Severin ToniTONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this Income Insurance Scheme (Enabling Development) Bill. To me this is an if" bill—if we want an income insurance bill. So why are we rushing this framework through in this Government's Budget? Oh that's right: they need to find a price tag of $2.2 million to be able to have the framework in place for this if we're going to have an income insurance scheme. Yes it's great that it has a sunset clause so if it isn't in place by 31 March 2025 it's not going to go ahead. So I'm looking forward to being in the next year's Government and this will definitely not be going ahead. However I foresee this Government squeezing it through probably in the next—what?—6 or 12 months if not sooner.This Government with this bill has given the lovely middle-class people the average workers that you so much want to look after and we want to look after—we created an alternative Budget that would give people much more money in their pockets than $350 for just a short period of time. So if this bill comes through well there's still an extra $350 and this had to come out of their wages so that leaves less money in their pay packet and every cent costs for the low and average income people.Also you say it's horrible for people that can't find a job within their skills if they're made redundant and they have to take a lesser role. Well I wouldn't say that to my good friend that had to do that last year because she was made unemployed. She says "No I have got a university degree. I cleaned toilets and showers when I was at university. What is the difference now? It is money. I can feed my family." Her husband was also made redundant because he worked within the tourism industry. Did they sit down and go "Oh woe is me there is no job."? They took jobs that they can do and a lot of New Zealanders do it.Also now my friend has the ability to go back to school and learn as well. But they took a job. It's not the greatest job. It doesn't represent what their skills are. But also—and I know you'll probably call out at me—airline pilots: yes some of them may have had money put aside but not all of them would have had money in their bank accounts because of family housing; however how many of them had to change their career last year as well because of being made unemployed?So really this whole scheme is a framework for "if" but it's probably more likely that it will be and all it's going to do is just create more hassles also for ACC which is not doing its core job properly. There are people out there that are not getting their cases heard properly and are fighting ACC.And then to the Privacy Act. Oh gee wow how many more agencies are going to have to be linked into this bill? I believe there have to be at least four more agencies or three more that aren't even talking to ACC. So when we're sharing private information you know it's a bit scary when ACC's already had one leak in sharing information let alone other leaks.So as we're saying the cost of living is in crisis for many many people and if this "if" bill which this bill is the framework for comes through it's not fair on those people. It is not fair for the New Zealanders who are battling every day just to go and do their grocery shop to pay their rent and those who have got mortgages with their interest rates that keep going up. Yes it may sound great to help those that are made redundant for a period of time but small businesses at this stage are still screaming out for employers. We cannot find employees. We need more people willing to take jobs as a stepping stone as well. How many of us have not had the perfect job for the first time or a second time when we had to take what we could get so that we could live? I don't see that being a problem; I see that as being a good Kiwi that's working hard to feed themselves feed their family and get ahead even if it's not the job or the job of their skills.So if this framework as we're saying is going ahead it is totally unfair on the employees in New Zealand especially when the Nats here said it was going to cost an extra thousand dollars a year and if this comes in while they're still getting the $350 as an extra that's not going to go very far. And then you also want to put it on to the small businesses. Well small businesses are already stretched and this is where this comes into reality. So a small business has to pay this as well and the small business also has to give pay increases. So that means the small business will then be raising their prices and who do they put those prices on to? The average New Zealander. So it's a big money roundabout and nobody is going to get ahead. This bill as I say is just the framework for an "if" bill but it's probably not going to be an "if" bill; it's probably going to be a bill that we will be sitting here debating in probably less than six months.It's just—you know why now? And also why are we standing here on a Friday morning rushing all these bills through? I'm pretty certain that this could have been sneaked out a little bit sooner so that we could have at least had a little bit more time to take it to select committee to nut this framework out and just make sure especially around the data sharing and how private that's really going to be.So I stand here in opposition to this—where is the bill name; here it is—Income Insurance Scheme (Enabling Development) Bill. As I said it is the beginning of the "if" bill—if we have an income insurance scheme which is going to cost $2.2 million just to get it going. So ACT opposes this bill."