SpeechHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I never thought I'd say this but tonight I fear for the rat population of New Zealand. I think that rats must be becoming an endangered species in this country because the Green Party seem to have eaten just about all of them. We have heard so many dead rats being swallowed—watched them over the course of the period of this Government—that as I say they must be an endangered species and the more serious point is that the Green Party has now shown yet again that all of those principles that they used to champion when they were in Opposition have gone out the window. We are debating this measure under urgency. Which was the party between 2008 and 2017 that most frequently and most loudly railed against the use of urgency? It was the Green Party. Tonight not a murmur about the fact that this is a bill that is being pushed through under urgency despite the fact that just 13 days ago when the Budget was being delivered it wasn't even in contention. Now if it is such an important part of the recovery package that this Government is delivering with the support of the Green Party one would have expected it to have been mentioned in the Budget or at least for it to have been signalled that it might be about to come. Now we're not hard-hearted over on this side of the House. In listening to the second reading speech from Jan Logie we saw her in such pain trying to defend her party's indefensible position that we do actually feel for her over here because we do recognise that this is one of those occasions that the Green Party is having to do what they don't want to do to ensure that the Government that they prop up has the numbers to pass the legislation and that's often an uncomfortable position for a minor party to be in. Hon James Shaw: How would you know? Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you Mr Shaw. Well while Mr Shaw is now taking such an interest in the matter let me remind him that that's when his party could exercise real power by exercising their ability through the numbers that they have and holding the balance of power tonight to side with the National Party to say No this measure is not fair and therefore we're not going to support it." Now Madam Speaker you observed before and so did many others that ordinarily when the House is in a second reading we would have the opportunity to reflect on what happened during the select committee process—excuse me there's a glass down there; I just kicked it—and we would have in the select committee heard from submitters who would have raised valid points for our consideration. I have no doubt at all that if this bill had been allowed to go to a select committee even if only for a short time—and we accept that sometimes select committees have to operate under very tight constraints because of a truncated select committee process. But even if it had only been for a short time I have no doubt that we would have heard from a host of beneficiaries' advocates and they would have told us why they felt that this bill is so unfair. I'm sure we would have heard from the Council of Trade Unions. I imagine we would probably have heard from the National Council of Women because I really admire the fact that just about every aspect of public policy that comes before this Parliament attracts comment submissions and sincere advice from the National Council of Women. But they've all been shut out of this process and you'd have to ask why. If it couldn't have been a full select committee process why couldn't it have been a short one? Why was it so necessary to announce this bill just a day or so ago bring it in here tonight and say we're pushing it through all of its stages without a select committee process? Well I want to suggest to you that irrespective of the issue covered by the bill this Government should be asking themselves why are they abusing democracy so badly. The answer is that they're a chaotic Government. For 2½ years they have filibustered—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Come to the bill—come to the bill. Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well Madam Speaker I do think it's relevant surely to talk about why we're being asked to consider something under urgency—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes but you've done that so—Hon TIM MACINDOE: —and the point that I'm making is we had 2½ years of nothing a huge amount of filibustering on that side of the House and now suddenly time after time after time they are making use of urgency—the very urgency that they used to abuse the National Party about whenever it was used in Government. I accept the fact that urgency is sometimes valid. We all accept the fact that in times of national emergency or usually after a Budget or whatever there will be times of urgency but this is not a post-Budget piece of legislation. The legislation that we were asked to consider just 10 or so days ago after the Budget was absolute nonsense. It was trivial. It was not the sort of thing that you would have expected to have arisen out of a Budget in any year and particularly in a year when we are dealing with the most devastating setback that this country could possibly have faced arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. So they brought this extraordinary hotchpotch of legislation. It went through quite quickly because there was very little to—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now that's got nothing to do with this bill. This is a second reading speech. Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well I do want to make the point that rushed legislation under urgency without select committee processes frequently embeds failings and unfairness and leads to things that have to be corrected. Now I accept the fact that this is a bill that will only be in place for a short period of time so it's probably not going to have to come back to the House at a later stage in order to be corrected. But it is flawed and it is very unfair. Let me give you some examples of why it's so unfair. The National Party has no problem at all with supporting workers who because of what has happened recently have found themselves out of work. Of course we're sympathetic to them. Of course we are concerned for them and for their livelihoods. After all as electorate MPs we worked incredibly closely throughout the lockdown and have done since with the small businesses in our electorates and with those who were losing their livelihoods to do what we could to assist them to obtain the wage subsidy and to assist those who were needing to go on to benefits to get through to Ministry of Social Development (MSD). I paid tribute to MSD staff before and I'll do it again. Boy they were swamped and they really had to work hard and I admire them for the way that they stepped up. We as MPs particularly in our electorates worked very very hard to assist our constituents so nobody should suggest for a moment that this is about beneficiary bashing. I heard Priyanca Radhakrishnan say in her first reading speech that it was the same old tired beneficiary bashing from the National Party. I can assure Ms Radhakrishnan that in 12 years as an MP I have never bashed a beneficiary in this House and I never will but this whole approach is not about beneficiary bashing. It's about objecting to the fact that this embeds a two-tier system that is deeply unfair to those who don't fall within the ambit of the dates and the particular categories that have been established here. So our party and the Green Party do agree on the fact that this is simply not right. It is an aspect—Hon James Shaw: Put in an amendment to the bill on the remaining benefits. Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well what a good idea. I look forward to the co-leader of the Green Party doing that tonight to oppose a significant aspect of this bill that he and his party generally do not agree with. When a single mother who lost her job during the lockdown will qualify for this a single mother who lost her job before the lockdown will not. I have asked Labour members and New Zealand First and the Greens—but they have not got any more calls in this reading so I ask the next Labour speaker—to stand up and explain how that is fair. How is it fair that single mothers many of whom work on the minimum wage in very difficult jobs with antisocial hours etc. and who struggle to raise families as well will continue to be paid at the lower rate while this Government seems to think that it's fair to give others a higher rate? I look forward to Ms Radhakrishnan telling me (a) why that's beneficiary bashing to point it out and (b) why it is fair. I hope that she is going to sort that out. Somebody who lost a job in tourism say because of the border closure earlier in the piece before the lockdown—particularly from China—would have not qualified for this income relief package despite the fact that they lost their job for that very reason. DEPUTY SPEAKER: So this is a split call."