Logie Jan; Rurawhe AdrianJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to take another call at the second reading of this bill the Taxation (COVID-19 Support Payments and Working for Families Tax Credits) Bill and it's hard not to respond to my new best friend: the Hon Michael Woodhouse—it was news to me but it's nice to have that friendliness—around his promotion of I guess consideration in saying Well what about the counterfactual in terms of deaths?" and the research that he had been reading.I think you know the evidence I've seen is that New Zealanders have actually been very pleased with the response up to this point and the very low rates of COVID and we're struggling at the moment to be honest because of that earlier success and the shift to an endemic presence of COVID in our communities is frankly frightening. You know the Greens wanted us to hold on to actually elimination for longer and kind of double down on that to see if we could get rid of it and part of that is because of the inequities around the vaccine roll-out and the history of flu in this country and what that has meant for Māori and for marginalised communities. When we talk about "Yes there might be some lives lost but what does that mean in terms of this and this?" we're talking as if it's a generic population and it's not. This terrible disease impacts different communities more profoundly and they are more at risk and that requires us to take a precautionary and responsible approach and that for the Greens needs to be up front.In terms of "What are the other costs?" we've also seen that the member the Hon Michael Woodhouse didn't seem to account for the impact of long COVID as well which the science is just catching up on but has to be part of that thinking because the impacts of that are really severe. It's not just about people getting this disease and tragically dying or getting better or just not you know being sick; this goes on for a very long long long time and will have lifelong impacts for some people. So that also has to be part of the equation. The latest numbers I heard internationally were that the underestimation was about five million people had died just of COVID or is about four million—like underestimates—but eight million had died in terms of the health systems' inability to respond to other illnesses. This wasn't just about responding to COVID; it was about our health system being overwhelmed and not being able to respond to those other needs. I wasn't hearing that reflected in the "We shouldn't have a resurgence payment. It should just be open."—like open open open as if there is no threat that comes with that. And so I think that's quite out of step with most New Zealanders' thinking to be honest. And though that is not the core part of this bill—actually I agree with the previous speaker Barbara Edmonds. A lot of my time won't be spent on the resurgence payment because actually this bill is just a very minor change to that because all of that sits within Order in Council at the moment and that will remain in that context. It's really about recognising that we're shifting from a tiered response to a traffic light response. So I would like to spend the rest of my time talking about the Working for Families aspects of this and I do have to now take issue with the Minister who in his second reading speech said that this was about I think implementing he said the Welfare Expert Advisory Group's recommendations. Well that would have been nice but actually if I read directly from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group's recommendations they say "We take the view that the Family Tax Credit should move closer to being universal available to all except high-income families. The rationale for this is that all of society benefits from the next generation and should contribute to the costs." They called for the abatement rate on the family tax credit to be reduced from the 25 percent that it is now to 10 percent and this bill increases it to 27 percent. This bill puts in place I think a 57 percent effective marginal tax rate for families earning $48000. That's not a wealthy family when you've got kids to care for in this world where rents are what they are let alone the cost of living. I also want to talk to the point about "No one will be worse off." and the numbers of people that we're hearing who are going to benefit from this policy. I just really want to speak to the feeling that that's misrepresenting this because the inflation adjustments were locked in—so in effect this legislation and what is up to the Government and what the Government is doing has nothing to do with that. So we've been hearing those numbers of—what is it?—$14 per child and $12.83 per child. Actually the majority of that was locked in from previous decisions and has nothing to do with this Government's decision. It really is a $5 per child increase because the rest of it had to happen anyway. So it feels a bit—there's a word that I'm not allowed to use. To be honest—it sounds like that word but means something the opposite. So to be suggesting that the numbers are higher and that large numbers of people are going to benefit—and I also want to point to what the regulatory impact statement tells us: the rate change will be $5 per child; there will be the increase of the abatement rate to 27 percent; between 4000 and 6000 children might be lifted from poverty. And there is a footnote to those numbers of lifting children from poverty saying that there is really significant statistical uncertainty with those numbers. So we cannot rely on those numbers.And then it tells us there will be 223000 winners from this and they will gain an income from an average of $8. So that to me if the Government was being upfront about what's happening would be what they would be telling us and that is a story to tell and that is consistent with what they're doing. But it also tells us that because of that change to the abatement rate 91000 families will be worse off than what they would have been without this bill without that change and they will be worse off by an average of $6 a week. And that's those people who are working who we want to be encouraging and supporting to be able to manage their life as a family and work because that's tough. Childcare transport just the logistics of time—it is not an obvious thing and it is not right for all families to be in paid employment as opposed to being at home caring for their kids. That is not an automatic "Yes this is best for children." It is only best for children if you get enough financial benefit from that work to be able to make that juggle and the welfare of your kids better off. So pulling money back from those families earning over $48000 a year is counterproductive and goes against the Welfare Expert Advisory Group's recommendation. I also just want to touch on—like the Prime Minister wants New Zealand to be the best country in the world to bring up kids. Our tax credit rate is so much less support for low-income families than even Australia's and I don't think of Australia as a radical country. A low-income family in Australia even with these changes will be over $7000 better off through tax credits than our families than our children when we are supposedly aspiring to be the best country in the world to bring up kids. But this Government is not getting behind that. They're not putting the money where their mouth is and they need to change that.DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7 p.m."