SpeechHon ALFRED NGARO (National): I am going to talk in the second reading about the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill and talk in particular just around some of the details. So as the Hon Tracey Martin has said in her opening statement this side of the House don't want people to receive support for their situation especially those who've lost income. I'd like to correct the record: on this side of the House we do want to see that they get the support but it's the how. It's not the why that we are not supporting it's the how that they are doing that. I just want to go on the record when I look into this bill and I want to read from the departmental disclosure statement which is again part of this bill and in particular just about the fact that this is who can and who can't and what the conditions are. On page 3 of the departmental disclosure statement it's quite clear that obviously those who are on an income-tested benefit cannot receive this. However what they can receive on top of receiving this income relief package that's being proposed in this House by this Government is a supplementary assistance payment and a hardship assistance payment. I'm sure the Greens will be taking consideration of this because what that does is it actually increases the amount even more so on top of the $490 that they will be able to access. So I just want to put that on record. It is an increase—right—and it's part of a contribution. I believe the fact is that what we are saying here is that this is an increase that does raise the level of the ability for those that are currently on a job seeker benefit and for those who are currently going into this situation and on to this benefit system as well. It is income relief. I do want to state that as well and I think that's really important. I do also too want to just correct the Hon Tracy Martin. I'm sure she went up to her office she researched it and she came back with the press release as a way of making a statement. I know she did because she went out and she came back in—so she's correct. But I want to just correct two things. First of all the earthquake support subsidy actually was the wage subsidy that we put forward. It was a subsidy to help companies to operate while keeping their staff and paying so that's equivalent to that. It's quite interesting because what this Government is doing even in this bill that it is introducing is exactly what the previous National Government had done as well during the earthquake relief. So it's great to see that you're using the same framework the same ideas in order to be able to do that. But I would say that the previous National Government implemented both these at the same time earlier on. We're now nine weeks out from when we started under lockdown and now finally they're getting into a plan finding a plan couldn't find a plan they looked at what we did before and said Hey presto here's a good idea." and now we have this bill coming before the House in urgency. It could've been done earlier. It could have been done in the Budget where there was an opportunity. We didn't even complete the urgency during that period of time but no. Why? Because it was all purpose and no plan. That's what this Government is. So I put before you that the fact is that the reason why we don't support this bill to the House even in a second reading is because it misses the point about where it can target the most need. The target that we had during earthquake wage support subsidy—I encourage the Minister the Hon Tracey Martin to go and dig a little bit deeper rather than a press release. Read the detail of the two elements that were put forward. It's called the earthquake support subsidy—I'm sure you've got plenty of staff that can look there for you—and the earthquake job loss cover similar to what's actually being proposed here. Similar to what's being proposed here look into the detail. Number one they both came into existence at the same time. Number two they were particularly focused—DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is interesting but it's actually not about this bill in front of the House. Hon ALFRED NGARO: Thank you Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate it's a hot topic of conversation. Hon ALFRED NGARO: They were particularly focused in an area and if we look at the social security legislation that's currently before us at the moment it actually replicates exactly what happened during the Christchurch earthquake as well. So I just put on record for the House that again we won't be supporting this bill to the House."