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 third time.

In the face of COVID-19, this Government has proven our ability to respond quickly and undertake unprecedented measures to protect the jobs and income of New Zealanders. Can I acknowledge the efforts of our public servants during this time. Our expectations of them have been huge. My own ministry has stepped up; they rolled out a wage subsidy that has so far gone to around 1.7 million New Zealanders. They have also put their hand up to be able to roll out this very important temporary income relief payment to be income. I do want to acknowledge all the efforts of the public servants who are behind the scenes.

The introduction of the COVID-19 income relief payment is really another timely response in a crisis. This payment is intended as short-term assistance to soften the shock of unemployment and minimise disruption for people as they seek to re-enter the workforce or look toward further upskilling and training. The bill contains technical amendments that support the COVID-19 income relief payment to be available from 8 June 2020.

This bill amends the definition of income in the Social Security Act 2018 so that the COVID-19 income relief payment is considered income when assessing people’s entitlement to further support from the Ministry of Social Development. This ensures fairness across our benefit system. This bill will not change how any other types of payments or income are treated. I also want to make it clear that this amendment is time-limited. It will automatically be repealed once the COVID-19 Income Relief Payment Programme is revoked and not replaced. As I mentioned earlier, the intent of this relief payment is to assist New Zealanders at a time of crisis. This is why the supporting bill needs to come into force on 8 June 2020, so we can support New Zealanders in rebuilding together.

Can I thank the New Zealand Green Party and New Zealand First for supporting with this particular bill, and all my colleagues from Labour. Can I express my disappointment to the other side of the House that they have chosen not to support this very important temporary measure that is being put in place to assist New Zealanders who lose jobs during this COVID-19 context. When we look across to other countries and see what is happening with respect to unemployment, Mr Speaker, then it—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): You’re welcome to call me Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker. It heightens the urgency for us. I think on so many occasions what we have seen from this Government is that we have acted quickly. We went hard; we went fast. We continue to be nimble. Our ministries and our public servants have been incredibly agile, and we are responding as we go at a pace that I think is fair to say is faster than many others have been able to do in other relative countries. So this is an important bill today. This is an important measure, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to put on record the things that the National Party does agree with. We do agree that the COVID virus and the lockdowns that followed have had a significant impact on all New Zealanders, and we do agree with the Greens that we are all in this together. It would be completely naive to expect that people aren’t doing it tough as a result of the virus and the lockdown. And we also agree with the Government that it is far better to keep someone in a job than to have them experience the challenge of losing their employment and having to seek support from the welfare system. The welfare system is absolutely there at times like this, for times of need, and I accept that all New Zealanders are making sacrifices during this time.

What we don’t agree with, however, though, is that there are two types of job seekers—that there is the job seeker who lost their job last year and the job seeker who lost their job last week. We don’t agree that those two New Zealanders in those two categories of job seekers should be treated differently and that the group that lost their job last year should get half what the other group are entitled to. We also don’t agree with the two tiers being the person that lost their job in forestry, for example, in February, when the borders with China closed, compared to the one that lost their job on 1 March. They are both directly COVID-related. So there are two clear tiers, both within COVID and outside it, for the very different and, in our view, very unfair treatment of those who need support from the welfare system. We fully accept they need it and should get the support they need.

I want to come back to some of the options that the Government obviously faced, and I want to come back to the comment around keeping someone in work. The bit that really worries me is the Government may have additional information about the fact that that gate of saving jobs is closed, and that’s the bit that really worries me. So we know that there is already an expectation of a large number of job seekers—more than double is one of the estimates. For those that have been surviving on a benefit, it is tough—I’m not for a moment saying it’s not—and so the Government made the decision to increase benefits across the board. That’s fine. Australia has also increased benefits across the board during the crisis, and that was one of the options the Government had during this time, instead of introducing an unfair two-tier system.

If the question is about supporting those people who have lost their jobs as a result of COVID and no other reason, there’s still a huge gap, and that’s the group of migrants who are in New Zealand that aren’t entitled in this piece of legislation or in other proposals.

So I accept what the Minister said in terms of officials working incredibly hard during this time, but I also question why, if there was a known number of job seekers coming and that hasn’t changed, it is that this bill’s being introduced now under urgency as opposed to in the Budget. At the end of the day, if someone can stay in a job, that is far better. So the $590 million—in our view, if that had been invested in saving jobs and keeping people in work, then, actually, the hardship and the loss of agency that New Zealanders will experience in losing their job would be a whole lot less. So we won’t be supporting this bill. It is unfair, and it creates two tiers of those who are reliant on the State, and we don’t think that’s fair.

Fa‘afetai mo le avanoa i lau Afioga le Fofoga Fetalai. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to speak. Ou te lagolago ia te oe lau Afioga Carmel Sepuloni. I commend the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill to the House. Fa‘afetai.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

💬 Hon Member: What a great speech.

Yeah, quite an emotional speech there—it’s a good construction: highs, lows, moving the protagonist through what’s important. I think it’s unfortunate there hasn’t actually been a reason put forward by that member resuming her seat, Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, of why this is a good bill, because, actually, in many ways there are good aspects to this bill. It is providing support to people. But, on this side of the House, we have raised a number of issues that need to be addressed, and it’s unfortunate that the Minister in her own speech thought that the Opposition was again wasting time. Nothing could be opposite.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I didn’t say that, at any point.

Well, I think the phrase was that it was drawing things out. I think it’s been important for the Opposition—excuse me, Madam Speaker. [Member clears throat] Sorry. That’s better. That’s not to be mistaken for any emotion on the topic. We’ve been raising some important questions through what’s been a fairly rushed process.

As we went through the committee stage—and I note no changes were made—we had been raising issues around the revocation of this bill. It came out in committee stage very clearly that our Minister for Social Development—and it goes by any Government—has enormous powers to create, generate, and change benefit payments or, in this case, to create new payments. And, as this particular piece of legislation does, it enables any payment to be deemed as income, which is actually quite a smart and clever move to make sure that a person who receives this COVID-19 payment is still entitled, importantly, to get other support measures through the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).

We weren’t, unfortunately, due to speed, able to tease out whether or not treating this as income will have any consequences to other non-MSD payments, such as Housing New Zealand, for example. So we haven’t, I think, really and thoroughly gone through this. I still remain worried that the way that this bill is structured and the language used is going to see this payment continue in some shape or form, which may or may not be related to COVID-19. I think that’s a potential problem, not because giving money to people who need assistance is a bad thing but because when we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars, we should make sure it is done with probity and done to best support people. I’m still a bit concerned—I wasn’t able to bring it up in the committee of the whole House—that the bill starts on 8 June. Obviously, the quicker the better, at one level, but I still am a little nervous for what was put forward by officials in the departmental report that no testing has been done on whether this can actually be implemented efficiently. They’re confident, I believe, that it should be OK, but, unfortunately, we’ve seen in the social development space some problems in the past of getting things right.

I think I do want to add to what the Hon Louise Upston has noted: we are concerned and remain concerned on this side of the House that the way that this income is being treated does create a discriminatory framework primarily based on date. I know the likes of the Hon Tracey Martin discussed this, if you will, with me—is “discussed” the right word? I don’t know.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: Interacted.

Interacted with me last evening. But I still find that the 1 March date, of which this income has to be tested, is relatively arbitrary. Again, I just want to put it very clearly on the House’s record that the pandemic was declared at the end of January by the World Health Organization. New Zealand closed its border to China on 3 February and then we fully closed the border, obviously, as we all know, later into March, so 1 March itself strikes me as arbitrary. The idea that a person can be receiving this payment as income while their partner could be earning up to about $100,000 a year I still think is not quite the right line. Personally, I’d like to have seen a graduated approach. The redundancy payment set at $30,000—again, I always want to acknowledge that there has to be a line, but I would have liked to have seen this bill introduce some graduated approach to that, some transitional approach. I think, as well, there’s a whole question for me—an oddity, if you will—of how this is going to affect students, that a student is able to now receive this payment as income while also receiving their student allowance. So it’s all a little bit messy to me.

So we’re not supporting this bill—not because we believe people are going to be OK with nothing. This side of the House is very keen that support is actually given. We’re incredibly conscious that—a $50,000; sorry, not $50,000; gosh, I’m really undercooking that—a $50 billion blank cheque has been written by the Government. We’d just like to have seen it better targeted and, as I say, not to be discriminatory to people, particularly those who have lost their jobs in the days prior to 1 March.

Just before I call the Hon Tracey Martin, can I just say, in regard to use by members of languages other than one of our three official languages, I think all members in the House would welcome the diversity of contribution, but, if a member does use a language other than one of our three official languages, then it’s appropriate for them to then translate directly into one of our three official languages for the benefit of other members and also for the public record.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I welcome your ruling, because only through actually hearing another language and having it translated can we ourselves learn to recognise what is being said, and it creates more diversity for all of us. So I really appreciate that—I really appreciate that.

Just to pick up on the member who’s resumed his seat, Simon O’Connor, which he knew I would, on some of the things that he’s said, just around the students—knowing some students myself—the students who are eligible for this income relief payment had to have been employed in a job at the same time as being a student. That is why they are eligible for this income relief payment: because they had been working to gain income so they could live. That’s actually what this is about. This is about making sure that we’ve got some sort of buffer for those that were working who have now lost their jobs due to COVID-19, and we want to make sure that they have at least some support from their country to be able to transition through this process. It is a temporary payment. It is 12 weeks. That keeps being repeated.

What we have heard, of course, during this period of time is that the Opposition would not and is not supporting this bill. The Opposition would not put in a relief payment in this way. The Opposition would prefer to have had all of this money provided to businesses. I’m just having difficulty—again, there are mixed messages coming from the Opposition. During question time yesterday, members from the Opposition kept shouting out, “Just give them cash! Just give them cash!” when they were referring to businesses, but now we actually have a contribution from Minister O’Connor—sorry, Mr O’Connor; wrong O’Connor—saying that he’s worried about the probity. And yet, apparently, the Opposition is happy to shout out, “Just give businesses cash!” but not the New Zealand public.

One of the other things that we haven’t heard from the Opposition is their plan. So the Opposition does not agree with this, but the Opposition doesn’t say what they would do instead, except throw cash at business—except throw cash at business. The other thing, of course, that we have heard from the Opposition is that they’re very distressed about the fact that there’s a group of New Zealanders here in completely different circumstances due to COVID-19 who are gaining more money than the 112,000 or 113,000 New Zealanders who were on jobseeker before COVID-19, and they think that’s incredibly unfair. The fact is that they had nine years when, actually, they could have lifted this. They could have had a Welfare Expert Advisory Group report themselves in a nine-year period but chose not to do that—chose not to do that, chose not to actually take those that they are now flailing about, and do something about it. But we still don’t have a plan.

I would be really interested if the next Opposition speakers would like to stand and say that, if they are in Government after September, they will raise all beneficiary incomes to the same level as this income relief period. That is what the Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie was pointing out yesterday with this new attempt by the Opposition to decide that they will cuddle up to the Green Party because they’re all in such agreement. If the Opposition would like to stand up and commit now to the New Zealand public that, after 19 September, they will lift all beneficiaries to the same rate as the COVID-19 income relief payment, I think that the Green Party will come on over and hug them even though there’s still social distancing. But I don’t believe we’re going to see that, ladies and gentlemen. I don’t believe we’re going to see that.

This is a COVID-19 income relief payment for a short period of time. At the same time, this Government will continue to work on supports that are created during the COVID-19 period and after the COVID-19 period to do better by the 112,000 to 113,000 beneficiaries that were on jobseeker benefits and were looking to their Government for support. That work does not stop merely because we are actually now having to deal with COVID-19. New Zealand First endorses the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Pleased to be able to make a contribution to this, the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill and to put into record why the National Party is not supporting this bill. This is another example of where the sentiment and the solution are just missing each other by a long shot. Government members view any opposition, any critique, to this bill as an act of mean-spiritedness towards New Zealanders who have lost their jobs as a result of COVID-19. We have stated very clearly on this side of the House that we do support income relief for New Zealanders but not in the haphazard way that has been approached by the Government in this bill.

The Government members have been very quick to dismiss our concerns, very valid concerns, because the Government knows that this bill has holes big enough to jump through, which is why they tend to resort to these emotional arguments of caring or uncaring about people who have lost their jobs. The reality of this bill, this hastily drafted bill rushed through, is that it does create a two-tier system where one group is given—

💬 Hon Member: Did you read the bill?

—more than another. Yes, I have read the bill.

If you happen to lose your job in this arbitrary window of time, which is between 1 March and 30 October, then you’ll be supported more than if you lose your job outside that window. We know that job losses don’t happen like that, in discrete bundles. Job losses have started much, much earlier, they’re going through now, and they’re going to continue in waves.

There are other hoops to jump through as well to get this entitlement, and these sorts of criteria, without a full and proper consideration through the parliamentary process, through this House, will not pick up the very real consequences of how this will affect New Zealanders in one of the most stressful periods of their lives.

New Zealanders understand full well when an application of welfare support is not applied fairly. There has been no opportunity—and we would have agreed to a shortened process—for those voices, for others in our community, to be able to make a contribution to this bill. A temporary measure, as has been stated quite clearly from the Government members, still has to be applied fairly.

It has been interesting to witness the cynicism of the Green Party, the handmaidens to their Labour masters, as they have abandoned, walked away, from any principles that they may once have had. They have cynically turned their back on principles.

💬 Brett Hudson: They sold their principles out years ago.

They have. They have cynically turned away because they do not want to be seen as standing on the right side of this argument with the National Party.

💬 Brett Hudson: They have no principles left to sell.

So may I add—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I’m fairly confident that the comment just shouted out by Brett Hudson breached Standing Orders, and the comment was that certain groups in this House had no more values left to sell.

💬 Brett Hudson: I didn’t say that. I said principles.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Hudson, you know better than to interrupt on a point of order. In my time here, it was the only time I’ve been removed from the Chamber, but I’ll resist the opportunity to match it with your removal. If the member did make an unparliamentary remark, I’d ask him to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Brett Hudson: Withdraw and apologise.

If I may continue. As the associate spokesperson for Pacific peoples, this legislation does not help our Pasifika communities, who will be last in line to get this extra $490 payment. We know well that Pasifika communities’ unemployment figures are generally at least 10 percent higher than the general population. So how has this been factored in? How has this been factored into this bill? And I point out, again, there has been no opportunity for a process to allow these sorts of considerations to be factored in to allow other voices to contribute to this bill.

Ultimately, and I also want to respond to, I think it was the member Angie Warren-Clark, who stood in the House and spoke on this bill, who was deeply disappointed that the National Party weren’t going to support this bill. I would say to that member that we would have supported a bill if the Government had given us at least a bit more notice, not just the day before; had allowed a bit more of a fuller process, a robust process, the opportunity to put through our concerns and work constructively with the Government to ensure that we could provide income relief support payment to New Zealanders suffering quite a lot under this crisis and not creating this two-tier system.

Look, I don’t believe the Government means to discriminate, but that’s what happens when you don’t allow a full and proper process in this House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I just rise to speak on the third reading of the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. It’s hard not to respond to the misrepresentation of the Green Party from the previous speakers, but I’ll try and start by stating our position clearly before I respond to them.

So the Green Party have always, in my memory of us in this Parliament, fought for an income support system that ensures people have enough to be able to sustain themselves and for people to be treated with dignity. That has always been our work, and we have not shifted from that. We’ve been very clear, in this context, of our ongoing commitment to that. That was our starting point in these discussions about how to support New Zealanders in this time of extraordinary unprecedented need. Our first position was to further increase benefits and to remove the conditionality of access to those benefits so that the existing system that we had could be strengthened to work for all of us through this time.

We didn’t achieve that. Does that mean that we should turn our backs on a group of people being able to access support? That’s our choice. Our answer was, considering on our principles, no. We should not turn our backs on some people being able to get more just because we were not able to achieve our goals for this transformation for our society. We will keep working towards that, and you hear that through this debate. We are not stepping away from that whatsoever; however, we do recognise that this delivers more to people in need, and we are not going to subject more people to the flawed aspects of our system when we don’t need to.

We didn’t take that decision lightly in considering this. We reached out to key stakeholders in our community and had that discussion about how they feel about this on the ground. The feedback we got was, OK, use this as an opportunity to talk about the fact that in our welfare system the income levels are inadequate; that the fact that people are forced into dependency on their partners against their own wills and often unsafely is a flaw in our system, and that’s demonstrated by this temporary provision; and that the 13-week stand-down doesn’t work in terms of the way that our society and job market works. So this is a chance for us to see that, to learn from that, and the Greens will be taking from this the opportunity, we hope, to demonstrate and to use that to change and fight for a more fundamental change to our welfare system.

I also want to note that in some of the media, Trevor McGlinchey, who was on the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, from the Council of Christian Social Services said that the new, more generous payment, in the temporary one that it is, should be extended to all unemployed. That’s where we’re going. That doesn’t mean we deny those people this support; it means use this and go further. Why not?

That is not where the National Party are at, and, when they’ve been standing up here, this is where I just really struggle with politics sometimes: when I’ve listened to those speeches in the Opposition, it was just so disingenuous. Playing with this as if it is a game to enjoy—this is about people’s lives. This is about the fact that there are thousands of people in our country who are struggling to put food on the table right now who we care about, and there is another large number of people facing that in their future. We have a duty to do our best to support them. That is not a game to be playing with politics about the Greens and Labour; and Greens are now agreeing with us; and yay, yay. That, to me, to speak bluntly, is just bullshit politics and not what we need in this country.

I just want us to bring it back to the people and what is going to help achieve progress and care for people at this time. This has not been easy. Politics is not easy. It’s a matter of debate and discussion and standing by our principles, and that is what the Greens are doing.

I listened to that last speaker, Jan Logie, carefully, and I think I understand the points she’s making. But, essentially, her speech could be summed up by saying, “Don’t blame us; we tried.” Well, of course this is not a game; this is an incredibly serious issue affecting every New Zealander, many of whom have lost their jobs, many of whose livelihoods and future security are at risk, and so every member of the public would expect us to take the matter seriously, and I believe every member of this House does.

For those who will receive this assistance in my Hamilton West electorate—

💬 Dan Bidois: Great electorate.

—it is a great electorate, Mr Bidois, and it’s always lovely to see you in it—I am both relieved and supportive. There are, as I say, many in my electorate who have already had to access wage subsidies, and I want to do everything that I can to assist those who have lost their jobs to find work again but also to stand alongside those businesses that are highly vulnerable—and I’ve been into many of them in recent weeks, or at least in the days since we’ve been able to come out of lockdown, and I’ve seen the struggle that many of them are facing. The customers aren’t just flowing through the doors once more, and if the customers aren’t flowing through the doors, then stock isn’t moving, sales aren’t being made, and that, of course, has a direct impact on employment, because you can’t continue to employ staff if you’re not selling your goods or taking your services out to the market, painting the house, weeding the garden—whatever it might be, whatever line of small business you’re in.

I do want to make the point that this Government has been operating under urgency in this House for most of the last few weeks. They are extraordinary times, but that is something the Government needs to reflect upon—that, here again, we’re dealing with a bill, under urgency, where there’s been no select committee process, and therefore it’s been for the Opposition to ask the questions that people who would have come along to the select committee would have asked. Again, I say to Ms Logie that’s not a game; that’s doing our job as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I do ask the Government to reflect very carefully on the fact that they used to say that urgency should be used sparingly; now it’s become the norm. It’s not only become the norm; it’s even excluding select committee processes altogether so the public are being shut out. At a time when the public can’t come into this House—they’re not allowed up in the gallery; they can’t gather out on the forecourt—for them not to be able to submit to select committees on bills that in many cases aren’t super-urgent, such as we saw after the Budget, is a very, very chilling attack on our democracy.

I am very sorry that those who are directly affected by this bill haven’t had a chance to be heard and to have their concerns noted, and I am disappointed that the Green Party members have again been compromised as a result of their association with the other two parties in the Government. Ms Logie claimed in her speech a moment ago that the Green Party has been misrepresented. They hadn’t been misrepresented; it’s simply been noted that they hold very strong views on this subject but, yet again, they’ve been forced to vote in a manner that is completely at odds with their strong views. That’s not misrepresentation, and it’s not even my view so much as it is Metiria Turei’s view and that of many other Green Party members within the community. No matter how much Ms Logie wants to try to persuade us that this is just a game and that we’re trivialising the issue, that is the fact of the matter: they are, yet again, not able to vote as they would wish to do, and they’re looking increasingly impotent in this particular Government.

I am particularly concerned that this Government’s focus is not on keeping businesses in business. That is the best way to save jobs. That is the best way to save people’s livelihoods and to enable New Zealanders to regain independence, to become self-reliant once more, and to contribute to rebuilding our economy and our society, both of which, of course, are at such huge pressure.

It was suggested by a couple of members opposite that, in some way, the National Party was beneficiary bashing by opposing this bill. I want to put the focus on supporting everybody who can be in work to get back into work, because it is not beneficiary bashing to say we shouldn’t just be turning a blind eye to the fact that more and more people are going on to the jobseeker support benefit. Everybody who needs that support has my support in getting it. I have never bashed a beneficiary in this House, and I never will, but I do want for those who are currently vulnerable exactly the same opportunities that I want for myself and my own family and my own children. I want all of them to be given every encouragement and every incentive, and that’s why I’m saying to the Government: put the focus into supporting businesses to stay in business. That’s the best way possible to support them and also to reduce the pressure on the taxpayer—and it’s not that I don’t want the taxpayer to be contributing to supporting those who need it; I do support that principle, but the more we can get businesses back into business, the quicker we will take extra pressure off the taxpayer.

So I simply want to make the comment again that I am pleased for those who are going to receive this assistance, and I respect the fact that it is necessary. I am, however, very concerned that it’s a two-tier system and that it is embedding unfairness, and we know that many people are feeling that it’s very unfair. But I will always stand up for those who work hard, who pay their taxes, and who obey the laws. They deserve our support and our encouragement, and everything we can do in this House to enable people to get back to being self-reliant so that they can take care of their families will have my total respect and support.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The heart of this technical bill is a payment for those who have lost their jobs because of a global pandemic. Instead of seeing this as one tool in a kit that will help cushion the blow of COVID-19 for families and businesses—our people—in New Zealand, this Opposition chooses to be churlish and deny their support by voting against this, although they made a very similar temporary payment available after the Christchurch earthquakes to help people transition, and this is just what this payment will do. And so I commend this bill to the House.

Madam Speaker, thank you. I wouldn’t call the comments churlish on this side, but I do know the freedom of the House is for members to make comments as they wish. I would say that on this side of the House, we are in agreement with that the “what” in what we’re trying to do here—to be able to support those in need—is not in question. It’s about how we go about that.

The Minister made some comments during the committee stage which talked about the fact that in comparison to what was done in the Christchurch earthquakes, there was no bill before the House, because it was a policy change that was implemented to meet the need. So if that was the case, then the question is: why wasn’t there just a policy change to implement the need?

As I listened quite carefully to the Minister’s comments, what became quite clear is that income insurance is an ideology and a potential way of looking into the future. We agree with the sentiment around the fact that we want to protect those New Zealanders, like during the times of the earthquake and now in the times of the pandemic. There is no question about that.

I’m just a little bit unsure and uncertain as to why it wasn’t just implemented, as it was under a National Government, with the Christchurch earthquake—under the job loss cover initiation and the amount that was given as a top-up, as a subsidy, for those that were in need. Why wasn’t the same approach taken? Why did we have to go through this process to have some legislation which has a sunset clause? It will terminate itself. So is this a testing of the waters to be able to look at potentially what that could look like into the future? That’s my question to the Minister.

But, in saying that, again, I suppose, from our point, we don’t support this—not because of the “what” but because of the “how” it is being implemented. I have to say that I know the members in the Green Party have made some comments. They don’t agree with this, because they’ve been quite open and public about this. They believe that there’s another approach, a better approach, to do this. However, because of a coalition agreement, they’ve agreed to support this through. They made those comments last night about that. In principle, though, they would agree with us—that this does set up a system that does seem to look as if it is inequitable to us on this side and also to other members of the public as well, which has been made very clear. There’s been a number of public comments. In fact, many people who have previously been Green MPs, the likes of Metiria Turei and Sue Bradford, have been quite vocal in their response to this approach and to this bill. So I would say that we are not alone in asking the question as to the “how” of this bill and what it will implement.

We now see that this bill will go through the House. It will be implemented, and on our side, though, we do register that our opposition to this is not the “what” but the “how” this is being implemented. If it was going to replicate what happened during the time of the earthquake, under a National Government, why didn’t the Government just do that? Why didn’t it just implement the policy change that it needed to make, on the inside? Why did we have to go through a process like this to ensure that we pass legislation, which is temporary, as I understand? It can only be an indicator of where the Government is wanting to head us towards as well. I think that’s the concern that’s raised on this side. So I make this speech to the House, but, as this side has said, we oppose this bill.

The Social Security (COVID19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill is an excellent bill. It’s a bill which expands the welfare safety net in a moment of particular need. I wish, in particular, to commend the Minister for Social Development, who has worked so hard for the last two years to extend the welfare net bit by bit by bit to those who need it so that now people in receipt of benefits are getting much more in their back pockets which will help them survive. I commend this bill, which will help people who have lost their jobs, very unexpectedly through COVID-19, to at least get through the initial transition into finding new work or training. It is an excellent bill, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand to speak about the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. By the title of the bill alone, the bill seeks to address a situation brought about by COVID-19. I premise my brief contribution on the fact that every single member of this House is clearly passionate about getting relief to persons who have been affected by this bill. We all want the best for all New Zealanders—I think that very passionately as well.

Some questions do arise—concerns that maybe this bill could be a better attempt. That is not to say that it is a bad attempt, but could it be a better attempt? And we talk about classifications of people and we speak against each other, but, essentially, the question really is: could there be a better use of the funds that are on hand in a situation where it is unprecedented? I use the word because it is unprecedented. The time calls for an extraordinary effort. So some of the questions are: (1) COVID-19 started affecting jobs much earlier than 1 March. I am part of a migrant community, being a migrant myself, and many are suffering because they have work that they lost very early on as these were related to tourism and hospitality businesses. The question is, really, that because they lost their jobs before 1 March, then they are not able to receive this new support from this new bill—so that is one.

The second is that, again, also because I am from a migrant community and I am aware of the widespread effects of this on migrant communities, and clearly I am going to lead into the question: could migrant workers have been benefited by this income relief as well? These are the faces that welcome people to New Zealand. These are the faces that bear the smiles that make New Zealand attractive. These are the hard workers who go the extra hours and go beyond themselves and serve others, making New Zealand such an attractive place to go to. I speak of, actually, 500 people in Queenstown who will also not get a benefit from this. These are questions that I think are fairly asked in a special time, especially when this bill is going through a shortened process. Maybe we could have heard more from others that could have helped us to tailor the bill to them as well.

In addition, I end with the same position that many of my colleagues have expressed, and that is that there are very many businesses who are at the brink and who are at that point where they need to make decisions to continue on with the wage subsidy to keep their workers attached to them or not, simply because they are unable to go on, they are unable to secure more loans, and they are facing closure. As an example of that, one such business is a medical facility that deals with persons who come in respect of potential illnesses and they are assessed for this illness. The cost is a fraction of what it would cost New Zealand and all New Zealanders if they were not checked and they went into a full-blown illness and the cost to deal with that illness is 10 or 15 times more than if they were checked early. This facility is actually a real situation where they are at the edge—they are at the edge—and they are fearful of closing. So the question, really, out of just a pure desire to be of help to everyone, without calling lines, is could they have been helped as well? So I end there, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is a good bill and it makes sense. It’s what is needed to support those that have been impacted by the virus COVID-19 and the impact that it has had on this country. I think it’s a shame that the National Party, despite what their new leader said only less than a week ago, that they will not be playing politics for politics’ sake—here we are. They are voting no on a bill that will support those that are impacted by COVID-19. I think that’s a shame. The task for them now is to go back to their communities and justify that decision. I think they will struggle. I commend this bill to the House.