edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Sepuloni CarmelThird ReadingHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I move That the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.In the face of COVID-19 this Government has proven our ability to respond quickly and undertake unprecedented measures to protect the jobs and income of New Zealanders. Can I acknowledge the efforts of our public servants during this time. Our expectations of them have been huge. My own ministry has stepped up; they rolled out a wage subsidy that has so far gone to around 1.7 million New Zealanders. They have also put their hand up to be able to roll out this very important temporary income relief payment to be income. I do want to acknowledge all the efforts of the public servants who are behind the scenes.The introduction of the COVID-19 income relief payment is really another timely response in a crisis. This payment is intended as short-term assistance to soften the shock of unemployment and minimise disruption for people as they seek to re-enter the workforce or look toward further upskilling and training. The bill contains technical amendments that support the COVID-19 income relief payment to be available from 8 June 2020.This bill amends the definition of income in the Social Security Act 2018 so that the COVID-19 income relief payment is considered income when assessing people's entitlement to further support from the Ministry of Social Development. This ensures fairness across our benefit system. This bill will not change how any other types of payments or income are treated. I also want to make it clear that this amendment is time-limited. It will automatically be repealed once the COVID-19 Income Relief Payment Programme is revoked and not replaced. As I mentioned earlier the intent of this relief payment is to assist New Zealanders at a time of crisis. This is why the supporting bill needs to come into force on 8 June 2020 so we can support New Zealanders in rebuilding together.Can I thank the New Zealand Green Party and New Zealand First for supporting with this particular bill and all my colleagues from Labour. Can I express my disappointment to the other side of the House that they have chosen not to support this very important temporary measure that is being put in place to assist New Zealanders who lose jobs during this COVID-19 context. When we look across to other countries and see what is happening with respect to unemployment Mr Speaker then it—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): You're welcome to call me Madam Speaker.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Madam Speaker. It heightens the urgency for us. I think on so many occasions what we have seen from this Government is that we have acted quickly. We went hard; we went fast. We continue to be nimble. Our ministries and our public servants have been incredibly agile and we are responding as we go at a pace that I think is fair to say is faster than many others have been able to do in other relative countries. So this is an important bill today. This is an important measure and I commend this bill to the House.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Sure. Thank you Madam Chair and thank you to the honourable member Alfred Ngaro for the question. It's quite broad but I will answer it anyway. We will continue to be transparent about numbers—we have been with the wage subsidy; we have been with benefit numbers throughout the lockdown period. I asked the ministry to move towards weekly reporting during this time because I thought it would be in the public interest. We will make sure that the numbers that are accessing the job loss cover will be released publicly as well because it is in the public interest. Now they're not counted as benefit but clearly they are job losses and so they will give us a clear indication of how many people are actually losing jobs and that is what we do need to continue to monitor as a country. So I can guarantee to the member that as soon as we are able to start publicly releasing information on the numbers of New Zealanders who are accessing the job loss cover relief payment then we will certainly be doing that.
SpeechHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Just a brief question if I may. It's just picking up on the comments from the Minister in regards to the learnings in regards to Part 2 Transitional savings and related provisions". I seek clarification: in the learnings will those that then access this income relief package be counted in the benefit numbers or will they be counted differently? So just to get clarification on how that fits because if it's income then it's tax related and therefore there could be a different place of measuring and monitoring that. So if I could just seek clarification as to how the Minister is seeking to identify—as you know the Ministry of Social Development does have these stats and we record benefit numbers that come through in the different categories. So I just want to seek some clarification from the Minister.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Can I just say that that's quite wide of the mark of Part 2 but in the spirit of conversation that the House has agreed to I'd welcome the Minister's response."
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): As I said earlier we have lifted benefits. We did that on 1 April. That is separate from this. This is a temporary measure that has been put in place. I think that the member is referring to an article written by Max Rashbrooke that laid out that this could be taken as a kind of road map for some of the changes that he thinks need to be made in the welfare system overall and I think that's a very interesting point of view. But this is not part of the overhaul. This is a measure put in place temporarily to respond to the situation. Will there potentially be some learnings from this or something that we want to take forward? Potentially yes and as I said the Government is exploring social insurance schemes which in some instances look like this the difference being though this is temporary—can I say it is temporary. It is 12 weeks. And yes I don't know how I can respond to that any more fulsomely than I already have.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): So just following on from that point though because there's been a lot of comment and we heard in earlier readings from the Green Party around those that are not eligible for this that are already on a benefit. And—it's not my intention to misrepresent the Greens—some of the commentary around this bill implies that this is a part of the welfare overhaul a step towards permanently lifting incomes and this is stage one. So the Minister for Social Development has obviously refuted that and said there is no intention to lift benefits permanently using this mechanism and I just want to check in in terms of this Schedule that my understanding's correct.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Just I guess going back to the question around it being scheduled to end and thus be revoked in February 2021. I think I responded to that query when Simon O'Connor was asking. It came as part of advice from the Ministry of Social Development based on their experience with the Canterbury earthquakes and the job loss cover that was put in place at that time. At that time the job loss cover was put in place for six weeks and then extended for two weeks. So the ministry thought that it was appropriate to advise that a revocation date should be put out to a later stage—a few months later—just to ensure there is that leeway if the decision was to be made to extend it. Now I need to again articulate the fact that there is no intention at this point; however that was thought to be the responsible thing to do based on the experience of the Ministry of Social Development with the previous job loss cover that was put in place under the previous Government.The member Louise Upston has asked whether or not I feel that this temporary income relief payment is part of our overhaul programme: no. This is a temporary measure. However I have acknowledged and I do acknowledge the fact that recommendation 37 in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group's report does recommend that we look at putting a policy in place that responds to those who are displaced from work and made redundant—not just financial support but also much more active support with respect to support for getting into employment or upskilling and training. So that is something that was asked of us and so we have signalled that we will look at a social insurance scheme of some sort moving forward. This is not the one. It is not part of the overhaul. It is a temporary measure we have to put in place to respond to the job losses that will come about unfortunately because of COVID-19.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to start coming back to the comment around the revocation date being February. And obviously as the programme has outlined eligibility is 31 October and applications till 12 November. So if there is no plan to extend why is the revocation February? And that's just a follow-up to my colleague Simon O'Connor's question.But the substantive part of my question around Part 2 in the committee stage is just wanting absolute clarity because the Minister's talked a lot about the welfare overhaul and the Greens have also talked about the fact that you know a significant part of their commitment and their agreement with the Labour Party in Government is around the overhaul of the welfare system. So does the Minister believe that this initiative is part of the welfare overhaul or not?
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I think really the point that I need to make—and this is relevant Madam Chair I promise you. In the Canterbury earthquake situation when the Ministry of Social Development has reported to me on what happened there there was also the extension of that programme. So it was a monitor as you go situation - type thing. This does give leeway for an extension. That's not our intention but advice from the officials based on their experience with the previous Government and the job loss cover that was put in place—they thought that that was a measure that should be put here given that their previous experience showed that it was necessary to extend. So our intention is not to extend; however the leeway is there if that decision was to be made.
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): An ultra-quick follow-up and thank you to the Minister for Social Development for outlining absolutely this new Schedule is about how it is repealed. But in clause 80 subclause 1 the addition of those two words not replace" implies that it could be replaced. In other words had officials or the drafters said "This clause takes effect"—as in the repeal—"when the COVID-19 Income Relief Payment Programme is revoked."—if it was written that way Minister it's very clear that this will end period. The fact that drafters have chosen to put in two more words "not replaced" instantly implies that it could be replaced. So I suppose my question is: is there an openness for Government to replace this programme under what I might point out is enormous powers granted to Government to define what is and isn't COVID related?"
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I might give a bit of a kind of broad explanation of this Part and then hopefully it responds to the member's questions in some way—and if not then we can try again. But I think just to outline what the Part does Part 2 does ensure that it is temporary. Clause 6 I think inserts new Part 4 into Schedule 1 of the Social Security Act 2018 which outlines transitional savings and related provisions. By adding clause 80 to Schedule 1 of the principal Act this bill ensures that the legislative amendments made through the above clauses 4 and 5 are temporary as they will be repealed when the COVID-19 income relief payment programme is revoked and not replaced. This will happen automatically when it is scheduled to end and thus be revoked in February 2021. The reasoning for this is that the amendments will become redundant once there is no longer a COVID-19 income relief payment programme. Adding clause 81 to Schedule 1 ensures that the Ministry of Social Development having treated the COVID-19 income relief payment as income for benefit purposes will not be made unlawful by the repeal. This ensures that this can be only COVID-related.
O'Connor SimonPart 2 Transitional savings and related provisionsSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I'm going to get in trouble with my colleague now; I've been too fast. Hey thanks very much. Effectively Part 2 as it indicates—well it's only one actual clause but fortunately it refers to a schedule. I just love schedules. This one's a new Part 4 mainly to do with repealing.Look my fundamental question to the Minister is around whether or not this will continue—whether there is actually an intention to repeal. Why that's important is that we've been told repeatedly that this is a very specific temporary measure but the language—and I just love the English language—in both Part 1 and now in Part 2 through the new Schedule implies that actually a change could be coming. So when we look at what will be new clause 80 under Part 4 in the Schedule it says This clause takes effect when … [let's say the] Programme is revoked and not replaced." The way that that is phrased Minister implies that there is actually an intention to replace to bring about change. And it also echoes out of Part 1 when we're looking at clause 4. It says "if that programme is revoked a programme"—and it goes on to describe another one that's possible. So the bill is giving a lot of leeway for want of a better word by the use of language that another programme could be developed.Yourself Minister your colleagues have been quite clear this is a temporary programme. It's particularly designed to manage the management of the outbreak and the lockdown. But as I say is there some intention or at least even an openness from Government to continue some sort of income relief payment programme into the future be it this one or something with a different name? Because again when you look at the Schedule and what will be clause 80 if this bill passes it talks about the programme being—"and not replaced" so even just saying "not replaced" is an immediate implication that there is a chance that something will be in play. So really I'm just looking to see whether the Minister intends to bring something in or as I suspect she can't or won't answer that is there at least an openness from Government to continue some sort of programme moving into the future?"
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I think I have answered it and I wonder whether the member maybe wasn't in the Chamber when I did respond to it. We started to see the greater impacts of COVID-19 in March and we have to make determinations as a Government about where we start and stop something like this—a welfare programme. Again I reject the fact that this is a two-tier system. This is a welfare programme that is being put into place to respond to the situation that we are in and there are precedents for that happening previously as I've already referred to multiple times in the House.The point that that member Tim Macindoe is making about a programme like this being a burden on the taxpayer—can I just remind that member that anyone who loses a job during COVID-19 has been paying taxes—Hon Tim Macindoe: The Minister should not misquote me. I talked about investing in business to keep them off unemployment.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: —and we pay taxes in this country to ensure—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Hang on hang on. Just let the Minister finish. You have an opportunity to come back.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We pay taxes that the Government then makes decisions with—decisions that are based on the best interest of New Zealanders. And so those that have been paying taxes at this point in time who have lost jobs are needing support. So that is a good use of taxpayer money as far as I'm concerned. What we want to do is make sure that we are not only providing financial assistance but alongside that we have also boosted our employment support so we can continue to work with them to support them into employment where that is possible or upskilling and training opportunities as I've already mentioned and that's another area where we saw a significant boost in this year's Budget.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Firstly I'm going to reject the premise of the statement. It's not a two-tier welfare system. This is an initiative that we're putting in place to respond to an unprecedented event. I can't reiterate or say this enough in the House that globally people are losing their jobs en masse because of COVID-19. And so we had to think through what our response would be. Obviously our initial response as I said was benefit increases double the winter energy payment and roll out very quickly a wage subsidy scheme—a wage subsidy scheme that was intended to keep people attached to their place of work and that was intended to support businesses to be able to continue to pay their employees and to assist them with covering that overhead which is a big part of what they spend money on during a time where we knew that they were going to lose revenue and they were going to drop in productivity because of the impacts of COVID-19.So the wage subsidy has been relatively successful. In fact I saw some preliminary results from a survey that we put out and a large number was still saying that at this point they don't think that they will need to lay off people. We want that to continue; however there will be job losses. So this is why this needs to be put in place.It was raised again about it not going to select committee. I just have to remind the member that welfare programmes of this nature just like the—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We don't need to go there.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We don't need to go there again? OK. So Madam Chair thinks I've traversed that enough and I think I've responded to the questions.The point around discrimination—the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act analysis that came back clears us on this. This is not the first time as I said that this has been done. It doesn't claim that we are discriminating in any way. We're putting an initiative in place to respond to our context right now to support New Zealanders that are going to be in hardship because they may lose jobs during a very difficult time when it's going to be hard to navigate the employment space. And so that is what we are doing here and I reject the allegation that we are discriminating. We will continue to keep our programme of work going around the welfare overhaul which is well under way but there is more to do. But this is a measure where we need to respond to our context right now.
SpeechHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Madam Chair and firstly can I thank you for the way in which process is being conducted. I also acknowledge the Minister for Social Development for her willingness to respond quickly to different questions that have been put to her. I think that this is very useful and I strongly endorse the comments of my colleague the Hon Louise Upston a moment ago that actually this is vital because the public have not had their chance to make submissions on this bill and therefore it is incumbent on those of us who are in the House this morning to be doing the job that I think would be happening in the select committee.So I acknowledge the Minister for the fact that she's willing to engage in this process in the way that she has. I was concerned with one of her answers a while ago when she said she really didn't know the details of that and that particular response made me think Well if the Minister's not in total control of all of the detail then we are dealing with a measure that is possibly a little bit half-baked. I've got a series of questions. A couple of them have already been asked by my colleagues so I'll try to cherry-pick and I think they are all relevant to Part 1 Madam Chair but I'm sure—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'll tell you if they're not.Hon TIM MACINDOE: —you'll let me know if they're not. My colleague Simon O'Connor asked a very important question I think about what the power was to create effectively a new type of benefit and whether it was the Government's intention and I don't believe the Minister has adequately answered this. So I do just want to put it in this way. There is no question that this bill is creating a new type of beneficiary and it does create a two-tier system that of course has been the subject of much of the concern that's been expressed to us at least by members of the public. So I would like to ask her directly—and I'm happy to sit down at this point if she wants to answer this one otherwise I'll go on to another couple of questions—whether it was her intention to create a two-tier system of beneficiaries and how if it was does she justify creating a system that is so blatantly discriminatory and unfair. If she's happy to answer I'll sit down."
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I just need to remind the House that actually with the Canterbury job loss cover it didn't come to the House at all. There was no legislation for it. It went through as a welfare programme. So similar to this it's not going to a select committee there is urgency and the timing has been addressed. That is why we need to do this. It's not something that can be delayed so we're not delaying it.The member Louise Upston has asked about fairness with respect to those that might be made redundant during the COVID-19 period versus someone that was made redundant a year ago and that the person now may be eligible for this job loss cover despite the fact that their partner is earning up to $100000 per year whereas the person made redundant last year wouldn't have been given the same access to this type of scheme. That's true. This is a scheme that we're putting in place to address an unprecedented event. However we've also been very clear that as a Government we will be exploring the option of social insurance for those that lose jobs moving forward. It is something that exists across OECD countries. It was a recommendation recommendation 37 in the expert advisory group's report on welfare so it is something that we will explore further and we are interested in looking at. And actually the Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand have both lobbied us to ask us to look at putting something like that in place. So it's not a permanent fixture of our welfare system. This is temporary. We've done it pretty much twice before with the most similar example being following the Canterbury earthquakes. But yes I think we should be exploring whether or not we have social insurance moving forward. That is something that New Zealanders who lose jobs despite being in relationships are able to access whilst they look for other forms of employment or alternative employment or they look to take on upskilling and training so that they can find that employment.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm interested in that further because one of the clear differences between the two was with the job loss cover lots of people physically couldn't get to their job or they physically couldn't contact their employer. I know the Minister for Social Development isn't making an assertion that the circumstances are the same. One of the comments that the Minister made in the earlier contribution was the fact that this was New Zealand wide was a reason why all benefits weren't lifted as opposed to Canterbury which was localised.So in terms of the issue of fairness we've traversed the issue of date: this is a COVID-19 income relief payment to be income and those that are made redundant in February as opposed to those who lose their job in May are going to be treated differently and in the National Party's view unfairly. And the second part of it is then those that were made redundant a year ago weren't eligible for this $100000 partner limit and nor were they eligible for the level of redundancy that is now in place. So they are significant issues around fairness that I think the Minister still needs to answer.And so in terms of this income relief bill this is the committee stage and I also just want to make sure given that this is progressing through all stages in urgency—the committee of the whole House would normally be bringing in the views of the public and those that had the chance to submit and they don't have the opportunity to submit in this process to raise the very questions in this House. So the Minister might shake her head in terms of why the Opposition continues to ask questions but actually no one else gets the chance to—no one else gets the chance to. The question around then the process of this legislation—so there's the timing and the unfairness question; now I'm moving on to a question of process and timing around when this policy was created and why it wasn't included in the Budget legislation where at least it would have gone to the Epidemic Response Committee for a week had the ability for scrutiny and had the ability for the public and all of the stakeholder groups that I know the Minister hears from on a frequent basis to have their view in terms of the fairness of this income support package.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just before the Minister answers I am giving latitude for discussion of the actual programme itself and the details of the programme because it hasn't been to a select committee and there hasn't been the opportunity for other people to ask those questions. I think that's reasonable. But I think the argument about the timing and the urgency—I think we've had that through the first and second readings. So I think in fairness the first line of questioning is reasonable but the second line—I think we've had that a lot through the first and second readings.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I'll respond to an earlier question from the member first and that was with respect to how we set the $30000 redundancy limit. Previously when the Government put into place the post - global financial crisis package—under the previous Government—there was a redundancy amount then set at $25000. So it's been adjusted for inflation but is in line with what has been done before.Secondly with respect to timing again it is that issue of when you are faced with an unprecedented event then you have to make decisions around the time frame in which you will allow a temporary measure like this to operate. The point raised by the Hon Louise Upston could also have been applied in the Canterbury earthquake situation where people were given job loss cover that was at a greater rate than benefit but the person who may have lost their job the week before the earthquake had occurred would've received less. I think that responds to it. You have to make decisions around time frames. This is temporary—it is temporary; I don't know how to explain that any further—and it is very very similar to what was put in place under the previous Government.I do need to reiterate I can't find anywhere any opposition from the Opposition party—that was Labour and the Greens at that time—to that measure being put in place then. So I am surprised that there's opposition on this now.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to come back to the question of timing. My electorate in Taupō is heavily affected by the forestry industry—it is one of the top three industries—as I know are other parts of the country: Tai Rāwhiti for example. The forestry industry absolutely was affected in February when the borders with China were closed and these are large numbers of workers. One of the comments that the Minister for Social Development made in the House yesterday was about looking at ways to make the welfare system fairer. I want to just dig into this issue of timing a bit more and ask the question of the Minister: how is it fair that a forestry worker in Tokoroa for example who was made redundant in February will get standard jobseeker benefit and someone maybe who works in a retail store somewhere else or works in a law firm who was made redundant in May gets twice that amount?
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): That was not a consideration. That was outside the scope of this. As I said the civil defence emergency management supports are in place. We'll continue to monitor the situation though; but for now the support for food for accommodation and for any hardship that people may be experiencing is there.
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Just wanting to return very—well still in Part 1 of course. I'm wanting to touch on a couple of points if I might. The first is still just coming back to that fundamental question around the Minister for Social Development's powers. I really want to stress that it's not a question of whether the Government agrees or not; I suppose it's just wanting to get absolutely clear in my head. I assume it's in section 101 of the Social Security Act that the Minister effectively has the ability to create any new categories within the social development space as in this case she sees fit. Again I just want to stress to the Minister that I'm not trying to make an overtly political point here; it's just trying to understand for the sake of the committee that in any Government red or blue coalition or otherwise a Minister—obviously with the approval of Cabinet—can in effect create a whole new category.What then does become a political point—and picking up a little bit on what Alfred Ngaro has said—is: seeing this is an amendment bill was there not a chance within the substantive amendment part to insert some support for migrants? It possibly is outside the scope of the bill because this is very much and particularly related to the income relief payment but it is making a number of exceptions particularly around the notion of income so a question of whether the Minister may have considered a further clause around migrants. So I actually just might leave it there—I think those questions are related—and come back to a few more.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): The same rules apply with respect to who can access this as does for anything within our welfare system—so it is New Zealand citizens and it is permanent residents. With respect to the issues that have been raised by the member Alfred Ngaro this is not a package that's been put in place to support people here on work permits or who are foreign stranded nationals. However I will say that through the injection of I think it was $30 million to the civil defence emergency management (CDEM) efforts that the support is in place for anyone who is a New Zealander or not a New Zealander who may be experiencing hardship because of COVID-19. It is not just support from CDEM for food; if they need support with respect to accommodation because they are experiencing hardship or other supports then they can get that through the CDEM efforts. So I think that responds to that member's question.
SpeechHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I do appreciate and acknowledge the comments that the Minister for Social Development has made in regards to the scope and the breadth and dealing with some of the complexities. My question to the Minister is just in regards to whether she had had any conversations in regards to migrant workers. And in particular I made comments last night from the chief executive of the Community Law centres who talked about the disappointment that she had in regards to the ability and the opportunity to meet migrant workers' needs that were there. So just a question to the Minister: has she had any representation and if so was there any response in this current scope? If not does the Minister perceive there have been other conversations in other areas but particularly to this particular bill? Has there been any conversation to cover—and as I quote from some of the comments that she has made—particularly in regards the income loss that these workers may have had? And in regards to that migrant workers I'd imagine would also include Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workers as well on the RSE scheme. So in the scope of who is able to apply—and under this current scheme as I understand it they're not—if that's the case why not? And what advice did she take in that regard?
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I think I have responded to—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Sorry if I just interrupt. I'm sorry. I don't understand why my timer is not working in the House. So just to let you know that I'm using the timer. Are you using the timer? OK well that's fine. Carry on.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I feel that I've responded to the income threshold question. As I said it's aligned very closely with the thresholds for eligibility to supplementary supports so that is the response. For the member I'll try and work through. So the timing in terms of why 1 March is because it was really in March that we started to see the impacts of this. There do have to be decisions made on time frames for anything that we put into place in this House. So that was the call that Cabinet has made. I think it was a responsible call and we've put it up to the end of October.Obviously we are hoping—like I'm sure that side of the House is—that we will not feel the impacts in terms of job losses to the extent that many other countries are feeling it. But we have been given forecasts by Treasury that are dim so for now we are responding as we go to the needs of New Zealanders and particularly here with respect to those that may lose jobs in light of what is happening.I was asked by the member why no temporary benefit increases. I just need to remind the committee that on 1 April we did increase benefits across the board. The last benefit increase was put in place by the previous Government—I acknowledge that. That benefit increase was only for those with children. We made the decision to actually extend that to all beneficiaries. One of the big rationales for that was actually when I looked at the numbers and I realised we would miss 136000 people who have a health condition or disability but do not have children then clearly there was an argument to extend that benefit increase. We also not only lifted benefits but for this year because of the stresses that New Zealand is going to be under and the concern that we had for our most vulnerable did double the winter energy payment. The additional benefit to that—primarily it is that people who are on the lowest incomes will be better off—the additional impact of that is the economic stimulus impact which is also very important during these times. I think from memory it was a $2.8 billion injection. We know that people on the lowest income spend that money so it is an effective way to actually stimulate the economy. So it did serve more than one purpose and in response to the member we did do it.I know that with Canterbury following their job loss cover which was a smaller time frame—as I said six weeks and then extended for two—they did top up benefits for those affected in that area. We are talking about not a regional event; we are talking about a global pandemic with global impacts and obviously nationwide impacts for us as a country. So the scale of this is much larger and that's reflected in the job loss cover that we have put in place here.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. So it is interesting in terms of that $100000 limit because what we're looking at is a household that potentially had twice that amount going into this issue of a loss of job and I want to be clear in terms of the lines of questioning. This side of the House absolutely agrees that people need income support during a time of crisis. We agree that this is a crisis unlike any other and that's why yesterday in my contributions—and this morning—I've asked the question about why isn't it that there is an across-the-board benefit increase for a temporary period of time for every beneficiary which is what was done in Canterbury. So it's not about the actual job loss; it's the decisions around what those thresholds are.Also a second line of questioning once the Minister for Social Development has got answers from the officials on the redundancy one is around timing. Lots of comparisons have been made with Canterbury and around timing Canterbury was obviously a date—an earthquake—that everybody could attach to. This comes in on 1 March and operates for six months but as we know there are people who lost their job—and if this is only COVID-related there are people who lost their job prior to that.Stuart Smith: Lockdown related.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yep and as my colleague quite rightly said it's the decisions around how the lockdown occurred that has had the greatest impact on the number of job losses. So level 4 absolutely not much disagreement right? Except for the fact that Australia was able to have a number of industries open that New Zealand couldn't. But you know if we roll forward and say because the time frame is up till the end of October there will be more people that lose their jobs that'll be a result of level 2 level 1 whenever. So the time frames is another question that I want answers from the Minister on. Why was it that time frame? What will happen if someone as we've stated cases in this House yesterday lost their job in February as a result of the borders with China closing?So my questions are still around income thresholds and around timing and why those decisions were made and the third question is around why the benefits haven't been lifted for everybody that receives a benefit. Why is it that those who come on to the benefit for this six-month period of time get twice as much?
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): The threshold with respect to the partner's income was assessed around basically the threshold for what people can earn before they stop being able to access accommodation supplement and then also Working for Families. So that was the roundabout alignment. With respect to redundancy I'm going to ask my officials because I can't recall off the top of my head what the basis of that decision was. So I can get information on that shortly.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to follow my colleague's line of questioning because some of where this comes in—the decisions that Cabinet have made that are being enacted by this particular piece of legislation—one of the areas is for example the $100000 partner income limit the redundancy package limit and you know why it was that the Canterbury earthquake policy where every beneficiary had an increase to their benefit limits who were directly affected by the earthquake wasn't considered. So I'm particularly interested in this first line of questioning around the $30000 redundancy package and the $100000 partner income—first of all in terms of eligibility because that is the group that's affected and you know basically this piece of legislation then enables that change—and then I'll have other lines of questioning I'll wish to pursue.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): This is not an individual Minister making a decision here; this is Cabinet approved. So it has gone through Cabinet. It has been supported by our coalition partner also supported by our confidence and supply partner and it has gone through Cabinet. The legislation has been drafted—hence what we are debating today that is on the Table.Simon O'Connor: What's the power though?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The power is the power of Cabinet to make decisions around how we spend money and the measures that we will put in place to address and respond to COVID-19.
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thanking the Minister for Social Development—thank you; that's actually appreciated. Again acknowledging what this bill does around effectively a change of income is the Minister able to explain to the committee—because I think it's useful on record—and probably the public then the powers that the Minister is using in order to bring about the actual welfare payments. I think it's probably a useful decision—you're using an Order in Council or a regulation. I mean that is the substantive part and I think it would be useful for the committee to understand how an almost $600 million payment is to be generated. In effect it sounds that the Minister has the power in this case in her own right to develop that and as a consequence also have to pass a piece of legislation to in this case define it as income. So if we could put it more broadly does the Minister of Social Development have in effect huge power just to declare a whole new set of—[Interruption] Yeah sorry I'm not as up to speed as others who may be here.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Just in response to the questions from the member Simon O'Connor—actually before I respond to the questions I might just speak more broadly to what this bill does. From the speech that was just given I get a sense that the Opposition may want to go down the track of debating the actual relief payment but this is not to establish the COVID-19 income relief payment as that will be established by a welfare programme approved by me as the Minister for Social Development which is what happened in reference to the Canterbury earthquake job loss cover. It was actually established via a welfare programme as well.Expediency is very important at these times as was the case following the Christchurch earthquakes. Obviously we are in a period where there are going to be job losses unfortunately at a much larger scale than we have seen previously potentially so we need to put the relief payment in place as quickly as possible. So the bill ensures that the COVID-19 income relief payment can be treated as income for the purposes of income-tested assistance paid under the Social Security Act 2018. This includes payments such as the accommodation supplement. The bill amends the definition of income" in the Social Security Act 2018 to ensure that the relief payment is considered income when assessing people's entitlement to further income support from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). This includes but is not limited to the accommodation supplement the disability allowance and special needs grants. This includes assistance that MSD administers which may not sit in the Social Security Act but uses the Schedule 3 definition including community services cards and the residential care subsidy. So it is really important to clarify that we're not trying to set up the relief payment via this particular bill. We're actually just setting it up so that we can treat it as income.There were a couple of other questions I think that were asked by the member. I think I've responded to the question around why the actual payment was not set up as a separate piece of legislation. And that is because we could do it through a welfare programme as was done with the job loss cover following the Canterbury earthquakes as I said. Is this the same as the job loss cover that was given after the Canterbury earthquakes? Very similar. The difference as was mentioned was the time period. The one following the Canterbury earthquake was six weeks and then extended for another two weeks. This is 12 weeks. And then the other difference is that the one following the Canterbury earthquakes was not treated as income in the same way as we are doing here."
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh thank you Madam Chair. Look I'm actually really pleased that we're going to be focusing in on particular parts. I think that when we are scrutinising in the committee stage it's always actually incredibly important in and of itself but it's doubly if not triply so when it comes to a bill that's rushing through urgency and a bill that look rightly the Opposition has pointed—not the Opposition. Sorry that's a bit of a prophecy. Hon Member: Flashback.SIMON O'CONNOR: Actually it could be a flashback as well thank you. But no in all seriousness the Government was pointing out that this is actually not a very lengthy bill; however what it is enabling is in itself quite substantial including almost $600 million of spending. What this is doing: Part 1 of course is amending schedules in the primary Social Security Act. I suppose one of the first questions I wouldn't mind the Minister for Social Development answering is: I completely understand why this is the legislative way through but with something that is arguably as financially substantive as this why were we not putting it as a separate piece of legislation? Again that's not taking away from the very fact that this enables what the Minister wants but I suppose it's just been part of the confusion even if I admit from this side that very technical changes are bringing about rather substantial consequences. I would certainly like her to address the question that we've been told and it applies I suppose to all parts but equally to Part 1 which is substantive. We've been told in the previous debates that this is the same as what happened in Canterbury. I suppose there are two questions there. One: is this an exact replica and if so were we not just able to tap that or was there obviously a sunset clause in the previous one? I wouldn't mind her addressing too just to clarify for the House I think Canterbury was a six-week scheme and this is a 12-week scheme. I know it's minor but we've had many many discussions arguments and debates in the House particularly last night saying that this bill is exactly the same as what happened in Canterbury. So three initial questions there if I might.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions of this bill to be taken as one part.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that? There is.Part 1 Substantive amendments
SpeechWEDNESDAY 27 MAY 2020(continued on Thursday 28 May 2020)SOCIAL SECURITY (COVID-19 INCOME RELIEF PAYMENT TO BE INCOME) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Mōrena. Talofa lava everyone. The House is in committee on the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. For those of you who are new to the level 2 seating arrangements for committee of the whole House I am in the Chair but I'm remaining here so that we can keep some safe distances and the Minister remains and speaks from their seat. I remind members that the House has also agreed to trial the removal of your four-call limit in the committee stage. So I encourage you to keep your contributions focused—five minutes is not a target—and relevant to promote good interaction with the Minister in the chair. If you've seen it in the past we've had the ability then to take short calls asking a question in interaction with the Minister. You can be safe in the knowledge then that you can take a number of short calls.
Tuesday 16 June 2020 (continued on Wednesday 17 June 2020) - Volume 746
Arms Legislation Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 & 2