Sepuloni CarmelSecond ReadingHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I move That the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill ensures that the COVID-19 income relief payment can be treated as income for the purposes of income-tested assistance paid under the Social Security Act 2018. The COVID-19 income relief payment was announced by Government on Monday to provide support for people who have lost work since March due to the impacts of COVID-19. Can I say that I'm very disappointed that the other side of the House has made the decision not to support this bill and have expressed their opposition to job loss cover during what really is an unprecedented time where unfortunately a large number of New Zealanders are going to be impacted by job loss. When I reflect on some of the comments made in this House tonight and I reflect on the previous Government's response to the global financial crisis when they implemented the ReStart package and also the equivalent to job loss cover following the Canterbury earthquakes I also have to reflect back and have looked into what our response whilst in Opposition was and I can't find any opposition to either of those measures because during unprecedented times when New Zealand is experiencing crisis even if we are not in Government this side of the House knows that we need to support what is in the best interests of New Zealanders and so we supported. The only opposition I could find to the job loss cover that was implemented following the Canterbury earthquakes was actually opposition from the former Minister and former member of Parliament Clayton Cosgrove. That wasn't in opposition to the implementation of job loss cover but was in opposition to the ceasing of it with him wanting it to be extended to provide further support to those who had lost jobs because of the Christchurch earthquakes. So it is incredibly disappointing—very genuinely. It is also very disingenuous when we hear from the other side of the House that this measure is unfair. How can they say that it is unfair when they have implemented a similar scheme during a similar crisis but at a lesser scale—a similar crisis but as I said at a lesser scale? Not that we're downplaying the impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes in any way but how can they say that it is unfair when they did something similar and we whilst in Opposition supported it? We have never said that this was the answer to the overhaul that was asked of us and that has been actively sought by the Green Party and I continue to say that there is more work that needs to be done with respect to the overhaul. But I have been disappointed also that with respect to this particular job loss cover scheme which is temporary in nature on so many occasions people have quoted the Welfare Expert Advisory Group's report limiting their commentary to benefit increases which of course are important but ignoring the other recommendations that are in that report. We need to also acknowledge that actually recommendation No. 37 of the expert advisory group's report on welfare was to strengthen the Ministry of Social Development's redundancy support policies to better support displaced workers. Now this is a temporary measure but our Minister of Finance has come out strongly with the endorsement and support of this Government to say that yes we will explore social insurance for us as a country and why would we not? Why would we not? Other OECD countries have similar schemes in place. The Council of Trade Unions have asked us to do this Business New Zealand has asked us to do this and in fact whilst we were in Opposition and we undertook the programme of work around the future of work we actually talked about it and put it into that report at the time. It's not an immediate action. This is not a permanent fixture in terms of what we are actually implementing here—it is called temporary for a reason. But we should explore this because on too many occasions New Zealanders lose jobs unexpectedly. This just happens to be an unprecedented time where unfortunately as I said before more New Zealanders will lose jobs and they will lose jobs during a time when the labour market is going to be incredibly difficult to navigate. Now this is only one initiative that we're putting in place to support New Zealanders at this time. If it was the only one then I think the public would have just cause to be worried but it is not. We've injected millions of dollars into apprenticeships and into employment support as a response to COVID-19. We also did as a first response lift benefits on 1 April by—DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would be good to talk about the bill though. It is a second reading. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I'm only mentioning those things because it's important that we look at this particular measure alongside the other measures that have been implemented given the criticism from the other side that this measure—this temporary income relief—is not only in their words unfair but that it won't be the silver bullet or answer to all of the challenges that we face. Of course it won't but it is very very important in light of the challenges that we face as a country. New Zealanders are going to need time to find other employment. We want to support them during that period. Some of them may not be able to find employment during this time and that concerns us greatly—as I know it concerns the other side of the House too—and so they may need time to adjust to their financial circumstances. But we will do everything in our power to make sure that we provide the support that we can to businesses to continue. We will do everything in our power to support New Zealanders to find alternative employment where they are able to and we will do everything in our power to support New Zealanders during this period of time to upskill and train if that's what they need to be able to get into that alternative employment. So there's no reason for us on this side to apologise for the temporary relief that we are putting in place here for the temporary job loss income that we are putting in place here. It is a necessary—a necessary—action that any responsible Government would do during a time like this and can I reiterate my disappointment that the Opposition could not see past the politics and do what was in the best interests of New Zealanders by actually supporting this temporary measure to support New Zealanders during an unprecedented time.