10. Question No. 10—Social DevelopmentHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentQuestion No. 10—Social Development10. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: Will the COVID-19 income relief payment create a model for long-term changes to the welfare system; if so how? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Mr Speaker talofa lava. The COVID-19 income relief payment is temporary financial assistance for New Zealanders impacted by job losses due to COVID-19 that may not be eligible for support in our current welfare system and/or find themselves unemployed at a time where the labour market is going to be much more difficult to navigate. The payment is a short-term one-off initiative in response to unprecedented circumstances similar to the response following the Canterbury earthquakes. It is also just one of a range of financial assistance initiatives that the Government can provide New Zealanders at this time. As we have already mentioned there is also further work under way to explore unemployment insurance schemes following a request from Business New Zealand and the Council of Trade Unions. This Government is exploring how to best support displaced workers and unemployment insurance is a key tool many countries in the OECD use for that purpose. Alongside this we remain committed to overhauling the welfare system and have already implemented systematic long-term changes like increasing main benefit rates and indexing main benefits to wages for the first time in New Zealand's history. Hon Louise Upston: Does she believe that her party and confidence and supply partner support the two-tier welfare system created by the COVID-19 income relief payment becoming a permanent feature of the welfare system? Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility for her belief on the views of other parties in the Parliament. SPEAKER: Well the initial response to that is that if she doesn't who does? Hon Chris Hipkins: Well they do. SPEAKER: No—her beliefs. I mean the question was: what are her views; what are her beliefs? As long as the general area is within her area of responsibility I think it is appropriate to answer. Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A Minister answers as a Minister not as a spokesperson for a party. So she can answer in terms of the Government's view on things but it's not her responsibility to answer about the views of other parties. SPEAKER: Well I think in this particular case I'm—the question mightn't have been the most clearly enunciated question but I think what the Hon Louise Upston was actually asking about was the views of both the major party and its coalition partner and what I might do is ask Louise Upston to restate her question in order to make that clear and to bring it without any doubt within the areas of responsibility. Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was also the matter of an assertion in that question which I'm sure you will listen to the second time around. SPEAKER: I'll listen to it here but there's been one or two assertions this afternoon mainly from this side but a couple from this side as well. If you want me to get really strict I will but some people tell me I interfere too much already. Hon Louise Upston: Thank you. Does she believe that her party and confidence and supply partner support the two-tier welfare system created by the COVID-19 income relief payment becoming a feature of the welfare system? SPEAKER: Well at that point having restated it even in the first few words it became out of order. Hon Louise Upston: Is she aware that according to the Ministry of Social Development's own publication those eligible for this new payment are more likely to be New Zealand European than the other job seekers; and if so is she concerned that making a two-tier welfare system permanent will increase racial inequality in the welfare system? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There's a lot in that question and I'll try and respond to all of it. In terms of the most recent demographic information of those that have come on welfare I think around 46 percent were New Zealand European. That is more than last year but that still shows that there are a large number from across a number of ethnicities that are coming on to the benefit system because of job losses. So certainly for me and this side of the House we're all about diversity and we're all about making sure that all New Zealanders are looked after. Can I also say that I do not support the assertion that this is a two-tier benefit system. If the Opposition was to actually look at the Welfare Expert Advisory Group's report on welfare you would see at recommendation 37 that there's a recommendation that says that we should Strengthen the Ministry of Social Development's redundancy support policies to better support displaced workers." Now the fact is that the temporary relief income that we're putting in place is temporary—that is why it's called temporary—and it is similar to what was put in place after the Canterbury earthquakes. We are exploring whether this is the type of thing that we might want to keep as part of our offering through the welfare system but that is an exploration; we haven't finished that work. And on our confidence and supply agreement partner the Green Party they are very clear: they want us to move as quickly as possible with respect to the overhaul. I respect them for that absolutely but they did support this particular initiative to deal with the unprecedented event that we're faced with. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether she's seen any recent reports on how a two-tier system where Māori and European are concerned can cause enormous angst and controversy within the political system? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I have with regard to political representation and ensuring that all New Zealanders are catered for with respect to policy development and voices in terms of decision making. I think it's very fair to say that on this side of the House we've got that right. The other side would be better off questioning themselves. Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We didn't interrupt the Minister answering that question—we appreciate it was a bit of a flick from the Rt Hon Winston Peters which most of the House is used to—but it does raise the question. If you consider the answer to the last question from Louise Upston to Carmel Sepuloni there was no reference or requirement in that question for her to start talking about the coalition partner. There would have been if the last question that you disallowed was allowed to be asked. So the question is: how is it that a question about a Minister's capacity to garner votes across a coalition is unacceptable to the House but it's acceptable in an answer for the Minister to explain that despite public statements from many prominent Green members they're actually going to support this two-tiered system? SPEAKER: It's relatively easy to answer that. I think the first point is that the Rt Hon Winston Peters' question was absolutely in order because it related to a previous question allowed from the Hon Louise Upston—it was a direct flow-on from that question. As far as moving along from the original question into the question of—[Interruption] Order! The question of confidence and supply partners' views that is a relationship—a Government relationship—whereas the original question or the question that was ruled out on the part of Louise Upston went straight to a party view and that is something which is different. Hon Louise Upston: Has she spoken to the Minister of Employment Willie Jackson since he stated to the media "We've got some criticism with regard to it" and if so what was his criticism? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Absolutely. In fact the Minister Willie Jackson rang me as soon as that was reported in the media. Funnily enough I was standing behind him when he was interviewed. He actually said that there had been some criticism; he did not say that he had any criticism. So can I say that on top of us and the confidence and supply agreement partner being OK me and the Minister for Employment are OK too. Hon Louise Upston: Why does she think it's fair for someone with a $100000 household income from a partner and a redundancy payment of $29000 who lost their job on 1 March to get twice as much benefit as a solo mum who lost her job in February? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This is an unprecedented event and this is a temporary measure. We are consistently looking at ways to make the welfare system fairer. As I said yesterday in the House I do find that it's quite ironic that we're standing here having to defend fairness in the welfare system when that side of the House was so strongly opposed to one of the most discriminatory sanctions that was in the welfare system that this side of the House decided to repeal it on 1 April."