Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair. What an exciting night isn't it? We've got all our team here making wonderful contributions—yeah I can see you down the back there Mr Watts. We've even got the exciting dynamic Minister in the chair who's contributing. The only thing I've got to say is that there's a disconcerting thing happening on the Government bench side. Just above one of the members over there there's a light that's flickering on and off but most of the time it's off. I don't know what the implication is because when it flicks on and off I don't know whether it's saying to the Labour backbenchers Wakey wakey! Wakey wakey! Come on contribute to this debate." But now you see it's off—you see it's out. Is that darkness? Does it mean it's darkness for all those businesses that are going broke in Auckland Waikato Rotorua Queenstown? Does that light mean—Hon Member: It's going out.ANDREW BAYLY: it's out—their futures are extinguished or does it mean that the Labour backbench has gone to sleep? I think it's the latter I really do. So I just highlight this because I think we need to get some people in here to fix that light because this piece of legislation needs all the light given that it's not going to go through a select committee process.Now I've got four proposed tabled amendments and I've got the opportunity now to speak to the second of my four. So I just want to ask a question—and this relates to new section 7AAB(2) in clause 5(1) and hopefully the Minister can help me on this—about the use of the word "grant": "The Commissioner on behalf of the Crown may make a grant under the CSP scheme … to a person" and it goes on. So I just want to ask the Minister what is meant by "grant" because of course we've had two schemes. We've had the resurgence payments scheme and we've had the employment support scheme—the workers' employment scheme—but is it intended by the legislation in this piece that we're going to move to a different type of payment framework and should we read too much into that word "grant"? From what I understand this is looking to replace the resurgence payments scheme and therefore what does that mean? Hopefully he can allay our fears. Again I think we need to bear in mind that we're not speaking to Mr Parker; what we're speaking to is the audience of those many hundreds of thousands of people who are affected by the terrible plight they find themselves in. I do take issue with a comment that the Minister said before. It's not the virus that's caused the problem; it is the Government's reaction and the closure of businesses that has caused the problem. It is not the virus; it is the actions of the Government to impose a lockdown on huge swaths of New Zealand areas and businesses and that is why this Government is having to put in these types of arrangements—and we welcome that they have—but of course as we've all said on many occasions unfortunately this bill is absolutely devoid of what that means.Now talking specifically to my tabled amendment it really relates to the issue of who has the jurisdiction to determine the setting of the criteria and of course as the Minister will know under new section 7AAB(3) in clause 5(1) the bill empowers the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. The IRD commissioner "must set out the procedure required"—she must if it's the current commissioner—"for a person to make an application for a grant:"—same word again and—"must determine—(i) the eligibility requirements that a person must meet to qualify for a grant:"—and furthermore—"(ii) the terms and conditions that apply to a grant:". Now my proposed tabled amendment does away with the rights of the commissioner to make such determinations. We believe that is important. These are political decisions set by the executive and it is important that these are executive decisions. The discretion of the commissioner to look at determining the eligibility requirements that a person must meet to qualify for the grant and terms and conditions we think is inappropriate and therefore my tabled amendment deals with this issue. I'd really appreciate it if the Minister could respond on both those issues: the issue of "grant" and also why it should not be the executive rather than the commissioner who is making the determination."