Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm pleased to stand as the first speaker on the Opposition side to speak on the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. I'm not sure that many who are watching this will realise that it is the intention of the Government to put this legislation through all stages under the urgency motion that we are under. The first thing I want to say is that any New Zealander who loses a job absolutely totally should be supported with income support. You know much has been said of the wage subsidy which I think has been an incredibly important part of the response to date: the ability for—especially when businesses in level 4 lockdown and level 3 to a lesser degree in lockdown level 2 have struggled to operate—the wage subsidy getting to people who still needed an income is important. But where the area of disagreement comes in is that we actually don't see that what's proposed here is fair. I want to go through that in quite a lot of detail in this first reading debate because at the end of the day what we are talking about here is a scenario where somebody loses their job and depending on the timing of it gets twice as much as the next person. That's where at the heart of it we don't think that what is proposed is fair. Unfortunately having only seen this bill yesterday morning we haven't really had the chance as we would have liked to have worked with the Government to improve the legislation and to improve the support available. Now one of the things that has been said that I want to put on record first and foremost is that this is what the Government did the previous Government did in the Canterbury earthquake recovery. That's not accurate. It's not accurate and I want to explain that clearly for the House and for those who are watching. In the Canterbury earthquake response there were two packages of support: one was similar to the wage subsidy which has been picked up by the Government which is fantastic. That was in place for a short period of time about eight weeks. Then at the end of that what happened instead was there was a temporary lift for all those on benefit: $50 a week for those single people $80 for a couple. So it is not accurate to say this is exactly the same as what happened in the Canterbury earthquakes. It's not. It's not. What happened after the Canterbury earthquakes is the National-led Government increased benefits for those directly affected in the rebuild and it was a temporary increase related to Christchurch. So it is important to put that on record. One of the things that is incredibly important when we're also looking at this is the group of people that are eligible for this support because I think it is important as part of the context. So this is open to someone who has a partner who is earning up to $100000 a year. Potentially that person who's been made redundant and has lost their job may have been earning a similar amount. So this is a household that's potentially had $150000 to $200000. They've got a redundancy package of $29000 and because they lost their job on 1 March they get twice as much as a person who lost their job on 1 February. I'm sorry but I don't see the fairness in that.So the other thing that I think is important to understand and I'm sure we'll get into questions with the Minister in the second reading is about the timing of this. So the Government had committed to and the Greens have pushed for an overhaul of the welfare system. So which of the 43 recommendations is this? Or as the Minister says is this completely something new that's only because of COVID-19?Hon Tracey Martin: Yeah.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That's—no because actually the Minister in her own answer in question time today also then indicated that this potentially was a permanent change. If it's a permanent change is it part of the overall welfare overhaul? So then does that mean that the Government is committing to a two-tiered benefit system and depending on your circumstances you get a whole lot more on benefit than someone else?So the question is—Hon Tracey Martin: Oh dear. You just want to race to the bottom.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Tracey Martin how is that fair? How is that fair? Hon Tracey Martin: Honourable. Honourable.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: How is that fair? Because actually I don't think it's honourable—Hon Members: Ha ha!Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —and I don't think it's fair to treat two people very separately. The Minister might think it's a joke but I'm sorry—if someone has lost a job recently recently being in the last six months they're not laughing right now. They're not laughing right now. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I don't appreciate being misrepresented by the speaking member in the House. I am not laughing at people losing jobs. Please do not misrepresent me.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What was the point of order? ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon Louise Upston do you want to take the remaining time? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you. Usually in this House when we raise points of order we raise them for a breach in the rules—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): It might be best just to resume your speech.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you Madam Speaker. So it is a challenging topic. It's very challenging you know for people who have lost their job. They absolutely want to know they're going to be supported. And so in terms of support by the State it's also a very relevant and very true question about: are they going to be treated fairly? Unfortunately what we're seeing with this piece of legislation—and I accept that the intent of it is good. I agree with the intent to support people who lose their job through no fault of their own. So some of the measures that have been introduced—for example removing the stand-down period—fantastic; get faster access to support for people who need it. But I have not heard the Minister say why it is fair for two different people in two different circumstances—one person gets twice as much as the next. So as I said it is not the same as what was done in the Canterbury earthquakes. I think it's important to put that on record. We are going to go through all stages of this bill tonight. But I do want to know given this is you know a $590 million commitment why was this then not about saving jobs? The Minister will well know that it is much easier to keep someone in a job than to get them into a new one. And so you know in terms of supporting people at a really challenging difficult time in their life actually it's better if they don't lose that job in the first place. So the $590 million in terms of investing that in saving a job would have been a far better option than what's being proposed here. Sadly you know maybe it is a reflection of the fact that the Reserve Bank today have come out and said this is the worst economic hit in 160 years. And they've come out and said that potentially the number unemployed is twice what was in Treasury documents a week ago and that's 18 percent. I don't want to talk about 18 percent; I want to talk about the individual who wants to be able to put a roof over their own head and food on the table for them and their family. And in a time of need no matter what that time is whether it was December last year whether it was because of COVID in the middle of March and because of the extension of the lockdown and the ability for a business to open again you know they should be supported equally. On this side it is very clear for us the fact that we need to support people in their time of need. We need to support them to get back into a position where they are in the driver's seat of their own lives. As Professor Peter Gluckman said before the Epidemic Response Committee it is actually giving people agency. It's giving people agency over their lives and that's what you know we're all committed to. But actually it should be done on an equal basis and there should be fair treatment. So there will be other contributions that I will make as the evening goes on but I do want to finish on the question of: why wasn't this included in the Budget? Why wasn't this included and referred to a select committee like other COVID-related Budget legislation so at least even in a short period of time there was the opportunity to be constructive helpful and for the public to have a say? Thank you.