Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): It's a pleasure to rise and speak to this bill and just to point out that the Opposition make it very clear that there is no choice for us because if it's between at least making progress for some versus the drive to the bottom on that side then actually this is a step forward. It may not be what we want and it's not but boy is it better than the alternative.What I want to say is that the Greens—at the heart of our position is a belief that everyone should have enough to be able to sustain themselves and that we want a welfare system that is resilient and works for everyone. And we are a long way from that and we have a lot of work to do. That work has started but we're not happy with where it's at. We want more work to go on.I will acknowledge though that this is of course in contrast to nine years of the vilification of people needing support from the State of the creation of sanctions that stigmatised people who were unable to work to the point where the survey showed us that the most discriminated group in this society was people receiving income support and that was a result of the Opposition's policies. So to suggest that actually we would be better off sitting on your side well hello! That is just not the reality. That would not be serving our goals or be consistent with our principles or in any way give respect to the people who are struggling still in our communities. We want everybody lifted. And this does not do it that's true but it enables some people to progress through this difficult time a little bit easier.So if we can create that as a pathway for other people to move up to then I call on everybody in this House to actually ask why we have to have this differential response. And when are we going to have our next steps towards bringing everyone else up to this point? Because if we do believe in everyone being able to sustain themselves and get through the precariousness of this challenge and the next ones that are to come then actually we need to implement the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report and as they said to do that with urgency.I do want to point to for us a couple of points that we've spoken about—that for us this is evidence around the fact that it's not possible for people to transition from work and into our welfare system and maintain and care for their families because our welfare system and levels of support are not high enough to enable them to do that. The point was raised by the Hon Tracey Martin that we are in a crisis situation. There's a prediction for there to be I think around at least a 160000 increase in the number of people needing jobseeker support. If all of those people were to be made homeless as well as their families because they were forced on to our inadequate welfare system then we would have a very significant problem as a society—much more significant and more problematic than what we have now. And that's not an answer. The answer is to push for more for those others.I do want to acknowledge that when this policy came out my dear previous colleague Mojo Mathers looked at this and went This is a kick in the guts to all the people on income support with disabilities" who are vulnerable and have been bearing the weight of COVID as vulnerable people and feeling and seeing their costs go up. And now to see that that sense of isolation and vulnerability means nothing—is how they are interpreting it and that actually people in paid work were again being privileged. And I want to acknowledge that feeling for people because I get it. It's real when you are struggling to put decent food on the table to be able to do the things that you know you need to do for your own health and wellbeing because your income is just not enough. Then it's hard to see others being put before you. That doesn't speak to our experience of being all in this together and everyone counting and New Zealanders sacrificing themselves to save the lives of the vulnerable. That for them did not connect and that is one of those reasons that the Greens want more. We want everyone else to be brought up to this point as well.For us another point of vulnerability in the welfare system that this policy demonstrates is around relationship status and the fact that this legislation enables somebody to have a partner who is in work and allows them to access the support is great. I'm very very pleased to see this as a wedge into changing our welfare system to remove this enforced pre-emptory dependence that does not match the way any of us live our lives in the 21st century. And I do want to acknowledge how much of a shock I think a lot of working people got to find out that if they lost their job they wouldn't be entitled to any support as an individual if their partner was still in work or that they would be forced into having joint finances under this policy. Because that for most people is just something that they believe: in a relationship they should have the choice of when the time comes to merge or if they ever want to merge their finances. And for many women in particular financial dependence brings risk. Many women for very very good reasons actually seek to maintain independent finances from a partner to be able to have options in terms of managing their own safety if need be or their own sense of autonomy from their own past experiences. So it's really pleasing for us to see this piece of legislation provide an entry point for that change in our wider welfare system. We really look forward to that work being extended throughout the welfare system. Another point I would just like to make though I do know there will be more speeches through this time is just about the fact that this is so necessary because in part New Zealand we have very very low rates of redundancy in our employment relations contracts. In fact if you look across the OECD New Zealand is at the bottom of the graph when it comes to support for people's incomes after leaving a job or being made redundant. We had the welfare system as one answer to that; compulsory redundancy is another. But it's got to be either/or a mix of both of them and this piece of legislation just really shows us how pivotal that gap is at the moment."