Robertson Grant; Dean JacquiSecond ReadingHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Revenue: I move That the Taxation (COVID-19 Resurgence Support Payments and Other Matters) Bill be now read a second time.Can I thank all members of the House for engaging constructively in the first reading debate. I'm going to endeavour in this second reading speech to answer some of the questions that were raised as a precursor to doing so again in the committee stages in some more detail because I do acknowledge that there's a number of very relevant and significant points that members have raised and I'll deal with five that I've got written down here and then any others that we don't come up with we'll no doubt have time to deal with in the committee stages.The first of those is the question on the targeting of a payment such as this. We have gone through the process of how to best do that and Mr Woodhouse in his contribution raised some of the I guess integrity concerns that have been raised as we've gone along. And essentially we've looked at all sorts of ideas for targeting. We've looked at targeting sectors. So can we target the hospitality sector who we all acknowledge are significantly impacted by for example a move from level 1 to level 2? Just on Monday morning people that Mr Woodhouse and myself both know were walking into hospitality businesses to reorganise them to separate out tables to prepare themselves for table services to have a single server to bring in extra staff to be able to do that. That's one of the very costs that we're trying to be able to help support through this scheme. But the ability to be able to say Well that's hospo who's mostly affected what about events? What about tourism? What about the suppliers of hospitality businesses?" And the discussion that some of my Cabinet colleagues got very bored with me on last year was: is the petrol station in Wanaka a tourism business? Well you know a petrol station in another part of New Zealand might not be considered a tourism business but quite clearly one in a tourism town is. So these are the issues that we've had to grapple with around being able to target by sector or by region.The one thing we have settled on in this particular payment is size and that relates to the resilience of a larger business that is able to deal more with a move—particularly from level 1 to level 2. We believe that it's smaller businesses who are more likely to require the support. In answer to one of Mr Woodhouse's very specific questions in this regard a business with more than 50 fulltime-equivalents can still apply for this but obviously it's capped at the $21500 and if you are Briscoes or The Warehouse that's not really going to be a major contribution to you. But if they can meet the criteria and prove they have had a 30 percent revenue drop as a result of the lift in alert levels then they would be able to get that money.The second point that has been raised is the question—and I think it's a very valid one—around the assessment of the revenue drop. So we've gone for a seven-day assessment. When this policy was originally promulgated in December last year we had 14 days. Again we were grappling there with the balance between those businesses like hospitality like retail where cash flow is the big issue. And if we had gone for a 14-day time period that would have meant another seven days in which that money was not getting to the business that it needed. We were balancing that against those who would have impacts that might arrive later and that's a very difficult and fine balance and we fell—after discussions with the business community—on the side of seven days because we think that is really the purpose of this: supporting people because of the alert level rise.Just want to be absolutely clear: this scheme is available nationwide. So if we move from level 1 to level 2 anywhere this is available. Similarly the wage subsidy scheme is available whenever any region in New Zealand goes to level 3 or level 4 for more than seven days. Everyone can get it. And we learnt that from last time. Especially Auckland—so many businesses outside Auckland are reliant on either supplying into Auckland or people from Auckland coming to see them. So just to be absolutely clear: this is a payment that happens when we go from level 1 to wherever we go be it level 2 or level 3; after seven days the wage subsidy scheme—level 3 and 4—and available to absolutely everybody.Fourth point that I wanted to make is around the process of the use of Order in Council. This is essentially an order as has been stated by some members. This is the way in which the Tax Administration Act works and so we need to use this system. It's debatable; people will be able to see what we do. The legislative statement has been tabled so people can see how we are planning to run it this time but we also don't want to lock ourselves in if there is a circumstance change that occurs. And for example one of those may be that eventually we listen further to feedback and we say maybe we should go back to the 14-day assessment rather than the seven-day assessment. We would be able to do that through the work of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue rather than having to come back to the House and make an amendment to the bill.And finally just to reiterate that this is amidst a suite of support initiatives. In the last term we introduced the Small Business (Cashflow) Loan Scheme. Over 100000 New Zealand businesses have taken that scheme up. It has been extremely successful in providing people with the working capital that they need for their business. This adds to it. This is about an immediate need in a resurgence. It sits alongside that scheme alongside the business finance guarantee scheme that is finally picking up a bit of momentum and alongside the wage subsidy scheme. In addition we have the short-term leave payment and the leave subsidy scheme as well to support people if they have to take leave from work in order to be tested or on the basis of public health advice. And then the targeted support for areas like tourism. So it sits within the mix. It's something we believe provides an important additional element.My final point in the second reading speech is just to address Mr Seymour's comment around the increase that we're making to the family tax credit. Just to be really clear this does not relate to the $25 per week increase that was done in March last year. This relates to the abatement changes that we're making that come into force on 1 April. So that's about people being able to retain more of the money that they earn if they're on the benefit. So just to clarify for Mr Seymour it relates to that change. I don't believe that'll change Mr Seymour's view on the matter but just to make clear which of the changes this relates to. So I thank members for their contribution I look forward to further discussions in the committee of the House stage and I commend the bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to."