SpeechAGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. Pleased to be able to make a contribution to this the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill and to put into record why the National Party is not supporting this bill. This is another example of where the sentiment and the solution are just missing each other by a long shot. Government members view any opposition any critique to this bill as an act of mean-spiritedness towards New Zealanders who have lost their jobs as a result of COVID-19. We have stated very clearly on this side of the House that we do support income relief for New Zealanders but not in the haphazard way that has been approached by the Government in this bill.The Government members have been very quick to dismiss our concerns very valid concerns because the Government knows that this bill has holes big enough to jump through which is why they tend to resort to these emotional arguments of caring or uncaring about people who have lost their jobs. The reality of this bill this hastily drafted bill rushed through is that it does create a two-tier system where one group is given—Hon Member: Did you read the bill?AGNES LOHENI: —more than another. Yes I have read the bill.If you happen to lose your job in this arbitrary window of time which is between 1 March and 30 October then you'll be supported more than if you lose your job outside that window. We know that job losses don't happen like that in discrete bundles. Job losses have started much much earlier they're going through now and they're going to continue in waves.There are other hoops to jump through as well to get this entitlement and these sorts of criteria without a full and proper consideration through the parliamentary process through this House will not pick up the very real consequences of how this will affect New Zealanders in one of the most stressful periods of their lives.New Zealanders understand full well when an application of welfare support is not applied fairly. There has been no opportunity—and we would have agreed to a shortened process—for those voices for others in our community to be able to make a contribution to this bill. A temporary measure as has been stated quite clearly from the Government members still has to be applied fairly.It has been interesting to witness the cynicism of the Green Party the handmaidens to their Labour masters as they have abandoned walked away from any principles that they may once have had. They have cynically turned their back on principles.Brett Hudson: They sold their principles out years ago.AGNES LOHENI: They have. They have cynically turned away because they do not want to be seen as standing on the right side of this argument with the National Party.Brett Hudson: They have no principles left to sell.AGNES LOHENI: So may I add—Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I'm fairly confident that the comment just shouted out by Brett Hudson breached Standing Orders and the comment was that certain groups in this House had no more values left to sell.Brett Hudson: I didn't say that. I said principles.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Hudson you know better than to interrupt on a point of order. In my time here it was the only time I've been removed from the Chamber but I'll resist the opportunity to match it with your removal. If the member did make an unparliamentary remark I'd ask him to stand withdraw and apologise.Brett Hudson: Withdraw and apologise. AGNES LOHENI: If I may continue. As the associate spokesperson for Pacific peoples this legislation does not help our Pasifika communities who will be last in line to get this extra $490 payment. We know well that Pasifika communities' unemployment figures are generally at least 10 percent higher than the general population. So how has this been factored in? How has this been factored into this bill? And I point out again there has been no opportunity for a process to allow these sorts of considerations to be factored in to allow other voices to contribute to this bill.Ultimately and I also want to respond to I think it was the member Angie Warren-Clark who stood in the House and spoke on this bill who was deeply disappointed that the National Party weren't going to support this bill. I would say to that member that we would have supported a bill if the Government had given us at least a bit more notice not just the day before; had allowed a bit more of a fuller process a robust process the opportunity to put through our concerns and work constructively with the Government to ensure that we could provide income relief support payment to New Zealanders suffering quite a lot under this crisis and not creating this two-tier system.Look I don't believe the Government means to discriminate but that's what happens when you don't allow a full and proper process in this House. Thank you Madam Speaker.