O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Look I'm delighted to take a call—you know so passionate actually about those in need that I'll take a full 10 minutes I think to try and express it on the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill which is in itself quite a—Dan Bidois: Tell us what you think Simon.SIMON O'CONNOR: Well I will tell them what I think: it's not good. Fundamentally on this side we've actually got no problem with helping people. In fact we've got no problem with using the benefit system. We are actually quite proudly a party that in the last Government was the first in 43 years I think at that time to actually increase main benefits. So we have a good history of support. I think the fundamental issue for me here is the how. What we've effectively got here is a rather inconsistent structure—and I will touch on that in different ways as I go through it. It's potentially a discriminatory system. I'm going to be absolutely fascinated to see if the Greens take a call because my understanding is they're not actually supporting this bill. So I find myself—if true—in the rather odd position that National and the Greens might be on the same side. I don't know how I feel about that. I'm not sure how they feel about that. It could be a rollercoaster. Or maybe in the last few hours some agreement's been made.But the key is again it's not that we should be helping people; it's the how. Once again we have a problem. So fundamentally we do have a problem. Obviously it is COVID-19. One thousand people a day are losing their jobs—1000 Kiwis a day. That's the individuals. If you extrapolate that out of course into their families and wider community that is quite devastating. I acknowledge the Minister has touched on that and is trying to fix it but fundamentally for me this is not the way.First and foremost we have some structural problems. Not the sexiest of topics but once again we have a departmental report which is with no offence to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) pretty light. It indicates to us that there is no regulatory impact statement. They have been effectively all done away with because this crisis continues. I don't completely buy that. I did a few weeks back but I would expect people to do a proper regulatory impact statement. This is quite a major shift in policy.Officials say that there is no need to have thought about the Treaty of Waitangi. Again perhaps quite odd coming from me but I think they probably should have. I would actually like a little bit of analysis to have been done around unemployment rates and which ethnicities have been particularly affected early on in the piece versus later. Now I could well be wrong—so I don't have the answer—but this is a bill which effectively starts giving support from 1 March and not before. It would be fascinating to know in the early stages of the pandemic—so we're talking middle of January onwards up to but not including 1 March—what was the breakdown of people losing their jobs there? Was it more predominantly Māori Pasifika European or not? Because if it turns out for example that more Māori were losing their jobs before 1 March that's a Treaty of Waitangi issue. I could well be wrong but all I'm saying is that you'd expect that to be looked at.The other is that MSD's indicated that it doesn't actually—this is again in the departmental impact statement. They're asking Were policy details given to otherwise test or see that this bill's provisions are workable and complete?" It's a little bit jargon-esque but what it's saying is "Has the ministry been able to ascertain whether they can make this work?" And the answer is no. That's a problem because we are talking about spending hundreds—actually I haven't even extrapolated what the costs are going to be. I'm not sure the Government has but we are talking millions and millions of dollars.I said earlier why is it discriminatory? The bill starts from 1 March. Now I'm always the first to say we have to live in a real world and you have to draw a line somewhere but 1 March is relatively arbitrary. If you lose your job from 1 March onwards strangely enough as per this bill you get the money; so that's fantastic. But if you were unfortunately made redundant—I think this was a leap year—you luck out. There are no provisions. There is not even a transitioning scheme which is maybe something we can consider in the committee stage if this does indeed pass first reading. That does seem unfair.We know that the border to New Zealand closed with China—or rather we put restrictions on travel from China I think on 3 February. And I think because I can put my Customs hat on about 38000 people came back to New Zealand in that period of time—38000 from China alone. But we had a circumstance that a pandemic was being declared borders were closing New Zealand businesses were already being affected particularly in the tourism sector and yet if those poor unfortunate New Zealanders or permanent residents lost their job then they do not have any entitlement whatsoever. It seems to me an oversight particularly from the other side that's talked about—well they haven't used the word "compassion" yet but I'd put good money that it'll pop up at some point and willing to care for beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries. Well you'd think there'd be some sort of mechanism in this bill to allow people from the declaration of the pandemic onwards to test an entitlement. Maybe there are a few more hurdles maybe there's a point of discussion but this is I'm afraid outright discriminatory. And look just testing an idea: I think the fact that we have to have this in place in place of the main benefits indicates there's a problem with the main benefits. Ipso facto if the benefit system was sufficient enough we wouldn't need to be in the House now under urgency I might add rushing this through. That's probably something for a wider discussion. Again I'd love the Green Party to get involved with that. I think it would be marvellous; that would be very good.We noticed that with the bill a person can choose to move from the main benefit to this "COVID-19 benefit" for want of a better term. Again I mean I suppose it's good to have choice. I am on a party that's about choice but it does seem a little odd out of whack if you will that people can move between these benefits. I'd also say and I'd very much welcome the Hon Tracey Martin and others—Hon Tracey Martin: I will.SIMON O'CONNOR: I just knew she would; I just sort of had that feeling—to talk to me particularly around the student allowances side because as I read things someone could be having a student allowance continue studying and be eligible for this. I suspect they won't be eligible for the full payment but it does seem again a little odd that a student I suppose like myself in the many many many many many years past could have been working part time in a cinema lose my job—Hon Tracey Martin: You look so young!SIMON O'CONNOR: Look you're just so flattering but don't mislead the House!ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I won't call the member to order because I assume it was a light-hearted comment but it's not appropriate to accuse a member of that in serious terms.SIMON O'CONNOR: Indeed but thank you Madam Speaker. I appreciate that and the humour it was taken in rightly.We have a situation that those on student allowances are able to receive this as well and on top of. So again it just strikes me as out of whack. Also it's not wanting to be punishing but strictly a person is eligible even if they've had a redundancy payment up to $29999.99. Again a line has been drawn that if you have a redundancy payment of $30000 or more you're not eligible. I again understand a line has to be drawn somewhere but I suppose I'm challenging already in this first reading: why is there not more of a graduated approach here? The fact that your partner significant other spouse husband wife that person you've known for a couple of years however one wants to term them can earn up to $2000 a week; that seems rather high. That turns out to be about $100000 a year. And that's not to be sniffed at. Again I just sort of feel that's just not quite right and it's all just pointing to me personally that this has not been well thought through.I suppose the final part that I'd want to bring up in this third reading is that if you want to help these people—and we do want to help these people—fundamentally why do we not focus on the reason they are becoming unemployed? The simple reason is that the businesses are struggling; the businesses cannot retain them. I suppose it's my final encouragement to Government to consider that this money may be better spent in actually supporting businesses to retain those people because that not only comes with a financial benefit but actually because I'm sure you're all great students on the other side of Marx Gramsci and all the rest—even I've read the Little Red Book—say that there's dignity in work and it's good for one's self-identity and I actually agree with that; I'm happy to put that on the record. There's benefit—pun intended—in actually retaining work. So it's an encouragement to Government to consider how we help businesses. How do we help them around their rent the grants GST rebates and so forth? Obviously not within the scope of the bill but I think it's misdirected moneys.But my fundamental concern returns to two points simply because there's 20 seconds left. Fundamentally first and foremost this is not a good structure. Reading the departmental impact statement is worrying. On the second side it is discriminatory. It is only from 1 March. It doesn't allow for people who have one dollar more than $30000 to obtain. So there are some problems I'll talk to them later."