Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'll rise to take a call on the Taxation (COVID-19 Support Payments and Working for Families Tax Credits) Bill at this the first reading. I suspect there's nobody that would say this debate and the conditions around it are ideal. I suspect everybody would have wanted more time for this process and for the consideration of this bill. I've heard the Government say in terms of that that this is necessary for getting it done. We would have liked to have seen the work start earlier so that we could have had the normal process and still get it done. We recognise the tension and the urgency that the Government is under albeit self-imposed.Specifically to talk to this bill there are a few points and I do want to address some of the points raised by National in relation to the resurgence payments and the points that they read out from the regulatory impact statement—or departmental disclosure statement I think—saying that the work hadn't been done around this and the impact on rights. I would also point to the part of that same document that said in relation to the COVID-19 support payments framework amendments the Treasury considered that the regulatory impact statement was not required on the grounds that they have no or only minor impacts on businesses individuals and not-for-profit entities. So I understood the point that was being made but really this is about not setting up a new scheme; it's about recognising that when we are shifting to having an endemic presence of COVID in our communities resurgence is not the framework that we need to work within and that our alert levels will no longer be in place so we need legislation that will enable Government to respond.I do also want to point to the sense of discomfort of listening to the point of saying that while this is corporate welfare—and the Greens share a kind of perspective around that—but that the alternative is free trade and opening things up. Like where would we have got to if that had been our response to COVID? When there's 8 million—I heard recently—people that have died around the world and we—every single life meaning something—have lost around 40 people. That's significant in our communities and even one more death than that through that opening up and relying on businesses to make that decision for themselves when we have heard sporadically even at the toughest times businesses calling for that. So I'm all for protective measures that actually support our communities to make the right decisions for the safety and wellbeing of people in this country. While we have criticisms in terms of maybe how some of the money has ended up and where it's gone that actually we do recognise that businesses needed that support to be able to make the right decision.Now we are also—I'd like to speak to the changes around Working for Families and I'll spend most of my time on that in this debate. Just registering a really deep disappointment with this that it is just as I think the Child Poverty Action Group noted in their response to the Government's announcement that the Government's family income tweaks are out of touch" and "deeply disappointing" they do not go anywhere near to address the need within our communities. I just want to step through in terms of that context that we're in in relation to COVID that COVID came along at a time when we had an established entrenched housing crisis—that the Government at least now is starting to address rather than denying—and of inadequate incomes across many of our communities deeply entrenched poverty that is evident in the rates of rheumatic fever as one example. Then we had to go into lockdowns and people lost their jobs. They lost hours of work particularly people in casual employment that may have supplemented their benefit in terms of their ability to support their families. The most vulnerable we know and particularly in terms of disabled people what we've heard from the community is that many of them lost their jobs first. While their need for electricity went up their need for food went up and the need for internet went up particularly for people with children. We've seen as a consequence: debt increase unprecedented queues for food parcels and people having to reach out for additional support because our social safety net was not and is not adequate.That is where we are at now where people are deeply struggling. Our services as a result are also—they've done an incredible job right? Our marae our Whānau Ora providers our community organisations are trying to knit together that safety net to stop people just crashing and burning. But there is only so much those organisations can do. The best-placed people to actually look after people and strengthen that safety net: that's this House and that's about getting really strong income support measures in place that also support people to transition into employment where that is an option and available.Now these changes for Working for Families of $5 per child that may happen—the regulatory impact statement says there are significant statistical uncertainty over the child poverty reduction estimates which show between 4000 and 6000 children may be taken out of poverty—just doesn't even enter the ballpark of what we need and what we should expect for our families. The worst bit is that it's coming at the expense of our middle-income families who are actually still struggling to be able to put down some roots and get some stability for their families because the Government is increasing the abatement of Working for Families for those families who have managed to increase their income a bit.So they wanted this policy to be fiscally neutral in a pandemic in a housing crisis where the cost of living is going up they wanted to address child poverty in a fiscally neutral way by taking that money from middle-income earners which is what this piece of legislation does. That goes exactly counter to what the Welfare Expert Advisory Group—that we hear the Government is one day going to implement their recommendations. This is 100 percent counter to their recommendation which was to have work towards a more universal scheme. They'd recommended that the Working for Families payment was increased for the first child by $57 immediately this was 2019 and that for subsequent children it be increased by $29 immediately—2019. Here we are getting a $5 increase and they recommended further most critically a lowering of that abatement rate to 10 percent for those earning between $48000 and $65000 and then up to 15 percent for those earning between $65000 and $160000. To reduce that effective marginal tax rate that is being exacerbated by this decision to increase the abatement rate.This is creating a cliff-edge for families who are wanting to increase work. This is incentivising families to choose to only have one parent in work and the other one not to go into work because this will punish them for getting both into work. We know historically who suffers from that and it's women because traditionally—we still haven't closed that gender pay gap yet—that it's men who are more likely to be on higher incomes. Most two-parent families will be a male and a female—not all. So this policy goes counter to that intent of supporting people into work and it is also counter to the process of recognising that we all have a role in supporting children in this country. Who was it was it Whitney that said "Children are our future."? Could have been said better but it's an important point."