SpeechHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Well that was almost 10 minutes of a fascinating insight into the thinking of the Green Party. So are we all clear on their position now? For those who may be confused let me see if I can summarise it simply for them: the Green Party deeply dislikes this bill; the Green Party members think this bill is fundamentally unfair—you with me so far? Green Party members around the country loathe this bill and are speaking in the most unflattering and most unparliamentary terms about the Labour and New Zealand First parties with whom they are in the current Government and I certainly couldn't use the terminology that was used by the former Green Party leader who is no longer a member of this House and I wouldn't want to but we certainly have taken that on board.Tim van de Molen: So surely they're opposed to it?Hon TIM MACINDOE: So from all of that one would as Mr van de Molen has brilliantly just deduced assume that the Green Party would oppose this bill. But for those who are unsure the Green Party have noticed that the National Party also considers this bill to be very unfair and so for that reason you put all the other concerns to one side and you vote for the bill because you couldn't possibly vote with the National Party. That's it in a nutshell—that's it in a nutshell.Well perhaps that's why the Green Party and the National Party aren't all that often on the same page but we actually are in our thinking on this bill and on the important principle that it is fundamentally unjust. Of course we were also on the same page on that despicable waka-jumping legislation that went through Parliament which they loathed and which their members were appalled by but just as Ms Logie has indicated that they are doing on this bill they swallowed an enormous marinated dead rat.The Green Party of course would love to support the National Party's initiative to implement a marine sanctuary in the Kermadecs. We have fought continuously to try to get that bill introduced. They want to support it but their good friends in New Zealand First won't allow them to do it. And just a few weeks ago disgracefully the Green Party supported the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill that went through this House under urgency as this bill is tonight with no select committee process no opportunity for the public to raise their very sincerely held concerns but they voted for that as well.So every time the Greens could have the opportunity to exercise the power that their numbers would give them to defeat legislation that they find repugnant they bottle. They turn and go in the other direction because for them it is more loathsome to be on the same side as the National Party than it is to be on the side of principle. Jan Logie is shaking her head but she knows that to be true and I've just given her four very clear examples of why that is true.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Macindoe feel free to slide into the content of the bill that we're debating.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Madam Speaker I am talking about the principle that is leading to a party supporting a bill that we think is unfair and they think is unfair. I cannot see why that wouldn't be relevant because New Zealanders have a fundamental sense of—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry Mr Macindoe could you just resume your seat momentarily. You're an experienced and competent member of Parliament. I asked you to refer to the bill. Directly challenging my request is out of order and I would ask you to refrain from doing it again. Please address the content of the bill that we are debating. You had three minutes. I think I was pretty generous and fair but I would ask you to now debate the content of the bill. Thank you.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Kiwis have an innate sense of fairness. This bill is fundamentally unfair. They feel injustice keenly even in the best of times and these are not the best of times. No one doubts as the Hon Louise Upston indicated when she led off for the National Party in this particular debate that those who lose their livelihoods lose their income lose their jobs during a downturn should receive support. No one questions that. That is fundamentally fair—that we come to their aid in those times of need. But once this Government sets itself on a course of action they reject any attempts by other parties to work with them to come up with something that is fair and we would've done that with them here. Instead they plough on very poorly researched very poorly led to make a really fundamental error.I want to suggest that a bill that locks in a two-tier benefit system will cause enormous hardship and unfairness and it is going to lead to further problems down the track. So as I say the Hon Louise Upston pointed out that unfairness—and she also asked the question of Why this bill? Why this measure?"—wasn't included in the Budget that was delivered in this House less than two weeks ago. Has this issue suddenly arisen over the last 13 days? I don't think so. Could it have been anticipated more than 13 days ago? Absolutely it could have been. Should it have been part of a package of measures that a responsible and integrated Government would introduce at that time in order to ensure that they responded to the needs of people who were going to lose their livelihoods? Of course it should have. But instead it's more indication of a shambolic Government that flies by the seat of their pants.It's almost as if they've had another idea on the back of an envelope just a couple of days ago and they've come in and they have failed to recognise that what they're doing here is locking in a real injustice. I'm happy to speak about that again at a later stage but for this point I ask the next speaker simply to indicate to us why this wasn't even thought about at the time of the Budget and why this Government is quite willing to discriminate against those who have been beneficiaries for a longer period of time who may have lost their job before the commencement date for which this bill applies because if they can't answer those questions they should not support this bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The next call's a split call."