Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of ACT in support of this Taxation (COVID-19 Resurgence Support Payments and Other Matters) Bill because the ACT Party believes that there are some instances when the Government acts as the insurer of last resort when people are befallen by circumstances that they can't avoid and they can't prepare for in any other way. This is one of those circumstances where people who have a business try to employ people and are trying to keep their job and a business recognise that they're not going to be able to have any income this week and they actually need some other way to keep going. I've had constituents text me and say Look there's going to be no relief for the loss of work I have even just within the seven days. How am I supposed to pay my rent?" That's the reality that people face when the Government locks down and to have some form of relief for businesses that are trying to employ people while they can't practically operate I think is an important thing to have.The second reason why we support this legislation is that not only is the Government acting as an insurer of last resort; actually it's the Government's action that has caused the injury to those firms. The ultimate cause is the virus COVID-19 but the immediate cause of the injury to those firms is the Government's restrictions on them being able to legally operate the way they were set up to do. So this is a situation where the Government is the insurer of last resort and where the Government is actually the one that has injured the company. And it is right that if we want people to stay home and save lives as the refrain goes for the betterment of the wider public then those who lose more than 30 percent of their revenue over seven days businesses in trouble as a result of that sacrifice should actually be compensated with the wider funds raised by taxpayers in general. So that's all well and good. We support it because this is something useful that the Government can do from time to time.But I have to say I find it absolutely extraordinary that a tax bill has been dropped on Opposition parties with about six hours' notice. People at home may expect us to take our duty of making law seriously. Why? Because people know they're expected to follow the laws especially tax laws and this is a tax bill. I think it's only reasonable if people are expected to follow the laws made in this Parliament then we should take some care in the way that we make them. That's the basic deal—we take care in the way that we make laws and in return people take care to follow them. That is really the essence of our civilised society where everybody respects the law. And when there are differences we don't fight each other; we look at what's written down in the statutes made by this Parliament. That's a good way for a country to be but it requires us in this Parliament to do our bit and in this case the Government has not done its bit.Now I know people say "Well sometimes it's necessary to make laws rapidly because if laws aren't made in time they won't be able to achieve the objective." That's kind of the case here—kind of not. Let me explain that. It is true that if this law is not made this week it won't be there in time for businesses if the lockdown extends into another week and we hope it doesn't. So that's true. But it's also true that we wouldn't need to be in urgency had we started earlier and that's what I find extraordinary. This Government loves to say that it has been carefully mending the roof for rainy day and hasn't been resting on its laurels or congratulating itself—that it's been hardening our defences and preparing a resurgence plan so New Zealanders would be ready for the entirely predictable circumstance that COVID-19 and particularly new variants of it from the UK and South Africa might actually escape and there would be another need to have restrictive lockdowns and that would impact businesses. That sequence of events—very predictable. The Government claims to have been preparing a resurgence plan so that we would be ready for this circumstance. So all of a sudden we find ourselves in a position where we need to have preparations in place for the economic survival the livelihoods and the wellbeing of people trying to pay their rent and yet they hadn't thought about this—not over the six months nearly since the August lockdown and not during the 102 days of COVID freedom we had between the April lockdown and the August lockdown and not even during those lockdowns which might have focused the mind of the Government. They hadn't thought that maybe this would be a good idea. They claim to have done the preparations but they hadn't put this law in place and now we are rushing a tax bill under urgency against all the conventions of this Parliament that lead to people respecting the laws this House makes because despite its rhetoric the Government wasn't ready.There's a second part to this legislation—am I'm almost talking myself out of ACT supporting it? Once upon a time when it was a bit easier to make caucus decisions we might have changed direction at this point. This legislation also requires the Government to pay more for Working for Families. Why is that? Because during the first lockdown inexplicably the Government decided to raise benefits by $25 an hour. Now I'm not commenting on—[Interruption] By $25 dollars a week someone corrected me. I tell you what Mr Robertson it's very easy to be generous with other people's money as you well know. The issue is that they had potentially a policy to raise benefits and maybe they should—maybe they should've debated it. But they did it under the cover of lockdown and that was completely wrong. That was knee-jerk legislation. That was exploiting the situation. People on benefits did not need a pay increase during lockdown. People who didn't have to go to work and were actually given taxpayer money to stay home were some of the least affected people by the lockdown. Of course because they made that change under a rushed urgency during a lockdown they actually discovered they made it less attractive to work. You see because benefit levels increase Working for Families became comparatively less attractive and the Government thought "Oh oh we've actually once again kicked people who get up get out of bed and go to work while their neighbours sleep their lives away on a benefit." Now they're having to make another change under urgency to try and correct the mistake last time they tried to rush a law though. This is a real problem and I mean this sincerely to the Labour Party members. The people in the Labour Party I find are generally good sorts who come here to make New Zealand a better place. But one of the things—[Interruption] David Bennett disagrees but he's always had a black dark heart David Bennett. The fact of the matter is he should join in this moment of kindness. But the fact of the matter is I don't think that in their heart of hearts people on the Labour benches when they look back at the way their Government has used urgency and at some of the policy-making that's gone on will be able to look themselves in the mirror and be proud of the way they have used urgency in this House. The contribution they've made to the culture of this House and the way they've used urgency has been a very negative contribution and I think future Governments are going to have to think very hard about how they fix that. One of the things that is important that everyone in this House agrees on is that if we want people to follow the laws we make we have to actually be a bit conscientious in the way we make them.We at one point passed the wrong law because they were going so fast they put the wrong law on the Table and we voted for the wrong one. That's how bad they've been and I would just say to this Government if they want to talk the talk of being prepared for COVID and having a resurgence plan and all the rest how about walking the walk and having the legislation ready earlier than 10.33 in the morning? Nevertheless for the sake of the people who are going to need this legislation ACT is going to support it because it is not right that some businesses that are hurting should pay the cost of a Government's disorganisation."