of why the Opposition continues to ask questions, but, actually, no one else gets the chance to—no one else gets the chance to.

The question around then the process of this legislation—so there’s the timing and the unfairness question; now I’m moving on to a question of process and timing around when this policy was created and why it wasn’t included in the Budget legislation, where, at least, it would have gone to the Epidemic Response Committee for a week, had the ability for scrutiny, and had the ability for the public and all of the stakeholder groups that I know the Minister hears from on a frequent basis to have their view in terms of the fairness of this income support package.

Just before the Minister answers, I am giving latitude for discussion of the actual programme itself and the details of the programme, because it hasn’t been to a select committee and there hasn’t been the opportunity for other people to ask those questions. I think that’s reasonable. But I think the argument about the timing and the urgency—I think we’ve had that through the first and second readings. So I think, in fairness, the first line of questioning is reasonable, but the second line—I think we’ve had that a lot through the first and second readings.

I just need to remind the House that, actually, with the Canterbury job loss cover, it didn’t come to the House at all. There was no legislation for it. It went through as a welfare programme. So, similar to this, it’s not going to a select committee, there is urgency, and the timing has been addressed. That is why we need to do this. It’s not something that can be delayed, so we’re not delaying it.

The member Louise Upston has asked about fairness with respect to those that might be made redundant during the COVID-19 period versus someone that was made redundant a year ago, and that the person now may be eligible for this job loss cover, despite the fact that their partner is earning up to $100,000 per year, whereas the person made redundant last year wouldn’t have been given the same access to this type of scheme. That’s true. This is a scheme that we’re putting in place to address an unprecedented event.

However, we’ve also been very clear that as a Government, we will be exploring the option of social insurance for those that lose jobs moving forward. It is something that exists across OECD countries. It was a recommendation, recommendation 37, in the expert advisory group’s report on welfare, so it is something that we will explore further and we are interested in looking at. And, actually, the Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand have both lobbied us to ask us to look at putting something like that in place. So it’s not a permanent fixture of our welfare system. This is temporary. We’ve done it pretty much twice before with the most similar example being following the Canterbury earthquakes. But, yes, I think we should be exploring whether or not we have social insurance moving forward. That is something that New Zealanders who lose jobs, despite being in relationships, are able to access whilst they look for other forms of employment or alternative employment or they look to take on upskilling and training so that they can find that employment.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and, firstly, can I thank you for the way in which process is being conducted. I also acknowledge the Minister for Social Development for her willingness to respond quickly to different questions that have been put to her. I think that this is very useful, and I strongly endorse the comments of my colleague the Hon Louise Upston a moment ago that, actually, this is vital because the public have not had their chance to make submissions on this bill and therefore it is incumbent on those of us who are in the House this morning to be doing the job that I think would be happening in the select committee.

So I acknowledge the Minister for the fact that she’s willing to engage in this process in the way that she has. I was concerned with one of her answers a while ago when she said she really didn’t know the details of that, and that particular response made me think, “Well, if the Minister’s not in total control of all of the detail, then we are dealing with a measure that is possibly a little bit half-baked.

I’ve got a series of questions. A couple of them have already been asked by my colleagues, so I’ll try to cherry-pick and I think they are all relevant to Part 1, Madam Chair, but I’m sure—

I’ll tell you if they’re not.

💬 Hon TIM MACINDOE: —you’ll let me know if they’re not. My colleague Simon O’Connor asked a very important question, I think, about what the power was to create, effectively, a new type of benefit and whether it was the Government’s intention, and I don’t believe the Minister has adequately answered this. So I do just want to put it in this way. There is no question that this bill is creating a new type of beneficiary, and it does create a two-tier system that, of course, has been the subject of much of the concern that’s been expressed to us at least by members of the public. So I would like to ask her directly—and I’m happy to sit down at this point if she wants to answer this one, otherwise I’ll go on to another couple of questions—whether it was her intention to create a two-tier system of beneficiaries, and how, if it was, does she justify creating a system that is so blatantly discriminatory and unfair. If she’s happy to answer, I’ll sit down.

Firstly, I’m going to reject the premise of the statement. It’s not a two-tier welfare system. This is an initiative that we’re putting in place to respond to an unprecedented event. I can’t reiterate or say this enough in the House that globally people are losing their jobs en masse because of COVID-19. And so we had to think through what our response would be. Obviously, our initial response, as I said, was benefit increases, double the winter energy payment, and roll out, very quickly, a wage subsidy scheme—a wage subsidy scheme that was intended to keep people attached to their place of work and that was intended to support businesses to be able to continue to pay their employees and to assist them with covering that overhead, which is a big part of what they spend money on during a time where we knew that they were going to lose revenue and they were going to drop in productivity because of the impacts of COVID-19.

So the wage subsidy has been relatively successful. In fact, I saw some preliminary results from a survey that we put out, and a large number was still saying that at this point they don’t think that they will need to lay off people. We want that to continue; however, there will be job losses. So this is why this needs to be put in place.

It was raised, again, about it not going to select committee. I just have to remind the member that welfare programmes of this nature, just like the—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We don’t need to go there.

We don’t need to go there again? OK. So Madam Chair thinks I’ve traversed that enough, and I think I’ve responded to the questions.

The point around discrimination—the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act analysis that came back clears us on this. This is not the first time, as I said, that this has been done. It doesn’t claim that we are discriminating in any way. We’re putting an initiative in place to respond to our context right now to support New Zealanders that are going to be in hardship because they may lose jobs during a very difficult time when it’s going to be hard to navigate the employment space. And so that is what we are doing here, and I reject the allegation that we are discriminating. We will continue to keep our programme of work going around the welfare overhaul, which is well under way, but there is more to do. But this is a measure where we need to respond to our context right now.

I thank the Minister for Social Development for that answer. I think, actually, she skirted around the central point that I was asking, and the members of the public can form their own conclusions about that. There was no question that, I’m sure, every member of this House—and probably just about every member of the public—would agree with the observation that she made about people in the workforce who have lost their jobs as a result of COVID. Of course that is the whole reason for this measure. And, as the MP for Hamilton West, throughout the lockdown I spent a lot of my time assisting constituents who were small-business owners to access the wage subsidy. I’m very grateful that it was there. They were absolutely grateful that it was there. So there’s no argument about that. The question is all about the two-tier system. And, with respect, the Minister has skirted around that.

But let me go to another one, because I think it’s sort of flipping the issue on its head, and I haven’t heard her give us an answer to this particular issue yet. What we are looking at, of course, as a result of COVID, is a huge extra burden on the taxpayer through assistance through benefits and all the rest of it, and we’re talking about a payment here—I’m not quite sure what body language you’re giving me, Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): To stick to Part 1. Keep going.

My question is for the Minister: instead of approaching the measure as she has, why hasn’t the Government put far more of a focus into supporting businesses—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That’s outside Part 1

OK. Well, then, I’ll come back to it, because it is a very important question. I’ll make a note of it for later, because we absolutely have to have an answer to it. I would ask her—

💬 Hon Poto Williams: It’s irrelevant. That’s why.

I beg your pardon?

💬 Hon Poto Williams: It’s not relevant to the bill. That’s why you haven’t had an answer to it. It’s not relevant.

Well, that’s an extraordinary comment from the Hon Poto Williams, and I’m pleased that she’s put that into the Hansard, because that’s deeply offensive to everybody who’s in this position in our community.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No. In fairness, we are debating the bill that is before the committee, and the question you are raising is something that is beyond what is in front of us. It is a far broader question, and the committee stage’s focus is on Part 1.

Yes, well, the Hon Louise Upston raised some issues, specific examples of unfairness, and I presumed from the fact that she was allowed to ask those that they are—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Because they have to do with the programme—the income relief payment programme.

Well, I do think that the public want to hear a very clear and fair answer from the Minister as to how it is fair to say to people in the tourism industry who lost their jobs in February as a result of the border closure from China—

💬 Hon Poto Williams: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your generosity, with which this committee stage is being conducted, and I understand the need for scrutiny, considering that this piece of legislation is not going to wider public consultation. However, I am concerned that, having sat in the Chamber for 40 minutes now, the questions that are being asked and re-asked of the Minister are being answered again and again. And I would suggest that a better use of the committee’s time would be to ask other questions that are more relevant to the scope of the bill.

Speaking to the point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Look, I don’t need it, because, actually, there isn’t a point of order. I am managing the process, and the Minister is being very generous. The question of timing is relevant to the programme, and I have allowed that. And it’s up to the Minister to decide if she wants to continue answering those questions. But there is, really, no point of order.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to gather my thoughts for a moment, because I certainly don’t want to comment either on the ruling or the point of order that has just been raised, but just to refocus on where I was going.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So that’s a comment without commenting, is it? Sorry to interrupt.

I’m trying to ensure that I remain within the scope that you have outlined.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Good. We’re on Part 1.

Yes, we are on Part 1, and for all of the fact that it’s now been distracted, I think the question has not been answered as to how it is fair to people in an industry who lost their jobs for reasons that were clearly COVID related—we started to see the impact of COVID well before we went into the lockdown—but those people who lost their jobs as a consequence of COVID fallout affecting their industry are not covered by the income relief payment that this bill is making available, despite the fact that they lost their livelihoods because of that reason. I’m asking the Minister to explain why that is so and, in particular, to justify to those who are in that position and who feel aggrieved and are telling us they feel aggrieved why she’s made that decision. And I don’t believe she has answered that yet.

I think I have answered it, and I wonder whether the member maybe wasn’t in the Chamber when I did respond to it. We started to see the greater impacts of COVID-19 in March, and we have to make determinations as a Government about where we start and stop something like this—a welfare programme. Again, I reject the fact that this is a two-tier system. This is a welfare programme that is being put into place to respond to the situation that we are in, and there are precedents for that happening previously, as I’ve already referred to multiple times in the House.

The point that that member, Tim Macindoe, is making about a programme like this being a burden on the taxpayer—can I just remind that member that anyone who loses a job during COVID-19 has been paying taxes—

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: The Minister should not misquote me. I talked about investing in business to keep them off unemployment.

—and we pay taxes in this country to ensure—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Hang on, hang on. Just let the Minister finish. You have an opportunity to come back.

We pay taxes that the Government then makes decisions with—decisions that are based on the best interest of New Zealanders. And so those that have been paying taxes at this point in time who have lost jobs are needing support. So that is a good use of taxpayer money as far as I’m concerned. What we want to do is make sure that we are not only providing financial assistance, but alongside that we have also boosted our employment support so we can continue to work with them to support them into employment where that is possible or upskilling and training opportunities, as I’ve already mentioned, and that’s another area where we saw a significant boost in this year’s Budget.

I move, That the question be now put.