Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): In rising in support of this taxation bill I want to note for the House the broad areas in which we are finding agreement because that is what National's support for this bill is prefaced on and I think it is easily forgotten in the context of these debates where we appropriately as the Opposition ask questions about the Government's implementation where we ask questions about the detail of approaches—to lose sight of the fact that in the bigger picture there are some core principles which we are agreed on and which underpin a bill of this sort. So first of all this bill is prefaced on the idea that there will be circumstances in New Zealand—and in fact we're in that circumstance right now—where it will be appropriate for the Government to restrict business and social activity in order to protect public health and to reduce pandemic risk and transmission of the COVID-19 virus. It is agreed by all members of this House that it will sometimes be appropriate for the Government to impose alert levels and the conditions that come with them that mean that many businesses in this country will not be able to trade as usual. The reason that we are in agreement about that is that we judge that that is what is necessary to protect public health to protect the health and livelihoods of New Zealanders. So we're in agreement on that concept.The second thing that we have broad agreement on is that we should take steps and that the Government should take steps to mitigate the economic and social impact imposed by lockdown conditions imposed by the higher restrictions that come with higher alert levels. Those economic and social impacts are both short-term medium- and long-term. In the case of businesses we recognise in particular that the Government is imposing a significant impost that businesses will incur particular costs because they are unable to get the normal revenue that they would to be able to market or sell to customers in their usual way to carry out events to do the things that they would normally be able to do because they are complying with a legal order that the Government has made. So we recognise that it's right that there be some compensation for this in these alert level circumstances.We also are in broad agreement that it is really important in dealing with this pandemic that where possible we reduce the potential long-term scars to the economy that would occur if we allowed many businesses to fail across New Zealand and with them take jobs and livelihoods that could take months and years to recover. So where possible we should sustain businesses into the future and take steps to ensure that they can continue.So all of that is the context in which National supports this bill. I want to draw members' attention to the fact however that there are always very fine judgments to make around the quantum and nature of support that we offer individual businesses in these circumstances and I'm sure the Minister of Finance and his officials and his Cabinet have grappled with that extensively. So it's important that I note that this bill does not actually clarify exactly what those judgments are. Instead what it does is it provides a framework which then allows the Minister to make those judgments in response to the individual circumstance. That is all this bill does is provide a framework that allows for a scheme a support scheme to be activated by the Minister that will authorise the commissioner to pay grants that can allow the commissioner to note the circumstances in which applicants will be eligible and that can allow the commissioner to publish information in relation to the scheme.So in supporting this bill there is a gesture of faith by members of the Opposition because what we are giving to the Minister of Finance and his Government is the power to create a scheme within a very broad framework. I note this because it is very important that we here on this side of the House continue to scrutinise carefully the way in which such schemes are designed how they operate in practice how they are implemented and the judgments and basis upon which the value of these schemes is based: the eligibility criteria—those who are eligible and those who are not. Of course the broader context here is that the Minister of Finance has made it clear what he intends this scheme to be—that this is going to be a scheme available if an alert level is heightened beyond level 2 for seven days or more that it will be for applicants who have suffered a decline in revenue of 30 percent or more and that it is capped at $21000. So we know all of that as we come to this House in support of this bill but I do want to note that there is the potential under this framework for that particular scheme to be adapted into the future. I do just want to note one more thing and that is that one of the things that businesses have told us and that New Zealanders have told us is that their willingness to go hard and to go early and to do the right thing in terms of changing their behaviour staying at home not trading and not sending their kids to school is on the basis that that is the best way to protect each other from COVID-19 and to ensure that we don't have widespread transmission in our community. What they have also told us and I'm sure members opposite will agree is that what they do not want is to be yo-yoing in and out of lockdown if at all possible. When we look at schemes like that it is particularly relevant because schemes like this become incredibly hard to administer and to discuss eligibility for if we're in lockdown one day then we're out of lockdown for a couple of weeks and then we're in lockdown again. Because at what point are we then able to judge what a business' normal revenue is when they're bumping up and out of the yo-yoing of levels like that? So I say that to the House. I know there's broad agreement on that point that we do want to avoid this and that New Zealanders join us in that. So National supports this bill. We believe it's a necessary support to businesses at a time when they are doing the right thing to protect public health and that it is necessary to mitigate the economic and social impact.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.