SpeechHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Madam Speaker thank you. I wouldn't call the comments churlish on this side but I do know the freedom of the House is for members to make comments as they wish. I would say that on this side of the House we are in agreement with that the what" in what we're trying to do here—to be able to support those in need—is not in question. It's about how we go about that.The Minister made some comments during the committee stage which talked about the fact that in comparison to what was done in the Christchurch earthquakes there was no bill before the House because it was a policy change that was implemented to meet the need. So if that was the case then the question is: why wasn't there just a policy change to implement the need? As I listened quite carefully to the Minister's comments what became quite clear is that income insurance is an ideology and a potential way of looking into the future. We agree with the sentiment around the fact that we want to protect those New Zealanders like during the times of the earthquake and now in the times of the pandemic. There is no question about that.I'm just a little bit unsure and uncertain as to why it wasn't just implemented as it was under a National Government with the Christchurch earthquake—under the job loss cover initiation and the amount that was given as a top-up as a subsidy for those that were in need. Why wasn't the same approach taken? Why did we have to go through this process to have some legislation which has a sunset clause? It will terminate itself. So is this a testing of the waters to be able to look at potentially what that could look like into the future? That's my question to the Minister. But in saying that again I suppose from our point we don't support this—not because of the "what" but because of the "how" it is being implemented. I have to say that I know the members in the Green Party have made some comments. They don't agree with this because they've been quite open and public about this. They believe that there's another approach a better approach to do this. However because of a coalition agreement they've agreed to support this through. They made those comments last night about that. In principle though they would agree with us—that this does set up a system that does seem to look as if it is inequitable to us on this side and also to other members of the public as well which has been made very clear. There's been a number of public comments. In fact many people who have previously been Green MPs the likes of Metiria Turei and Sue Bradford have been quite vocal in their response to this approach and to this bill. So I would say that we are not alone in asking the question as to the "how" of this bill and what it will implement.We now see that this bill will go through the House. It will be implemented and on our side though we do register that our opposition to this is not the "what" but the "how" this is being implemented. If it was going to replicate what happened during the time of the earthquake under a National Government why didn't the Government just do that? Why didn't it just implement the policy change that it needed to make on the inside? Why did we have to go through a process like this to ensure that we pass legislation which is temporary as I understand? It can only be an indicator of where the Government is wanting to head us towards as well. I think that's the concern that's raised on this side. So I make this speech to the House but as this side has said we oppose this bill."