Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): 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. JAN LOGIE: —in 2002 were issuing 3000—DEPUTY SPEAKER: He is right. It is my job but I would like to come to the—JAN LOGIE: This is on topic Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Relate it to the bill. JAN LOGIE: 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. JAN LOGIE: 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. JAN LOGIE: 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. JAN LOGIE: 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. JAN LOGIE: 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. JAN LOGIE: 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. JAN LOGIE: 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. JAN LOGIE: 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 160000 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. JAN LOGIE: 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.