WEDNESDAY, 27 MAY 2020 
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers. 
ORAL QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister
1. TODD MULLER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: When she said yesterday that the Government was "using the tax system to get cash flow to small business", what did she mean by that? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. I thank the member for his question and the opportunity to talk about our support for small business. I stand by my full statement from yesterday, which was "I notice other members of his party have been quite dismissive during this question time of using the tax system to get cash flow to small business, so perhaps not everyone is of one voice. But again, the tax loss carry-back scheme, $3.1 billion; tax loss continuity support, $60 million; tax deductions for assets, again a massive part of our first tax package through Minister Nash. We raised the provisional tax threshold. We allowed depreciation on buildings and we also have allowed loans for R & D". The overriding point here is that I agree with the member that small businesses need to be supported at this time. This is what we've been focused on. Whether it's through reduction of tax liability, whether it's through refunds, whether or not it's through the wage subsidy, or whether or not it's through loan schemes, we have actually delivered all of them. 
Todd Muller: How does the tax loss carry-back scheme help a car painter in Christchurch with one employee who last year earned $100,000, but drew this as a salary, and therefore did not declare a profit? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We've never assumed that any single one of our initiatives will solve problems for every small business, which is why we have introduced a range of products. We've included, obviously—what I've announced today is a very well-used interest-free loan scheme. The wage subsidy scheme would allow that business owner to claim not only for themselves but for their employee as well. So one thing is not the solution, but many products have been. 
Todd Muller: Could I repeat: how does the tax loss carry-back scheme help a car painter in Christchurch with one employee who last year earned $100,000 but drew this as a salary, and therefore did not declare a profit? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I just responded to the member, one single product is not necessarily going to help that small-business owner, but in the same way that the GST claim system that that member has had as his policy wouldn't necessarily help every business—for example, a business with under $60,000 in turnover wouldn't register for GST and would be excluded. So again, I say to the member that it takes a range of responses, and that is what we have produced as a Government. 
SPEAKER: Before the member carries on, I'd like to ask members just to settle down a little bit, and I'm looking at the moment at my colleague from the West Coast, who seemed to sort of outperform all others with regard to volume, but as he did so, he seemed to stimulate a response, which was not helpful. 
Todd Muller: What advice has the Prime Minister received on the likely uptake of the tax loss carry-back scheme from small businesses? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I can report on is what's happening in real time. It has so far released funds worth $71 million. Again, that won't necessarily be entirely for small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs), and we've been very open about that. That is why we've had a range of products to answer the differing positions of businesses at any given time. So it is running for a year. That won't be a full indication of the uptake, but it is one package that I know is making a difference, and was recommended, as I understand, by Business New Zealand as a useful package. 
Todd Muller: Of the $71 million she just quoted, how much has gone to small businesses? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Whilst I don't have a breakdown, 1,484 customers have opted in so far into the loss carry-back scheme. I think, though, that if we get to the nub of the issue, the member and I actually agree that we need to be supporting small business. I'm not entirely clear on whether the member supports the wage subsidy scheme, which I think has been incredibly valuable, and I have a range of quotes from correspondence from SMEs saying why. But even with a GST rebate system, even that has people who will not benefit from it. We need a range of responses. I'm happy to consider ideas from the member if he has extra ones. 
Todd Muller: Why will the tax loss carry-back scheme benefit small businesses, given that very few small businesses report a taxable profit? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: And some small businesses won't even have an income of $60,000 which requires them to register for GST, so therefore his scheme may not help them either. Again, as we've continually argued, the loss carry-back scheme is one part of a range of packages. We've also changed the provisional tax threshold, which means that there are, from memory, 95,000 taxpayers who won't have a tax liability for provisional tax. Of course, we have the loan scheme and the wage subsidy scheme. We've also increased the low-value asset write-off threshold, which, again, reduces the tax liability for a number of small businesses. There is not one answer; there's many answers. 
Todd Muller: How quickly will the tax loss carry-back scheme actually get the money back to businesses? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I've said already, keeping in mind we'll probably see another flush through to August, as well—already, $71 million has already been paid out. 
Todd Muller: Of that $71 million, can she please confirm to the House how much of that has gone to small businesses of New Zealand? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I already told the member that I do not have a breakdown, but there's been a payout of 1,484 customers. I can give a breakdown, though, of the small-business cash-flow loan scheme. The largest number of applications—about 45 percent of the total—are from individuals and sole traders where there is just one employee; organisations with two to five employees is the next most frequent group of applications. The member also knows from my answers yesterday that when it comes to the wage subsidy, by far and away the largest number of benefactors have been small business and sole traders. It has made a significant difference and I have a large amount of correspondence to back that up. 
Todd Muller: What is her philosophical objection to actually taking up the National Party idea of a GST cash-back scheme that delivers cash now for businesses who are broken and crying out for help? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The point that I would make here is that, actually, to even reach the top end of what the member has proposed it would be able to access as a rebate, a business would have to have a spend of over $767,000. Again, I've also, in asking IRD—[Interruption] I'm trying to give the member a considered approach. In asking IRD about this as an option, their response has been that it would be relatively hard to administer and may not be as quick as some of the options that we have put out and not nearly as easy to calculate, and also, because of the thresholds, it wouldn't necessarily cover some smaller operators. For me, there shouldn't be politics in us considering these ideas. We have considered a range of options; we just haven't fallen on this one. 
Hon Members: Supplementary question. 
SPEAKER: No, before we have any of that, I will remind the members who are interjecting from the gallery that they have an absolute right to do that, because the gallery is currently regarded as being part of the House. But, Mr King, they have to be in order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether she's received any reports of the likelihood of some future Government hitherto in the enthral of big business looking after small business? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do find it interesting that there's an argument against some of the proposals that we've put forward, including, it seems, the wage subsidy scheme, which has from even, for instance, the Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce 68 percent of businesses surveyed reporting that they were able to retain 100 percent of their staff, and they considered it the most helpful initiative to local businesses. 
Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Prime Minister believe that the 86 percent of New Zealanders who support the Government's economic response to COVID-19, including the tax changes that she's outlined, must be suffering from Stockholm syndrome, as diagnosed by the Opposition health spokesperson, Michael Woodhouse? 
SPEAKER: Order! Before you can answer that—oh, I think it's been turned off now. But my predecessor—Mr Carter, please do not shine your torch in my eye. Thank you. 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, I disagree with the statements made by Mr Woodhouse, but it is fair to say that we have been listening to New Zealanders and to small businesses. If you take the example of tourism and the number of meetings that the Minister has held, the tourism sector asked us to extend the wage subsidy, so that is exactly what we did. 
Hon Stuart Nash: Has the Prime Minister seen reports of this Government's changes to black hole expenditure rules and revision of loss continuity tax rules that this Government is undertaking, that the tax community has been crying out for for years? 
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, they have been asked for, and we have responded. In fact, not only are we implementing them now when it comes to loss carry-back; we are also going to looking at allowing that in the future, and we'll be undertaking consultation to make that a permanent part of our tax regime. 




Question No. 2—Finance
KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): How will Budget 2020 support employment—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I'm going to get the member to start again. I'm going to ask the Prime Minister and the shadow Leader of the House to stop interjecting during the question. I'll regard it as one all, and I think some people are aware that I ignored an earlier one as well. 
2. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: How will Budget 2020 support employment in New Zealand? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, talofa lava. Budget 2020 established the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund to cushion the blow to Kiwi firms and workers and lay the groundwork for our economic recovery by creating jobs across New Zealand. The fund will deliver major investments in jobs by making critical trade training and apprenticeships free, enabling the delivery of 8,000 new public houses, cleaning up our waterways, controlling pests, and extending the Food in Schools programme to up to 200,000 children—creating jobs up and down the country. These significant investments form an important part of the coalition Government's clear plan to help New Zealand respond, recover, and rebuild from COVID-19. 
Kiritapu Allan: What reports has he seen on the impact of Budget 2020 investments on jobs and employment in New Zealand? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We've been clear with New Zealanders that the path ahead will be challenging and that we will not be able to save every job, but Treasury's Budget forecasts show that the Government's COVID-19 response could see as many as 138,000 jobs saved in the current period and see employment rise by 234,000 jobs over the next two years. Unemployment can be reduced from its peak of around 9.8 percent to even the current level of 4.2 percent, on the more optimistic scenario, within two years. The Government is committed to creating jobs so that New Zealanders can recover and rebuild better on the other side. 
Kiritapu Allan: How does Budget 2020 build on the Government's record on jobs and employment? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I've seen numerous reports that show New Zealand was in a strong position going into this global pandemic thanks to the work of the coalition Government. Since coming into office, the Government had reduced unemployment from 4.7 percent to 4 percent and increased wage growth to a decade high of just under 4 percent. We accomplished this while also delivering over $12 billion of surplus and reducing net debt to below 20 percent of GDP. The Government has a proven track record of delivering more jobs and higher wages while managing the books responsibly. New Zealanders will continue to see us build on this record through the unprecedented investments we are making in Budget 2020 to help New Zealand recover and rebuild from COVID-19. 




Question No. 3—Finance
3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: How did the Government arrive at the figure of $50 billion that was allocated for the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund in Budget 2020, and is the Treasury being required to use the CBAx tool when assessing bids for the fund? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Ngā mihi ki a koe. There were a number of factors the Government took into consideration when establishing the level of funding to set aside for the response and recovery fund. This included advice from Treasury on the likely impact of COVID-19 on businesses and public services, and the level of fiscal stimulus to get the economy back up and running as quickly as possible. As I said in my Budget speech, the $50 billion is an envelope that can be spent as necessary and required and is not a target per se. To answer the second part of the member's question, I would encourage him to speak to his senior colleague, the Hon Amy Adams, who would tell him that the CBAx—which was developed under the previous Government—is not used by Treasury to assess Budget bids. Rather, it is a tool departments may choose to use when requesting funding. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is his Government hardly using such an important tool to assess the quality and effectiveness of new spending right at the moment when it has never spent so much? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We've followed on from the decision made in 2017 that the CBAx tool was not a requirement. It could be used by agencies and departments to put forward bids. What we have done is taken an assessment of every single bid that has come forward for its value for money and its ability to support New Zealand to recover and rebuild from COVID-19. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: So when the Government developed its $1.1 billion programme for possum trapping and other environmental projects with the expectation of 11,000 jobs, what cost-benefit analysis was applied to the decision? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Treasury undertook an analysis of each of the proposals that came forward to establish how they aligned with our plan to respond, recover, and rebuild; their investment readiness and timing implications; the clarity of their outcomes and costings; their alignment with overall Government objectives; an options analysis of what other options could achieve similar outcomes; whether or not money could be reprioritised from baselines; and how cross-agency work would support this. All of those factors were taken into account. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: To the nearest $10 million, how much new spending has he announced every day, on average, since the Budget? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member won't be surprised that I don't have that figure with me, but I would encourage him to listen to the words of his new leader when he said on Monday night we shouldn't quibble about how much money's been spent. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is so much money being announced that he's lost track of it? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Far from it—far from it. Every single day, the Government works to support New Zealanders to recover and rebuild, and, as I say, the new Leader of the Opposition has been very clear: we shouldn't be quibbling about whether it's more or less expenditure. We should be focused on creating jobs and supporting New Zealand households, which we are. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is he satisfied with the results of the business finance guarantee scheme announced in March to act quickly to get $6.25 billion of new lending out to business when, to date, just $60 million has been lent? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I've made very, very clear in comments in the media, and indeed in this House, that I would like to see that scheme work as well as it possibly can, and it may well do that in the future. But the Government, as we have done throughout our response, has made sure that we've acted in response to what we've seen. That led us to bring in the small-business loan guarantee scheme, which today ticked over $1 billion worth of lending to support small businesses. 
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Would he describe the business finance guarantee scheme as more or less successful than KiwiBuild? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I would say is it's much more successful than that member has been. 
Hon James Shaw: Has he seen any recent reports on how New Zealanders rate the Government's response to the economic impact in the coronavirus outbreak, and, putting aside his legendary modesty, could he explain why it might be? 
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, far be it for the kūmara to speak of how sweet it may be, but I think what we saw in the survey that the member is referencing is the fact that New Zealanders understand that this Government is focused on creating jobs and rebuilding New Zealand, rather than focused on ourselves. 




Question No. 4—Housing
4. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: What action has the Government taken to ensure vulnerable New Zealanders in need of housing were supported through the COVID-19 crisis? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. People living rough or in accommodation where physical distancing was not possible were identified as being particularly vulnerable to COVID-19. We recognised that they would need additional support, and so as New Zealand moved into alert level 4, we moved swiftly to help them into a suitable accommodation. Government agencies, community, iwi, and Māori housing providers have, to date, made 1,193 places available and 1,090 places are now tenanted. We've invested $107.6 million for accommodation and wraparound services, which will give certainty to the people we have housed and the providers who are housing them. While this represents an important step to solving homelessness in New Zealand, we recognise that there is still more work to be done, and that's why this Government is prioritising the implementation of the Homelessness Action Plan announced in February. 
Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What reaction has she seen to the Government's action to support vulnerable New Zealanders in response to COVID-19? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The reaction to the Government's swift action has been overwhelmingly positive. Wellington City Missioner, Murray Eldridge, says that in Wellington almost the entire street-living community is now housed. Auckland City Missioner, Chris Farrelly, says this is the closest we've come in a generation to getting everyone off the street. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those that we worked with in achieving this significant feat. These providers supported people in motels by linking them with food, checking in on their wellbeing on a regular basis, and connecting them with other essential services such as healthcare. This has been a true team effort with tangible outcomes for our most vulnerable. 
Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What is the long-term plan for getting these vulnerable New Zealanders into permanent housing? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government's temporary support will see 1,200 places funded until April 2021. This is in addition to the 1,000 transitional housing places announced as part of the Homelessness Action Plan in February and this month's Budget announcement of yet another 2,000 transitional houses as part of the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund. I must stress that housing people in motels is not a permanent solution. Our responsibility and challenge as a Government is to make sure that we don't return to how things were before. This is a Government that is getting on with the job of fixing the housing crisis we inherited, and while this will take time, we are moving at pace to meet the urgent need. 




Question No. 5—Economic Development
5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by his statement of 1 April 2020, "That's why we are now developing a pipeline of infrastructure projects from across the country that would be ready to begin as soon as we are able to move around freely and go back to work."; if so, when will he announce the projects? 
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): Yes, and that's why we've continued to work on the projects that were announced as part of the $12 billion New Zealand Upgrade Programme. We've released, in this time, the new Draft Government Policy Statement on land transport, a 10-year transport investment plan. We allocated $1 billion for rail in the Budget, including the new Interislander ferries. Minister Woods has announced an additional 8,000 public and transitional homes. The Minister for Infrastructure and I commissioned the Infrastructure Industry Reference Group to identify ready-to-go infrastructure projects. That group received a total of 1,924 submissions across approximately 40 sectors, with a combined value of $136 billion. The Hon Chris Hipkins is ensuring we have the skills to work on these projects through the $1.6 billion trades and apprenticeships training package, and the Government has also announced a further $3 billion for infrastructure projects through the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund. The Minister of Finance will consider this through the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund processes. 
Hon Judith Collins: Why have these projects not started now that the construction industry is back at work? 
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, a great deal of construction projects have started since the lockdown was lifted, and I can give the member a list: the Northern Corridor Improvements project in Auckland, State Highway 20B improvements, the Manawatū Tararua Highway, the State Highway 1 Hamilton West expressway, Bayfair to Baypark in the Bay of Plenty, Mackays to Peka Peka and Peka Peka to Ōtaki in the central North Island, the Christchurch Northern Corridor, the Christchurch Southern Motorway stage 2, the Safe Network Programme—they are all projects that are under way. They have been recommenced since the lockdown was lifted, and the member might like to know also that more than $3 billion of projects that were announced earlier this year as part of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme are progressing. So State Highway 58—the New Zealand Transport Agency is in negotiations with builders there on stage 2, and that's expected to be up and running in August. They're opening registrations of interest for the Tauranga Northern Link, Penlink, and State Highway 1 Papakura to Drury South. They're working with two shortlisted parties on who will deliver the shared pathway across the Auckland Harbour Bridge, and the member will be pleased to know that geotechnical testing is under way for Ōtaki to north of Levin to assist the design process. So, as the member can see, there is a lot of infrastructure work going on. 
Hon Judith Collins: So how many of those projects that he's just listed had not already been started before he announced he was going to announce some on 1 April? 
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: So what I announced on 1 April was that the Hon Shane Jones and I were tasked with working with Crown Infrastructure Partners through the infrastructure reference group to solicit projects from local government and the wider industry to assist the COVID response and recovery programme. That is one strand of a massive infrastructure development programme that is under way, including many projects that have recommenced and progress being made since the lockdown was lifted. 
SPEAKER: I sense a point of order from the Hon Judith Collins. I think she'd better express it. 
Hon Judith Collins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked about how many of those projects that the Minister had listed had not already been started before his press statement of 1 April. 
SPEAKER: That's right, and the member will address that question. 
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Four of the projects that I listed had not been started at that time. 
Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Minister expect new projects to start with no tendering and no planning and consenting work having been done on them? 
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the member is probably aware that the former Government was in the habit of putting shovels in the ground in front of the television cameras or driving a bulldozer round in circles on a construction site months or years before those construction projects ever started. That's not a practice that this Government intends to adopt. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, of the projects that he's been told today he inherited, how many dollars were set aside for the north of Tauranga to Katikati four-lane highway or the one between Warkworth and Whangārei, also promised, or the Whangārei to Marsden Point—of those three projects, much beloved by mention in this House, how many dollars were set aside by the previous administration? 
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, we don't need to be very good at maths to know the answer to that is zero. No money was put aside, even though those projects were promised over and over by members on that side of the House. 
Hon Judith Collins: When the Minister announced on 1 April that there was a developing pipeline of infrastructure projects that would be ready to begin as soon as we are able to move around freely and go back to work, were some of those projects not fully consented or funded? 
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There is a large pipeline of projects that I have described to the member in the last few answers that we have been putting together. Some of those projects—well, no work had begun prior to the lockdown. They are now under way, and there is a great deal more work as a result of the infrastructure reference group and their projects that will follow in the months to come. 
Michael Wood: Does he expect the significant housing infrastructure project on Endeavour Avenue in Hamilton being led by Kāinga Ora to proceed, in spite of the petition against it by the Hon David Bennett? 
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I don't have responsibility for that. But I do think, and I will say to the member, that when the members on the other side of the House call for infrastructure projects to be delivered and then run petitions in their local communities against housing being built in places like Whangārei and Hamilton, they should have a good look in the mirror at themselves. 
Hon Judith Collins: Is he now telling the House that when he announced on 1 April 2020 that these projects would be ready to go as soon as we are able to move around freely and go back to work, he did not have either all consents or all funding in place when he made that announcement? 
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No, I completely reject the connection that the member is making in her question. We announced that we were putting together a pipeline of projects. I've outlined for the member a massive pipeline of projects that are under way. The infrastructure reference group is adding to that pipeline, and my colleague the Hon David Parker has legislation before this Parliament that will streamline the Resource Management Act processing in a way that that member and that side of the House never did in nine years. 
Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Minister been advised that schools up and down the country—thousands of schools up and down the country—have been going to market over recent months for up to $400 million worth of school improvement projects? 
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, indeed, that is one of the strands of this massive infrastructure programme that the Government has under way—$400 million—that's generating jobs for tradies in every community from one end of this country to the other. That's the kind of infrastructure programme this Government believes in. 




Question No. 6—Transport
6. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: Have officials recommended a process for Auckland light rail that would have allowed all market participants the opportunity to bid for the delivery of the project, and what is the most up-to-date estimate of the cost of the project he has received? 
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): My officials have not, and both the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and NZ Infra provided indicative costs in their proposals. That information is commercially sensitive within the current process. 
Chris Bishop: What was the approach recommended by officials when he was considering what became what he calls the twin-track process? 
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The twin-track process was set up at the request of Cabinet so that the Government could decide on a delivery partner and a delivery model. The advice from Treasury and from the Ministry of Transport to Cabinet was that it was an unsolicited proposal and it should be dealt with in line with the Government procurement rules, and that is exactly what is happening. 
Chris Bishop: Was the twin-track process the only option put forward by officials for Cabinet to consider? 
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Look, when officials present advice to Cabinet on things like that, they almost invariably present different solutions. I don't have the Cabinet paper in front of me. If the member wants to ask a specific question, I'm happy to get that information for him, but the recommended course of action that went to Cabinet from the Ministry of Transport in the paper that I took was the process that we have since undertaken. 
Chris Bishop: I'll ask again: was the twin-track process the only option put forward by officials? 
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I've answered the question. 
Chris Bishop: Why, once it became clear that there was international interest in the Auckland light rail project, did he not go back out to market and seek expressions of interest, or at least test the wider market, rather than simply put the NZTA proposal up against the unsolicited bid from NZ Infra? 
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Precisely because the advice from Treasury and the Ministry of Transport was that treating an unsolicited bid should be done in accordance with the Government procurement rules. That's what we've done. The member seems to be of the view that the opportunities to deliver the light rail project should be going out to the wider market, but he seems to overlook the fact that once a delivery model and delivery partner has been selected, there will be ample opportunity for New Zealand and overseas firms to bid for the design, the construction, and the delivery of the project. There will be plenty of opportunity for the private sector to bid for that work. 
Chris Bishop: Does he share the views of the leader of the New Zealand First Party, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, that the Auckland light rail project didn't make sense? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I shouldn't have to point out that Mr Twyford is not responsible for the views of the New Zealand First Party—full stop. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee: He didn't ask him that—
SPEAKER: No, I'm prepared to rule on that. I think, within his areas of responsibility, he can indicate whether he agrees with a view that has been expressed. 
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I don't have responsibility for the views of the Deputy Prime Minister when he's speaking as a spokesperson for New Zealand First, but I'll say this: there's a Cabinet process under way, there are different views between parties and within parties on this and any other issue, and they will be worked through through the Cabinet process. 
Chris Bishop: Does he share the views of the leader of New Zealand First, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, that the Auckland light rail project has "had a blow out in terms of costs and we all know that"? 
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I have no responsibility for those comments. 
SPEAKER: No, that's—saying that the member has no responsibility—
Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is absolutely correct that the Minister doesn't have responsibility for the comments of the leader of New Zealand First. He can be asked to comment on them, but he does not have a responsibility to do so. 
SPEAKER: That's—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order. Well, I think the relevant point here is that Mr Peters clearly would not have made those statements without doing his homework, as he's famed for. So he would know what he was saying, and the question—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah, far more than you, sunshine. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I beg your pardon—sorry? Was that—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Far more than you, sunshine. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee: That must be worth three questions. He must—
SPEAKER: And that works on the assumption, Mr Brownlee, that your point of order is a valid one, and you'd better get to it pretty quickly. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, it's always a helpful one, and—
SPEAKER: You're not from the Government—you're not here to help at the moment. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee: —and no one disputes that Mr Twyford has no responsibility for a New Zealand First position. However, he was asked: does he share the view that the cost of the project has blown out? 
SPEAKER: Now—and I'll make it clear to Mr Twyford that in the Speakers' Rulings, if one goes to Speaker's ruling 155/3, he can see it very clearly—he can be asked whether he agrees with a statement as long as that statement relates to something which is in his portfolio, and that area, whether or not it's helpful, certainly does. 
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm not going to venture a view because the matter is subject to a Cabinet process. 




Question No. 7—Housing (Māori Housing)
7. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing): What is the Government doing to create a partnership with Māori to get more whānau into warm, dry, and secure housing? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing)): Talofa lava. As part of the recent Budget, the Government's investing $40 million to support housing partnership opportunities. We've established the Māori and Iwi Housing Innovation (MAIHI), a framework for action, which applies an implementation focus to improve Māori housing outcomes across the spectrum of need and aspiration from homelessness to homeownership. MAIHI also drives the Government's ambition to provide tailored housing solutions, create training and employment opportunities in regional areas, and drive our economic recovery. In addition to this framework, it recognises the multiple benefits of building financial capability of whānau and their governance capability, if they want to return to their whenua to build. By adopting a partnership approach towards achieving better housing outcomes for Māori, the Government is able to work constructively with iwi and Māori organisations towards common goals and aspirations in our recovery plans post-COVID. 
Paul Eagle: Kia ora. How has the Government partnered with others to support those facing insecure accommodation and homelessness? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: A fantastic question, because we've acted with urgency. For many whānau sleeping rough—
Chris Bishop: The member wrote it for him—of course it was fantastic. 
SPEAKER: Order! 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The Opposition may not want to hear—
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat, and Mr Bishop will ensure his interjections are in order. I give him an absolute assurance: I would never draft a question like that. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: On the issues of homelessness, we have acted with urgency. For many whānau sleeping rough in overcrowded accommodation settings or living in insecure housing situations, which has been a reality for too long, we have been serious about tackling this challenge. That's why the Prime Minister has released the Homelessness Action Plan, which ensured that we could get on the road quickly during the lockdown period to work with partner agencies, community and Māori housing providers to find accommodation and support those who need it most. 
Paul Eagle: Has the COVID approach to homelessness been a one-size-fits-all approach? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: No, it has not. The Government has worked alongside communities to respond to need and what is available within the context of their communities. So that means we have to take a different approach. Take, for example, in Northland. As an immediate response, we worked closely with the community and the providers there—in particular, the Māori collective Te Kahu o Taonui—to find solutions to house and support homeless whānau and those affected by overcrowding. This led to the deployment of 60 campervans in the Far North as a transitional temporary measure so that whānau were able to have warm, safe places and social distancing, and be supported by providers around the next critical steps to secure accommodation. 




Question No. 8—Health
8. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Did Budget 2020 provide funding to progressively increase the age for free breast-screening to 74; if not, why not? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Mr Speaker, talofa lava. This Government remains committed to progressively extending the age of eligibility for free breast-screening to 74. However, due to the impact of the COVID-19 global pandemic, this could not be progressed in Budget 2020. Our priority in health for this year's Budget was strengthening our public health service with a record investment in our DHBs of $3.92 billion. Extending the age for breast screening will be revisited as conditions allow. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he read the impact analysis on extending breast screening to include women aged 70 to 74 years, and, if so, does he agree with its findings of benefit for women of that age? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I of course don't have the lead responsibility in this area. If the member wants to put down specific questions about a specific impact analysis, he should put that to the Associate Minister of Health Julie Anne Genter, who has responsibility for women's health, which includes breast screening. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. 
SPEAKER: No, I'm going to deal with that. The member had the opportunity to transfer the question to the Associate Minister if he felt it was outside his area of responsibility, and, therefore, I think he's got to give a substantive answer to the question that was asked. I'll ask Mr Woodhouse to repeat it. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Thank you. Has he read the impact analysis on extending breast screening to include women aged 70 to 74 years, and, if so, does he agree with its findings of benefit for women of that age? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am aware that the impact analysis suggests that the benefit for women of that age is not as great as for the current cohort. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he think that the failure to deliver on what is a coalition promise harms the Government's stated intention to reduce health inequalities, given Māori and Pacific women have significantly higher incidence and mortality rates of breast cancer? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: In terms of the equity question the member asks, there are many, many initiatives which would greatly improve equity, and that starts with properly funding our DHBs and our health system. After nine years of neglect, this Government is absolutely committed to funding public healthcare adequately for the first time in ages, and it is making a difference because we are now able to fund the nurses and doctors and allied health workers that are required to deliver healthcare for all New Zealanders—1,700 more nurses, 900 more doctors, 600 more allied health workers. We are rebuilding a system that was neglected for nine long years. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: In relation to his answer to the primary question, does he accept that the evidence from the ministry means his failure to deliver on this coalition promise will cost more lives than COVID-19 has? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I return to the original answer, which is that we have the job of prioritising in healthcare. We have been making record investments, and so we are focused on making sure we roll out the programmes that will make sure more New Zealanders get more care, and that's indeed what we're seeing under this Government. 
Hon Michael Woodhouse: So what does he say to the more than 1,000 Kiwi women aged 70 to 74 who will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year alone and whose lives could've been improved or saved had this Government kept its promise? 
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: There is much investment going into health across the board, and more people are getting more care. I'd ask that member to look in the mirror and look at his time in a Cabinet that failed to fund health adequately if he's going to ask questions about people missing out. We are committed to growing the provision of healthcare, and, as conditions allow, we will continue to invest in healthcare. This is a Government that is absolutely committed to making sure more New Zealanders get more healthcare. 




Question No. 9—Energy and Resources
9. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How many more homes will be insulated with funding from the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. The COVID response recovery funding is expected to result in an additional 9,000 retrofits to be delivered in the next two years, with all the associated health, energy, and employment benefits. This brings the total retrofits expected to be delivered under the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme to 71,000. This shows the Government is committed to ensuring the programme reaches as many households as possible. 
Marama Davidson: How has the Government increased the support people can get to make their homes warm and dry? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government will now fund 90 percent of the costs of an insulation and/or heating retrofit for low-income households. Previously, the Government had been paying 67 percent of the costs, and third-party providers in the community, such as energy trusts, sometimes paid the balance. Moving to 90 percent funding means that warmer, drier homes will be in reach of more people. It also means the funding from third-party providers will go further. 
Marama Davidson: Will more home insulation help reduce respiratory illnesses such as childhood rheumatic fever which have increased in the Wellington region this year? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes. We know that cold, damp, overcrowded houses can increase the risk of respiratory illness and other preventable health conditions such as rheumatic fever. There is strong evidence of improved health outcomes resulting from warmer, drier homes. This is why the Healthy Homes Initiative delivered by the Ministry of Health works closely with the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) referring families who would benefit from a heating or insulation grant. A 2012 Motu report found that the insulation programmes like this have a cost-benefit ratio of 3:9, meaning that for every $1 invested, we see almost $4 in health benefits and avoided costs. The ratio goes even higher where we target at the most vulnerable low-income households. 
Marama Davidson: Is the Government also helping people upgrade to new energy-efficient appliances and lighting? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes. EECA has a range of programmes which support greater energy efficiency in households and businesses. For example, EECA works with the Australian Government under the Equipment Energy Efficiency—or E3—Programme to set energy performance and labelling requirements for appliances. Since 2002, this programme has saved over 50 petajoules of electricity, equating to $1.23 billion of national benefit. It's also avoided 1.98 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. EECA is currently delivering a range of pilots around the country to explore the best ways to give away energy-efficient LED lighting into households, including giveaways. The outcomes of these pilots will inform future EECA activity in this space, and the Gen Less campaign funded by EECA in 2019 encourages households and businesses to get more out of less energy and provides information to help make energy-efficient purchases. 
SPEAKER: Before the member asks, I'm going to let the member ask the question, but my records do show that the Greens have used their allocation for the week. If I've got it wrong—I'll let the member ask. If I do have it wrong, the Green Party will lose it from next week. 
Marama Davidson: I'll take my chances—thank you, Mr Speaker. Does she have information about how many jobs could be created if the Government funded insulation for even more homes, given there are around 600,000 homes that are still too cold and damp? 
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We've already heard from several Warmer Kiwi Homes providers that the additional funding announced through Budget 2020 has given them the confidence to start planning to take on more staff. While we can't be definitive at this stage, what we are hearing from the Budget announcement is it will support at least 60 new jobs up and down the country. It logically follows that funding insulation for even more homes would support more jobs, both directly for service providers and manufacturers, but also indirectly as the need for support staff and other roles increases. 




Question No. 10—Social Development
10. 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 $100,000 household income from a partner and a redundancy payment of $29,000 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. 




Question No. 11—Building and Construction
11. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent announcements has she made on cutting red tape to get people building? 
Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): Malo le soifua, Mr Speaker. This Government knows that homeowners, builders, and DIYers want to get on with low-risk projects around their homes and farms. That's why we've delivered a package of building works that will be exempt from requiring a building consent from council. By removing the need for consent, more sleepouts, sheds, porches, greenhouses, carports, awnings, water-storage bladders for irrigation, hay sheds, outdoor fireplaces, ovens, and ground-mounted solar panels can be built without delays. Homeowners, farmers, and DIYers will save up to $18 million a year in consenting fees. 
Kieran McAnulty: How will these changes ensure building standards are continued? 
Hon JENNY SALESA: These exemptions allow for some low-risk building work to be done without a consent. However, the need for compliance with the building code remains, and many of these exemptions require the work to be undertaken or supervised by a licensed building practitioner, or to be designed by a chartered professional engineer. These changes will remove the burden of consent for low-risk work while ensuring that building quality remains. This Government has a plan for the construction sector and we're getting on with cutting red tape from our building system, while others in the House are lining up the Colliery Railways Vesting Act 1893 for their regulation bonfire. I know which is more important. 
Kieran McAnulty: What feedback has she received following this announcement? 
Hon JENNY SALESA: We've seen overwhelming support for these changes from across the country. Over the weekend, I saw New Zealand's favourite builder, Peter Wolfkamp from The Block, say—and I quote—"I think it's great if you want to build a shed for a hobby or an office. It does give us a little more freedom." I also received an email from Ross from Taranaki saying, "I'm building a cabin at present, and the council permit fees were nearly as much as the building cost. It was crazy for a small building. I can now use the savings to pay someone to help build." We're making the system better and we're helping to create jobs, and it will not require a bill. It will be by Order in Council and it will be enacted soon. Fa'afetai tele lava, Mr Speaker. 
Hon Tracey Martin: Can the Minister confirm that her coalition partner the Hon Shane Jones has worked with her and officials for over 18 months to make sure that this bill comes into the House? 
Hon JENNY SALESA: I'd like to acknowledge and thank our coalition partner New Zealand First for their advocacy on this issue. It also would be fair to say I received a lot of advice from my colleagues, but I do want to especially thank the Hon Shane Jones for working with me on these exemptions. 
Tim van de Molen: Does she appreciate that her announcement caused thousands of projects across the country to be placed on hold until this promise is delivered, which places further strain on builders and suppliers of these projects, whose businesses are desperately trying to recover from COVID-19? 
Hon JENNY SALESA: I do not accept that this announcement actually puts a hold on work. What it does is it allows people to get on without delay, without a consent. They can actually have licensed building practitioners help them build these projects, and they also can reach out for professional engineers to design the work. This actually helps our rebuild after COVID-19. 
Hon Chris Hipkins: Has she seen anyone other than a National Party member of Parliament opposing the changes that she's just announced? 
Hon JENNY SALESA: I've had overwhelming support for this work from the public and from members of Parliament and from right around Aotearoa New Zealand. That is the first negative comment I've heard about this particular exemption. 
Hon Member: Supplementary. 
SPEAKER: No, I think the Labour Party's used its quota of supplementary questions. 




Question No. 12—Employment
12. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Employment: Which employment programmes have been the most effective, and what is the average return on investment across all the programmes? 
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Talofa lava. Can I first of all congratulate that member on his new seat. It's good to see the promotion happening in the National Party, and, hopefully, he keeps it. That's a very good question—a very good question, and a very important one. I want to be—
SPEAKER: OK—OK. Sorry, I was temporarily diverted. The member will resume his seat. The member will now start his answer again, without the gratuitous flicks. 
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. I thank the member for the question, and it's an important one. I want to be clear: I don't have ministerial responsibility for all employment programmes across the breadth of the Government. It's a team on this side of the House, who are invested in employment right across the spectrum. In terms of the first part of the question, though, for the programmes I am responsible for, both Mana in Mahi and He Poutama Rangatahi (HPR), they are equally effective, as they are designed to improve employment pathways for groups of New Zealanders who have generally faced poor employment outcomes, and they are succeeding. In terms of the second part of the question, Mana in Mahi is still a new programme, and many participants are still completing their first year. I am aware, however, that work is under way to measure the return in terms of investment. For He Poutama Rangatahi, though, we do not only measure success by dollars spent versus dollars saved. Our estimate of the cost benefit for HPR is for every $1 spent, the saving is $2.60. This is because the programmes work to expand the local work-ready force, increase local income, and reduce young people's reliance on Government support. Sadly, the members opposite see investment in our people and communities as a transactional dollar figure, while on this side of the House, the investment is all about communities and the people at all times. 
Dr Shane Reti: Which of his employment programmes will best transition redundant Air New Zealand crew into manual work? 
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: As I said earlier in my answer, I don't have responsibilities for some of those programmes. That's an area that I am not working on at the moment. 
Dr Shane Reti: What percentage of women who have lost jobs in women-dominant industries such as hairdressing will use his $100 million forestry programme to transition into forestry? 
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The $100 million programme is not my programme. 
Dr Shane Reti: Has he only taken one new employment programme to Cabinet during the four weeks of level 4 because—in his words—"I think this lockdown for four weeks has been brilliant. Another week's not going to hurt or destroy anyone,"? 
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: As that member well knows, I retracted those words during that shambolic pandemic committee that was chaired by the previous, Māori leader of the National Party. 
Dr Shane Reti: When he described his employment programmes in those terms to the Epidemic Response Committee by saying that most Kiwis are able to participate in the employment market organically, what are the criteria for organic participation? 
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: As that member well knows, when I came into this job, the economy was in a reasonable state, but vulnerable groups were missing out: Māori—who that member should be standing up for, instead of putting National Party questions forward—ethnic communities, Pasifika, and the disability groups were all missing out, and I'll stand up for those groups at all times. Those are the people who this side of the House cares about. Those are the people who we will continue to fight for, and shame on that member for not standing up for his people. 
Dr Shane Reti: When he said yesterday that he would get back with the number of workers redeployed in his $100 million forestry programme, what is that number? 
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I should have said yesterday that I'm not responsible for that programme—my mistake. As I said earlier, it's a programme that the Hon Phil Twyford is responsible for, and I'm sure he'll come back—he'll come back. But I remind the Opposition that it's not about dollars all the time; it's about the people, the people, the people. 





BUDGET DEBATE
Debate resumed from 26 May on the Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): It's been a very bored looking crowd in the gallery today, I have to say. This year's Budget was delivered by the Hon Grant Robertson during a time of unprecedented global financial and health crisis. I think it's a Budget that he can be rightly proud of, delivered at a time of great challenge in the world, and to have the confidence to deliver such a forward-looking Budget says a lot of how he has assumed the role as an outstanding Minister of Finance.
That confidence to deliver such a profound, forward-looking Budget comes from the knowledge that this Government—made up of the Labour Party; our coalition party, New Zealand First; and our support party, the Greens—had, before the COVID crisis, reduced Government debt. As page 28 of the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update shows, we had reduced net Government debt to 19 percent of GDP. We had reduced unemployment. Unemployment had come down from 4.7 to 4 percent. We had real wage growth that was the best that New Zealanders had experienced for a decade, and we had growth rates in New Zealand higher than in Australia, the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, and higher than the average in Europe. So we went into this crisis in a strong position, and it is that strong position that has enabled this Government to bring forward such a forward-looking Budget.
Now, we know—I think, at least on this side of the House, we share a celebration with the effort and commitment that has been shown by 5 million New Zealanders to largely—not completely—overcome the first challenge presented by COVID-19. And you would expect that everyone in this House would be celebrating that, but I have to say that there's one side that doesn't seem to be smiling that much about it. Maybe it's the time of year, but it seems that the only thing that they have in their garden to suck on during this lockdown was lemons—lemons.
Hon Amy Adams: Come on, David, you're better than this.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Gone is the party—I'm better than this, am I? Well, I will congratulate the former National Party. I can't imagine that that would have been the response of John Key and Bill English. They were optimistic, they were ambitious for their country, and they used to celebrate success. But they're long gone and the people that have succeeded them are of a completely different ilk.
We are coming out of this lockdown ahead of virtually anyone else in the world. There's one or two other countries that have done as well as New Zealand, but not many—you can count them on less than one hand—and there's lots of other countries who are suffering from a worse health outcome and are suffering for a longer period of economic damage. On this side of the House, we think that is something to celebrate, and we are pleased with the supports that we have managed to give to those businesses in the economy who have suffered as a consequence of the decline in economic activity caused by the virus. And let's not forget that is caused by the virus. Government policy has helped the country get through this challenge faster than most other countries, but, none the less, we are suffering those consequences as well.
Now, the standout measure, I think, of support for businesses has been the many tens of thousands of businesses who have taken up the subsidy that has enabled them to keep trading and to keep more of their employees engaged—$12 billion has been spent on that scheme, and that vast majority of it is going to New Zealand - owned businesses. Of that $12 billion, $5 billion, at least, has gone to small businesses, including sole traders. And the Opposition only had to look at the website where every one of those businesses are listed transparently, and they would have seen that it is the small businesses that they say that they're worried about that have been the recipients of that taxpayer funding that has helped them at both a business and individual level.
I've been surprised to hear the first question from the Leader of the Opposition assert that there has been no support for small business, because every one of those small businesses—and there are tens of thousands listed on the website—have been a direct recipient of those billions of dollars of support, and I cannot understand how the Leader of the Opposition made that mistake yesterday. Perhaps it was because it was at the end of a very long day, even though by that time it was only 2 o'clock in the afternoon. I have to say, as I watched Newshub last night, it was like watching a disaster series going back to the 1970s calamity movies that we used to see—The Poseidon Adventure is one that comes to mind, the roaring inferno. There were more twists and turns in that one story on Newshub than you often see in a multi-episode series on TV these days.
What happened? Well, maybe in the last we had a good start—maybe. Maybe a good start for him; not so sure it was a good start for the National Party.
Kieran McAnulty: Bring back Simon.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, "Bring back Simon." Bring back Bridges—bring back Bridges. I have heard that that is a theme that is coming to get a bit of currency on the other side. But anyway, he first said, straight after that, that Simon Bridges was considering his future, and Simon Bridges said, "No, I'm coming back."
He then had his first serious interview, which was on Q+A with Jack Tame, and he wouldn't commit to anything. He said, "Well, you've got the job; what's your plan?" And he wouldn't give one, because he hasn't got one. So what did he say? By the end he was pinned as wanting to borrow less but spend more. It wasn't a very good start from the Leader of the Opposition, and maybe that's why, on his way into caucus—his first caucus as Leader of the Opposition—that he actually lost his way a bit. The mistakes that were made on the way into that caucus—look, I've never seen it. I've been here for a while. I was here when Don Brash took over the National Party. That was a time of real backbiting. There was real division within the National Party. We had our share of that when we were Opposition too—we've been through this. We came through it—we came through it very strongly, but you can see they're just at the start of this in the National Party, can't you?
What happened? Well, we had "Ngāti Epsom", and then the deputy leader of the National Party, having dropped her leader in it, went away to check, came back and said, "Yes, he's Ngāti Porou.", and he then said, "No I'm not." It was all on camera. Then we saw Judith Collins and Paula Bennett leave the caucus at the same time, and Paula Bennett bitterly—I think she is another person who's got lemons in the back garden; very bitter—said, "Well, Judith Collins' contribution is obviously more important than mine."—clear reference to her demotion. And then we had: what was the highest-ranking Māori within the National Party?
Hon Member: Goldsmith.
Hon DAVID PARKER: No, no, it was Shane Reti all of a sudden. After they got over the mistake of "Ngāti Epsom", they actually said it was Shane Reti. Unfortunately, then they realised he was at number 17. Now, I've got a lot of time for Shane Reti. I think he's a very competent member of Parliament and a genuinely nice person, but I did feel a bit sorry for his sort of very temporary elevation to the front bench.
So if I could return to some of the other positives that are in this Budget. In addition to the $12 billion that has been spent into the economy, which we really did get out the door quickly, and I really thank Government officials for their assistance in both the design and the delivery of that. I know that there were teams of people working throughout New Zealand throughout the COVID lockdown to actually get that money into the pockets of New Zealanders, and they did exceptionally well, but we've got a lot of other things to support the economy here. This is not a financial crisis in the sense of the global financial crisis; this is a collapse in consumption and demand. The collapse in demand also affects production, and so we're facing, around the world, difficulties.
In the face of that, one of the roles of Government is to support consumption and demand so that you don't get into a downward spiral, and that's what this Budget most certainly does. It takes a leaf out of the lesson of the first Labour Government. We're not going to get into this perilous downward spiral. We're going to lift the fortune of New Zealanders, and we're going to do as well economically as we have so far in overcoming the health challenges. Congratulations, Grant Robertson.





Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I am pleased that I have a chance and get to take a call in this appropriations Estimates debate. While this is, of course, the Budget debate, I don't think anyone would disagree that it's been delivered, it's been put together, and it's being debated in the context of the biggest economic crisis that any of us, certainly in this House, will have dealt with, and quite likely any of us in our lifetime. The scale, the intensity, and the size of this challenge really render, you know, all of the normal rhetoric and analysis and debate around Budgets somewhat obsolete. The focus of this Budget really is that it encapsulates the Government response to how this country is going to approach the COVID crisis.
In that regard, it was eagerly anticipated. Right across the country, irrespective of politics, everybody understood that we were in an unparalleled crisis and that the thinking and delivery that would be required to get us through it would be set out in this Budget. And I don't mind admitting it myself: I may be an Opposition politician, but I'm a New Zealander too, and I was looking to this Budget to understand and have confidence that New Zealand had a clear path ahead and could have some confidence in its future.
The Government, of course, had three months from the time the severity of this crisis first became apparent—about the middle of February—to work with tens of thousands of public servants, very highly paid, very highly skilled, and millions and millions of dollars in consultants, to ensure that this document could set out the very best of thinking that they had around how they would respond to the crisis. It was a chance to show that they got it, that they understood what was going on and what we were going to face, and that they had a plan to get New Zealand through this, that they understood the scale, they understood the support that would be needed, and that they understood the adaptation that would be needed right across our country to a post-COVID world. But what did we see? We saw no plan whatsoever. After three months and hundreds of thousands of man hours from our civil service and consultants and all of the minds on the Treasury benches coming together, we saw no plan, no direction, nothing at all that was going to reassure communities that this was a Government that held their livelihoods in safe hands, that the country could look at this and say "OK, I can breathe a sigh of relief. I've got real confidence that my job is going to be safe, and, for those who do need new jobs, that those jobs will come to pass."
What we saw instead was a Labour Party that has reverted completely to type and just assumed that if you talk about big numbers, that's the same thing as having a plan, and that if you talk about spending a lot of money and really big numbers and lots of billions, people will think that they know what they are doing. That is just not enough. I was just reading, actually, an article in The Australian today where a former Labour treasurer described this Government's response as having, "no idea whatsoever except to throw money around." That is exactly right. If you don't have a plan, in Grant Robertson's world, just talk about billions and billions of dollars and let's hope that's enough.
What we got in this Budget was a $20 billion slush fund. And, you know, in this House, billions—and Michael Cullen famously said, "A billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon it's real money."—$20 billion; that's a 20,000-million-dollar slush fund that the Government either can't or won't tell us what it's going to be used for, and that's just not OK. Either they've got no ideas, they've got no concept at all of what that money is going to be spent on—
Hon Maggie Barry: That's quite likely.
Hon AMY ADAMS: —or even worse, though, Maggie Barry—even worse than that bad scenario, they know exactly what it is and they're callously sitting behind a frame of it being a COVID response to chuck a whole lot of money around to support their election chances. We will see, won't we? But to tell New Zealanders who've, by the way, paid for that money that "We're not going to tell you what it's for. We don't know what we're going to use it for, but we're going to take it off you." is simply not good enough.
I think it's very easy for Governments to forget that this is money—whether it's borrowed or taken in taxes, it's all money that comes out of the pockets of New Zealanders. Those New Zealanders deserve the respect of knowing what it will be used for, what impact it will have, and is it going to be spent carefully. You've got to know, surely as a Government—as a competent Government—not only how much you can spend, but what difference will it make. I've always said in this House, and I stand by it, that the test of a good Government is not how much you spend; it's what you achieve with that money. We've seen time and time again in this House that this is a Government that wants to get rid of targets and accountability for outcomes and wants us to judge them on how much money they spend. Well, if that's the contest—how much money they can throw around—they can take that one. I would far rather that our side of the House is judged on the difference we make for New Zealanders, and that's certainly what we stand for. If a Government truly wants to be kind to New Zealanders, don't take money out of their pockets unless you know exactly why it's needed, how you will use it, and what difference it will make. That is a kindness.
It also shows—this Budget—to me that this is a Government, and, more worryingly still, a Prime Minister and a finance Minister, who I don't think are actually appreciating the true scale and severity of this crisis. Let's look at the Budget, and, of course, Budgets are put together—and I've certainly been in the room when Budgets have been put together, and I understand the process. Budgets are put together based on a set of Treasury forecasts which go through a range of scenarios—best-case, worst—well, you know, a sort of a high-risk case, a low-risk case, and a likely middle line. The Treasury forecasts in this Budget are unbelievably, in a time of such fast-moving crisis, a month old at Budget day—a month old. This is a crisis that is evolving by the day. We're seeing a thousand people a day—isn't it, Louise Upston—go into just the job seeker support, and Treasury stopped taking the mood of the economy a month out from the Budget. So we get a picture of things looking unbelievably rosier than they are or that they will be. I would say it's Pollyanna-ish, but it's far too serious. If you cannot appreciate the scale of the severity, you cannot respond appropriately. 
And this is not just an Opposition view of the world. You've got the Reserve Bank today coming out and saying, actually, unemployment could be twice what Treasury said. You've got significant and well-respected commentators saying unemployment could be 24 percent, and yet we've got Grant Robertson, just a week ago, or less than a week ago, saying he thought unemployment had plateaued. That, to me, tells me that we have a Government that is either duplicitous or entirely out of touch with the severity of what's going on in communities around New Zealand. The businesses I talk to are quite clear. We are nowhere near the worst of this economically yet. And yet we've got Treasury and the finance Minister singing from an "It's All Fine" song sheet, and that's simply not right.
I want to come back to that same article in The Australian today, where they referred to this Government, and I quote, "pushing our economy off a cliff. Public finances are in tatters, its biggest export sector obliterated." That is the true reality of the economic management of this Government. That is the true state of affairs. And Mr Robertson's comments that he thought unemployment was plateauing and businesses were confident now that we were back to level 2 shows an unbelievable naivety and failure to understand business. Just because a business can reopen—and I wouldn't have thought I would have to spell this out in the House, but let me do so—just because you allow a business to reopen, it doesn't mean it is suddenly profitable again, and if it's not profitable it won't keep its staff. Those unemployment numbers are going to continue to rise up. And that is people, it is livelihoods, it is security, it is everything they have worked for. 
The very first thing this Government should do is acknowledge the true picture of what has happened to New Zealand and show them that they have the germ of a plan, any idea how they're going to get through it, and if they don't know how to get through it, then they need to step aside for those who will get New Zealanders through this. We need to support communities in this time of crisis. This is not about keeping money in the tin. We agree with that. It is about supporting New Zealanders in getting the help that they need and it is also about adapting New Zealand to a post-COVID world. That needs a clear plan. It needs a team capable of delivering it. If National has the privilege of being re-elected in September, I can promise everyone in New Zealand that that is exactly what you will get.





Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): The next leader. Sorry, thank you, just to follow on from the Hon Amy Adams, who probably should have been the current leader, to be perfectly frank. It's lovely to see her back, and it's lovely to know that she will be here for some time. It was a great sadness when she decided that she would step down, but it's lovely to see that she has rescinded that decision and this House is going to have the benefit of her intelligence for some years yet—on the Opposition benches, but for some years yet, so that's always a good thing.
However, I do want to pick up on some of the comments of my colleague who just resumed her seat. I believe that the article she's referring to was actually written by—or the quote that she was giving was from—Roger Douglas. I noticed that—I don't know; I haven't read the article. I'm sure perhaps I'll go and search out, but if it is by Roger Douglas, I doubt I will read it. And, of course, it may very well have been by Ruth Richardson, somebody else that the National Party likes to, well, not really talk about any more, do they? Because that's exactly the point. Naming those two names, the very reason why this Budget is the way that it looks is because New Zealand First, as part of this coalition Government, absolutely refused to allow this Government to shift into austerity measures, absolutely refused to allow what happened in the 1980s and the 1990s happen again to New Zealanders.
I find it fascinating that the Hon Amy Adams stands and talks about "a plan, a plan, a plan"—we're rolling out the plan, and yet their current leader cannot articulate any plan at all. Apparently there are 55 of them working on it and, according to the current leader, they're all talented, they all have depth—e.g., that doesn't matter what number you are, then, and where you sit. But they keep talking about the fact that they want to see a plan. This Government has articulated it with the amount of money that we have already put forward in Budget 2020.
Hon Louise Upston: That's not a plan!
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I find it also fascinating that the Hon Louise Upston, who is shouting out at the moment—that the Hon Amy Adams just said, "We do not argue against spending money on our people.", but the Hon Louise Upston stood up and said, "Why are you giving New Zealanders a temporary income support? Why are you giving New Zealanders temporary income support?" She also argued something about the ethnic background of the New Zealanders that might be receiving the temporary income support, but it's a complete flip from the ethnic background that she used to talk about before there was COVID—now there's another ethnic background that she doesn't believe that the Government should be supporting.
This Government will support New Zealanders. We did so with the wage subsidy to start with. We've just announced an extension to the wage subsidy. We have announced that we will do a temporary income support package. There are other packages that are coming forward. There is an enormous amount of work going on by Ministers in this Government. We are incredibly aware of the one-in-100-year shock that our people are going to experience. We know it every day by the people we talk to. We know it every day by the numbers that we see signing on to income support and signing on to the wage subsidy. We know exactly what we are staring down the face of.
The other thing that this Budget has done is it has built on some of the investment that we had in the previous Budget. The Hon Amy Adams talked about: absolutely there is a process for Budget. I led priority D of the Wellbeing Budget, and we were right at the end of that, and then COVID-19 struck, and instantly all of that process, all of that work, needed to change. It needed to swing into place to support our people. One of the things that we got in the 2019 Budget was $7.7 million for seniors, and part of that was working around the gold card. Online providers started working with the gold cards, the Office for Seniors, around how can we incentivise, how can we help our seniors to get online and make sure that they can continue to get some form of discount to stretch their dollar while we've asked them to stay at home. So those people just shifted their work from where they were enhancing the gold card in the physical environment, to now trying to enhance it in the digital environment.
We had 600 learning support coordinators announced and funded in the 2019 Budget. During the lockdown, those 600 learning support coordinators not only were continuing to professionally develop but they were contacting families; they were making sure that they talked with Special Education Needs Coordinators and Resource Teachers: Learning and Behaviour to build a picture, so that those children who had learning support needs, the moment that we were able to—either through online learning or back into their classrooms—were immediately supported. 
Oranga Tamariki, for example, we had got a budget, a $1.1 billion budget over four years in 2019. Part of that was to digitise up our workforce. Oranga Tamariki was able to immediately start working from home, immediately continue to do their work to try and keep their eye on children by handing out devices to our families, our carers, and even handing out phones on some occasions to some of our parents so that they could stay in touch with their children. We worked with Whānau Ora to make sure that, when they were delivering, Oranga Tamariki put some of that money into Whānau Ora and the emergency and sanitation packages that were being delivered, and we asked them "While you're there, please check on the children." We know that we actually had others of our providers step up.
We have been working on transition support, on prevention and early intervention, and we continue to do that because we know that one of the side effects of COVID-19, if I speak as the Minister for Children, is that more of our families will be under stress. And when our families get under stress, bad things can happen to children. So we need to, as a Government, make sure that we move in with assistance much faster than we've ever done before, before families start to break down, start to have the raruraru within them escalate to a level where there is—whether it be verbal abuse or physical abuse, sexual abuse or whatever, we move in earlier.
And that is part of what this Government has put in, and some of its investment into continuing to build on what has been the amazing capacity of community to come together to look after each other. We're going to build on that, New Zealand; we're going to take the team of 5 million and we're going to invest in the team of 5 million. We're not going to move to austerity measures. We are going to now take that spirit of community that we have rediscovered—something we've never seen in our lifetime—and we're going to build on it and invest in it, and we're going to enhance it, and we are going to make New Zealand better out the other side of COVID-19, because this coalition Government, in which New Zealand First holds a key anchor, will not allow austerity measures to be part of what goes on, but we will not allow our people to get to a cliff face, either. Any solution that this Government puts in place—if it's temporary, we will have an exit plan; if it is permanent, we will make sure that it can just transition through as our economy recovers. Because we won't have a cliff-face again, like the subsidies that were lifted off our farming communities, that brought them to the brink of destruction in earlier times—we will not allow that to happen.
So we're very proud of the Budget that we have put forward in 2020. It delivers what it needs to deliver. We have more to come, because we must. The Opposition talks about $20 billion as a slush fund. They can't give you a plan, New Zealand, about what they would spend your money on, and, again, I find it fascinating that the Opposition talks about this as taxpayers' money. These are the very taxpayers that, again, just today, they argued should not get the temporary income relief. Again, these are the taxpayers that they say "Why would you invest in those taxpayers' children and their children's education? Why would you invest in those taxpayers and actually helping them make sure that there are loans for the businesses that they either own or are employed by?" It is a strange and confused message coming from the Opposition. It hasn't got any clearer with the change of leader, but I can tell you now that this side of the House is particularly focused. Our vision is incredibly clear: we're going to get New Zealand up, we're going to get it back out and working, and we're going to make sure that we are stronger than when we went into COVID-19. This is the opportunity for the reset, New Zealand, and from here there's only up.





ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I enjoyed that speech.
Hon Member: I suppose when you're on 3 percent, there is only one up.
ANDREW BAYLY: Yes, yes, at 2.7 percent for New Zealand First, yes, I think that's very important.
I did have a good look at this Budget, as all my colleagues did, and I've got to say, it's grim reading—it is grim reading for all New Zealanders current and in the future. And that is obviously something that has happened as a result of COVID-19, but the financial impacts are just incredibly huge in the sense of what it's going to do to our future generations.
So we had a debt of roughly 60 billion bucks, and everyone was praising us, only a few months ago, that New Zealand was well-placed with low Government debt. On the other side, we didn't talk about the high level of private debt that individuals, households actually have. So when you put those together, actually, New Zealand was always reasonably indebted. But at a Government level, through successive Governments—both the current Government and, certainly, under our administration—we got that debt down. But we are going to see debt grow from $60 billion, which is a hard figure to envisage, to basically three times that amount: $200 billion. That is a staggeringly high amount of money, three times the level of debt that somewhere, sometime, someone is going to have to pay off. Part of the reason for this, this huge increase, is that the projections that the Government put out assume that we will continuously lose, every year, substantial amounts of money. So our revenue from our tax resources or income will be far below what we will be spending every year to the tune of just over $100 million over the next four years—$100 million.
We've just been celebrating the fact that we have achieved a surplus of about $7 billion, albeit that a couple of billion of that came from accounting treatment. That is one of the highest Government surpluses we've ever achieved. And yet, we have got a Budget that seems to say it is OK to run up $100 billion of operating surpluses before we even start to generate any returns so that we can even contemplate the ability to pay down some of that $200 billion worth of debt. Now, any business, any household, would not stand a chance if they went to their bank and put up a proposition like this. I think this is the disconnect and the difference that the National Party has with the Government. It is the simple fact that we believe that it is perfectly appropriate that the Government is spending a lot of money right now—in fact, it should be spending more, and I'm going to talk about that—but there is a time when that needs to stop, and we have got a flabby Government that doesn't know anything about financial discipline. And that is the worrying thing, that anyone could be prepared to put out a Budget like this that says we will run up $100 billion worth of deficits and we're perfectly OK.
Now, the bit about this, if you even look at the Budget, it is one hell of a spender. I'll just give you examples, just random examples from the Budget. The first one I came across, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, for some reason, and, you know, this in the context of growing our debt by three times. So most of us will be going, "Yeah, we're going to spend lots of money, but we'll make sure we cut it back from somewhere else. Otherwise, the future generation, the young generation, is going to have to eventually pay it back for us." That's pretty unfair for people like us in this House. So presumably you're going to take quite a disciplined approach. So the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, guess what! Another $7 million in the Budget. Alright, doesn't sound a lot, I know. But, you know, if we're going to lead the country, why don't we just look at our own department?
If I go to—and these are random—the Office of Film and Literature Classification. Here we are, we're going to spend some money on the delivery of an online rating tool for the self-classification of commercial video. Very good, thank you. We're going to spend some more—oh, here's another one: we're going to spend some money, not much, on doing up the Premier House and the cottage because that's very important.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: That's more important than breast cancer screening.
ANDREW BAYLY: Much more important than breast cancer! That's right, Mr Michael Woodhouse, as we've heard earlier today.
Then we've got arts and culture—no, here's another one. Here's a good one—[Interruption] Excuse me. I'm trying to give a talk here, excuse me. Here's a really good one: general election 2020, transitional support for the executive. This means this is funding for when we have the election and, post the election in October, whoever it is, and hopefully it's us, apparently you're going to give us $6.2 million so that we can ensure that the Ministers and their staff quickly become operational. Well, I can tell you what, if we happen to be on that side of the bench in October, we will be returning the $6.2 million, because we don't need it.
But the other stuff in here, you know, the area where I really wanted to see something, because I did have the building construction portfolio, and I know that in Wellington everyone's been saying to Mr Grant Robertson, "Why don't you help us upgrade our seismic strengthening on our apartments, on our commercial buildings?" He's had it in his ear from all the locals. Guess what—guess what! We had all that other stuff. We've got $3.1 million to help strengthening of buildings across all of New Zealand. Now, I tell you what, if I was running this Budget I would have taken all those other millions and I would've probably given $20 million to that. That's where I would've funded that from. Easy peasy.
These are just small examples of the Budget. It just shows that we've had a hell of a spend-up, and we're not worrying about our future generations, how we're going to pay for it. Now, that is the issue, and National's issue is that, as I said before, we should not be spending more than necessary.
All this should be put through a cost-benefit analysis. We heard today that a lot of these Budget items haven't been put through it. They haven't been put through the CBAx system, which was introduced by you guys, and you're not using it.
SPEAKER: Order!
ANDREW BAYLY: Sorry, Mr Speaker. So this is where we sit with this Budget.
Then, we turn round the other side and say, look, what should we have seen in this Budget? We should be talking about the support for households and for businesses. We agree with what you've done with the wage subsidy, albeit you only did 50 percent of the wages in the sense that there was a 50 percent subsidy of the average wage. One might have argued it could have been 80 percent of the wage, which was what most countries overseas did, but, nonetheless, it's a relatively generous package in the terms of the lifespan of that project. But the issue around funding our businesses is a crucial issue. 
And we've heard about the business finance guarantee. It was a scheme that was taken from the UK and, basically, dropped in here at the very time that the UK were talking about it being ineffective and that the Government was going to change it. The Government chose to bring it in, and, as we heard today, $60 million—a mere $60 million—of funding has been provided to small business—drop in bucket. Then, we've heard about the tax loss scheme today. Again, $71 million. The reality: it does not work—it does not work for small businesses.
The worst thing I find about the approach is that the Government think the best way to help a business is to gear them up, give them more debt. What is absolutely crying out from our small business owners right now—because, by the way, they employ hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders—is the absolute need to get cash in their pockets so that they continue to meet their overheads and their rental payments. Of course, we had this absurd proposition put forward by the Hon Andrew Little about rental arrangements. There is no financial support for small businesses in rental arrangements. It has just been assumed that every rental landlord in New Zealand—it's OK that he or she should pick up the bill. But we heard today from the Reserve Bank, when I asked them, they are particularly worried about the commercial sector. It's worth $180 billion, and it's huge. And they are now worried, as we are climbing out of this period where we've had wage support, that this is one of the areas that New Zealand is really going to have a problem with. The Government should have dealt with it and they haven't.





Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Whānau Ora): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Ka tīmata ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori, ka mutu, ka huri atu ahau ki roto i te reo Pākehā.
Tiwhatiwha i te pō, kakarauru i te pō. I a au i te pō kerekere, i a au i te pō, ka rapuhia, ka kimihia kei hea koe e ngaro nei e.
E te pāpā, e Wiremu Wiremu, kua ngaro atu rā koe i te tirohanga kanohi, haere atu rā koe ki runga i tō waka o Ngātokimatawhaorua ki te wāhi o Hawaiki i whakataukitia ai e ō tātou mātua, e ō tātou tūpuna. Koutou o te pō, kotahi tonu te kōrero ki a koutou, haere mai, haere.
Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou katoa, te hunga ora. Ka ao a Tamanuiterā ki runga i te mokopuna a Te Omeka, ki runga i te mokopuna o tōku hoa mahi. Kāti, ki te hunga ora, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.
[Greetings, Mr Speaker. I will begin in Māori and then change to English.
The dark night, the deep night. When I take steps into the long night, I will search for you, I will look for you in the great beyond.
To my ancestor, Wiremu Wiremu, who has left the world of the living, go on your ancestral canoe of Ngātokimatawhaorua to that place in Hawaiki that our ancestors memorialised in proverb. To those who have gone to the long night, return to us and go in peace.
I will guide my speech back to us, the world of the living. The sun shines on the descendant of Te Omeka, on to the grandchild of my work colleague. To those of us who walk in the world of the living, greetings one and all.]
Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. Over $900 million: that is what this Budget delivers to Māori—Whānau Ora, Māori education, Māori housing, kōhanga reo, employment, and skills training. As the Minister for Whānau Ora, I am proud—proud that this Government backs the good work that Whānau Ora does. I'm proud of our response, the immediate action that Whānau Ora took in protecting our Māori communities from COVID-19. I'm proud that we have invested, in the recent Budget, a further $136 million into helping whānau through Whānau Ora in a Māori way and in a way that we know works.
I note that the Leader of the Opposition asserted this morning that National created the concept of Whānau Ora. This is a gross misrepresentation. The concept comes from Te Ao Māori and has been understood by our whānau and our people since time immemorial—well before its adoption in official policy.
The Leader of the Opposition also said that the investment in Whānau Ora was driven solely by whānau needs. I would like to note that Whānau Ora is an intentional step away from the deprivation assessments of the previous Government. Whānau Ora fosters whānau resilience, building on their strengths and aspirations, to empower them, and to restore rangatiratanga.
This investment does not happen by chance; it happens because a Government chooses to make it happen. It happens because our Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance see the challenges facing Māori. They understand the statistics and the failures of the past, and they vow to do things differently. It happens because our Māori Ministers sit at the decision-making table and, as a team, advocate for our people, to help our people, and, as a result, we get wins for our people. Our contribution is strong; our team is stronger.
No one should underestimate the importance of diversity, the important role diversity plays in ensuring Budgets serve all of our people in Aotearoa. In one of his first interviews, the Leader of the Opposition said that he didn't see Māori, that he didn't take into account who a person truly is when determining who would sit on his front bench. In that one reply, he told Māori that he does not see them, that National is blind to who we are and to what we stand for.
His colleague Judith Collins, in select committee today, announced that she was sick and tired of being demonised for her culture. When Ms Collins is more likely to live in poverty, to end up in prison, to be stopped to have her bags checked in a shop even though her Pākehā mates are not, then maybe she can claim to be demonised for her culture, but not now—but not now. She, like her leader, is blind to the real Aotearoa that the rest of us live in.
The Leader of the Opposition claims that my ministerial colleagues the Hon Willie Jackson and the Hon Kelvin Davis are weak—the same Ministers that delivered hundreds of millions of dollars to Māori education, to kōhanga reo, to employment, and to Māori trades training. As a child of kōhanga reo, those announcements warm my heart. They are the same Ministers that have made gains for our people in every single Budget of this Government and in every policy of this Government that we have put in place since 2017. Their contributions have made a difference to our Māori communities.
The Leader of the Opposition doesn't understand our Māori world. In his own words, he doesn't see our world. The real weakness in politics, in my humble view, is ignorance. The Opposition would have never and would never deliver a Budget for Māori like the one we have delivered in 2020. When leaders admit that they don't see someone's culture, when they don't value the Māori contribution, they are admitting that they are blind to our achievements and deaf to our concerns. Their assessment of what effectiveness is, what strength is, is based on succeeding in a world that we as Māori do not live in.
The Leader of the Opposition may not see us; he may not value our contribution, but let this be said: we see him—Māori see him—and we see what true weakness really looks like on this occasion. Tēnā koe.





LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It's my pleasure to rise and take a call in the Budget debate, and I'll come to some of the points that Peeni Henare, the previous speaker, has just made, in a minute. But at the outset, I wish to say that it's my proper first time at speaking in this place since COVID, and I wish to acknowledge the health response. It was good. I wish to acknowledge the Ministers and all MPs right across the Parliament who worked during that time, because it was a difficult time for New Zealand. MPs and Ministers worked incredibly hard during that time, and I want to give some acknowledgment of that, including to the executive. 
But I also want to acknowledge people in my own area because, yesterday, we officially had no COVID-19 cases in Hawke's Bay any more. They have all recovered. We had one cluster, caused by a cruise ship that came in, which was deeply worrying for everybody, and while there could be slightly related cases in the future to that, they think it unlikely. So in Hawke's Bay, yesterday, we officially had no new cases. 
We had no deaths, and I want to pay tribute to my DHB, who did a fantastic job. The doctors, nurses, essential service workers, and the people in rest homes—it's been an amazing response. 
I also want to thank the civil defence personnel. I was included, fortunately, with the leaders—with the mayors—with the chair of Ngāti Kahungunu, and with all the civil defence. It was a united approach and it worked well. 
I also want to pay tribute to the Hawke's Bay economy. Like with many other parts of New Zealand at the time of COVID, it is our peak production season, so 10,000 people in Hawke's Bay worked through the lockdown in pack-houses and orchards, delivering fruit and all those types of things. Not one single person contracted COVID19 in that workforce, and I pay tribute to the people who own those businesses, the efforts they went to, and the money they spent to keep their workers safe. 
But while I am complimentary of the health response, that's where the similarities end, because when I read the Budget, it's fair to say I was shocked at the scale of the borrowings and the projected deficits. I also believe that the funding that has been—and the assumptions made by Treasury are optimistic. So we started off with a debt of $60 billion and, in four years, it's going to be $200 billion, and we're going to run deficits of $100 billion over the next four years. I'm talking billions; I'm not talking millions—billions. Currently, the total debt of New Zealand is around $60 billion, so our deficits alone will be nearly twice that over the next four years. 
Why I worry about that—and I'll come to the borrowings in a minute—is that even though interest rates are historically low, all that money has to be paid back by us, by our children, and by their children. 
Kieran McAnulty: So the member wouldn't borrow? 
LAWRENCE YULE: So I'm not against borrowing the money—I'll come to that, Mr McAnulty, if you just wait for a minute—but let's be clear: it does need to be paid back, and it will be a major handbrake on the New Zealand economy. 
The wage subsidy has been a good thing. However, the pain has only just hit. On Monday, I spent the day in my electorate visiting businesses and talking to them. In my view, the workers have not yet understood the full ramifications of what's going on, because they've been sheltered by the wage subsidy. Those business owners are petrified. The small shops in my electorate, the small and medium sized enterprises—all the stress currently, or most of it, should I say, is going on the owners. They asked me about the next wage subsidy, and they said this: "If we qualify for a 50 percent reduction in turnover so we can get another eight weeks, we might as well shut our doors, because it doesn't work." You cannot trade when your turnover is 50 percent of what it was before. 
So as we go into June and as we go into July, let's remember those small-business owners. We need to look after all New Zealanders, but at the moment, in my view, they're taking the biggest brunt of the stress and financial concern that's going. 
Yes, there is a small-business loan scheme, and we heard today that $1 billion, I think, has been taken up. But there are massive inconsistencies between who can get the small-business loan and who can get the wage subsidy, and I saw a classic example yesterday where it's completely misaligned. The equity support through the Government underwriting 80 percent of the new loans, up to $500,000—only $60 million has been taken up. Most people tell me that's because if the bank has to be the facilitator of that, they might as well get it from the bank, rather than using some new scheme that the Government's got. 
Then, I come to the Hawke's Bay aspect of the Budget and some of the inconsistencies in some of the things that we've been promised. A couple of days before the Budget, the Hon David Clark came out and said that it was the largest ever investment in the DHB sector. "Wonderful," I thought, and then, when I looked at the figures in the Budget, it's a complete con. In Hawke's Bay, last year's appropriation for the DHB was $538 million. This year's appropriation is $584 million, or about a $50 million increase. One would think, "Fantastic!", until one remembers that last year, the Hawke's Bay DHB had a deficit of $21 million, and this year they're projected to have a deficit of somewhere up to $30 million, so the $50 million that's been added simply keeps up with the deficits they've been running. Not a single extra new operation, no funding for the COVID response so far, and all those people that have been waiting for elective surgery, they've been bumped—nothing for them. A whole lot of screening and other things have been cancelled—nothing for them also. 
So it's a con. It is a new investment—sure—but it doesn't actually advance the health needs of my people in Hawke's Bay. 
Then, another Minister also announced—fantastic, it's part of the scheme—8,000 new houses. State houses, they said—8,000. They conveniently forgot they'd promised 100,000 KiwiBuild houses and built about 500—so 8,000 new houses. I'll tell you in my electorate the situation: for 2¾ years, there has been 2½ hectares of vacant Housing New Zealand land in the middle of Hastings and, in that same period, 10 houses have been built—10. At the same time, we now have 550 people living in motels in Hastings, and the Government can only build 10 houses. So it's all very well to make big announcements, but there is absolutely no credibility associated with what this coalition Government can deliver. 
I also watched my councils. They said, "Oh, this is fantastic. We need some shovel-ready projects. The Ministers have come round and talked to us about what they need.", and $300 million—or $310 million, I think—was put up by the Hawke's Bay councils for shovel-ready projects: roading, water, and those types of things. I found out today that the total applications for that fund were $136 billion—$136 billion was the applications for the fund, and the fund has got $3 billion in it. My councils seriously think they're going to have a reasonable show at $300 million. When you look at the number, they'll be lucky if they get $5 million. 
So there have been lots of promises in this Government and there have been lots of discussions, and I've heard Ministers and the Prime Minister say, "We're not into austerity." Nor are we, on this National side of the House. Nor are we, under our new leader, Todd Muller, and what he wishes to do. We're not into austerity, either. But what we are into is making sure that the massive amount of money that we're borrowing on behalf of New Zealand, that we and my children and their children are going to pay, is spent properly. So far, in the 2¾ years that this Government has been in power, their ability to deliver anything close to their promise has been woeful, and I don't expect that to change. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I understand this is a split call. I call Dr Liz Craig—five minutes. 





Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In my split call, I would like to focus on the record investments in health, but before I do, I'd just like to provide a bit of context. During the lockdown, I was lucky enough to sit on the Epidemic Response Committee, and we heard from a whole range of health professionals, who were, themselves, working during the lockdown. We heard from GPs, and a number of GPs had moved incredibly quickly to providing remote consultations and focusing on providing the care that their patients needed while keeping both their patients and their staff safe. We heard from midwives who had been out in the community providing antenatal care—sometimes remotely, sometimes face to face—and also delivering babies in difficult circumstances. We also heard from pharmacists who had been going out and making sure that patients had the prescriptions they needed by delivering them to people's homes.
We also heard from some of the cancer services, and particularly from specialist Chris Jackson. What he was talking about was how they had continued to deliver cancer care right through the lockdown—so chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and cancer surgery—and most of the patients that they were looking after had received the care that they needed right through that period. For him, one of the quotes he was saying, during that time, he said, "The lockdown has kept people with cancer and vulnerable immune systems safe. They have been spared the serious or fatal harms of infection. This … to date [has] been a success." I think what he was saying, basically, was that this lockdown has made sure that those with cancer were completely protected from the effects of COVID in the community, along with many, many of us as well. So the success of that lockdown was noted by many. But what he was also talking about was the fact that the lockdown had resulted in delays in some cancer screening and delays in diagnostic tests, and what he was saying was that as a sector, we would need to be planning some catch up in the system for elective procedures and also for non-cancer elective procedures.
This is where Budget 2020 also comes in. But this Budget isn't actually in isolation; this is the third of the Budgets from this Government, and the previous two basically were designed to rebuild our health system after nine long years of neglect. Many of the things that were invested in those two previous Budgets are going to be incredibly relevant to our recovery, including our record investments in mental health services and making sure that people on low incomes can continue to access low-cost GP visits. It's also incredibly important that we've invested, over the last two Budgets, in our DHBs and also in our crumbling hospital infrastructure, our buildings that had been neglected over those nine years. So that's put us in a good position moving forward.
But, basically, Budget 2020 isn't the only other significant investment that we've put in during this year, because as the conditions started to deteriorate overseas, our Ministry of Health, our Government, was watching. Basically, because we had the capacity to put those border measures in place early, we had the time to look at the evidence and put extra measures in place, because in the absence of a vaccine, contact tracing and early diagnosis are going to be the cornerstones of protecting us. So even before we announced Budget 2020, the Government, on 17 March, had announced $500 million in extra funding. What that funding was used for was to double the resourcing going into public health units, who were at the coalface of that contact tracing, setting up a national close-contact service that then coordinated that contact tracing and also looked at investigating the clusters and all those complex investigations.
We also put extra money into primary care—not only just for primary care to look at telemedicine and remote consultations but also set up those community-based assessment centres, so people knew where they could go and get a diagnostic test. We put extra money into Healthline so people could ring up and there would be extra doctors and nurses there to provide consultations. So there was a lot that we did even before we went into Budget 2020, and what that's done is, as we've moved through and had an incredibly successful public health response—and the number of cases are very, very small, and we're getting many days now where we've got zero new cases—we're putting ourselves in a position for recovery.
So where Budget 2020 comes in is now significant investment into our DHBs, and so what we're basically doing is putting the largest investment into DHBs—$3.92 billion over the next four years, or $980 million per year, into DHBs—so they can do some of that catch up but also just to put them on a sustainable footing. We're also putting an extra $282 million over three years into a catch-up campaign for electives. So this is a good Budget for the health system, and this is a good Budget for the people of New Zealand. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Fa'afetai i lau afioga Fofoga Fetalai. It's an absolute opportunity to contribute to this Budget debate this afternoon. My speech today is going to be about leadership, and it's going to be about thanks, and it's going to be about leadership for a once-in-100-year epidemic. So I want to take this opportunity to thank our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. I firmly believe that we live in the best country in the world, not because I'm bragging but because of the leadership, the people at the helm, and I want to just say fa'afetai tele to our Prime Minister.
We are now celebrating the lowest numbers in a response to this COVID-19. We are now at a stage where we can say, "Play it safe." So when we look at playing it safe, what's the "it"? The "it" is about the leadership of the people who are leading us as a country. The "it" is about the team of 5 million—a team of 5 million. Every day we are comforted in confidence that our leader, the right honourable Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, is speaking to every individual in the team of 5 million.
I want to acknowledge—well, the Budget is about leadership. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the finance Minister, the Hon Grant Robertson, because when we took this journey, our books were in very good shape. What do I mean by very good shape? We had the lowest unemployment figures ever—lowest unemployment figures ever. We had a surplus. We were positioned—in the leadership since we took office in 2017—to lead in a once-in-100-year epidemic. I want to thank the honourable Minister of Finance, and I want to talk about the $12.1 billion quick response in the lockdown alert level 4 and alert level 3. Why do you want to talk about that? I want to talk about that because it addressed the immediate needs—the wage subsidy addressed the immediate needs. I want to echo the Prime Minister that no one in this country should go hungry—immediate needs in terms of the wage subsidy.
Of course, we talk time and time again about inequality in this country. We talk about our Māori and Pacific in the same sentence about inequality in this country. Evidence tells us about inequality in this country. But have we seen it done before? No. It is the first time in a hundred years that Pacific and Māori are part of the priority of the Government. Why do I say that? Well, there is evidence saying that we are listening. We're listening with our heart, not just with the evidence that's been before our face but we're listening with our heart. The $900 million—the $900 million—to try and equal that, to Māori tangata whenua in this country. The $105 million to Pacific.
English is the language that we speak most often in this country, but in the time of crisis, people who couldn't understand English needed to be told the crisis and response in the language that they can understand as a team of 5 million. The leadership that it took for the languages to be spoken in our mainstream media is about leadership and is about ensuring that our team of 5 million understood the Government's response in terms of public health.
I want to acknowledge what happened in Papakura, in terms of the $12.1 billion first response of the Government. I'm the Labour list MP based in Papakura. The Papakura multidisciplinary cross-agency team, MDCAT, and the leadership of it—it was chaired by Mel Tipene. Every week on a Wednesday they got together: KuraConnect, YourPapakura, Te Puni Kōkiri, the Sikh temple. They got together and they spoke about how do we respond to our community—how do we respond to our community.
I want to be able to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Peeni Henare, in terms of Whānau Ora. Under that leadership, people got the food at the door. It didn't matter what status you had in this country—it didn't matter what status. You were provided with a food parcel at your door by people who knew where the vulnerable people are. So I want to take this acknowledgement of Kathleen Tuai-Taufoou of Siaola Social Services, the arm of the Vahefonua Tonga 'o Aotearoa Methodist Church, for their contribution in terms of Whānau Ora. And last but not least, I want to sing the praises of Daljit Singh, who leads the Gurdwara in Takanini, the Sikh temple, who fed thousands of people in Auckland because the need was there, and they could do that because they could rely on the Government—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member's time has expired.





Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I can't begin my speech without responding to the comments of the member who's just returned to her seat, Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki, where she congratulated the Government for putting food into everybody's mouth who were in need during the lockdown period. Yes, I congratulate the Government for stepping up in that regard, but they weren't the only ones. 
They weren't the only people in New Zealand who were stepping up to help their fellow team of 5 million in New Zealand. Sure, the Government did a great job during the lockdown. We totally support the vast majority of measures that the Government brought in in dealing with the health response, and, to a certain extent, the social response, particularly during level 3 and level 4 when people were in their homes and suffering significant hardship.
But it wasn't only the Government, and the degree of hubris that we are now beginning to see coming from this coalition Government is breathless. The member earlier in the afternoon in this debate, the Hon David Parker, was fulsome in his praise for the finance Minister, the Hon Grant Robertson, with his visionary Budget and got himself quite worked up in describing the wonderful—the sheer wonderfulness of Grant Robertson. I could just see into his mind—and I could just see into his mind that he was going, "This man is superb! King Dick Seddon—no, no, that's a bit much. This man is superb!" And then he checked himself and went, "Oh, hang on a minute." Then he just stuck to, "OK, he was visionary." But I want to know from David Parker, and I want to know from other members of this Government and Cabinet, including Grant Robertson, what is so visionary about spraying money around in a Budget? We all know that stimulating the economy via putting money into the system is what absolutely is needed.
But I tell you what else is needed: a plan is needed. While this Government seems to have an unfailing focus on jobs—which is great—what about business? What about small business? What about those small businesses who are the very ones who employ the workers? Please explain to me at some point during this debate: what is the point of giving the wage subsidy to your employees? It's a good thing; we support it, but if you don't support the small businesses themselves, when that support runs out, so does the business.
So we are waiting. We are teetering on the edge of the cliff, in New Zealand today. We are in this false situation where we have workers in small businesses and large businesses. They are impacted in this crisis as well. We have all of those workers with the subsidy—a good thing—but as we know, when that subsidy goes, in the absence of any other meaningful support, not for the workers but for those employers and the businesses, then it will all collapse around the Government. They know it. They absolutely know that. And I'm yet to see any meaningful policy coming from this Government, any meaningful plan coming from this Government which is going to address that very moment when the wage subsidy runs out and suddenly employers go, "I can't make this work anymore; I simply can't make this work."
All of the measures put in by this Government, and I do wish the Prime Minister had been able to explain today, in answer to questions from our leader, just how those measures to support small businesses were going to work because I didn't see any coherent arguments or answers from the Prime Minister, because it's blindingly obvious we are all connected to small businesses. It is blindingly obvious that if you don't have—
Hon Member: We are.
Hon JACQUI DEAN: Yes, we are. If you don't have customers coming through the door, if you don't have orders coming through your website, well, what is the point of a wage subsidy? Because when that runs out, you do not have the means to pay them.
So I want to talk for a moment about conservation in New Zealand, because it was another example of spray the money around, make jobs for people, but where is the plan behind it? I've read the Budget documents. I've read the press releases. I certainly acknowledge that spending money on all of those things in the conservation portfolio that we all hold dear, addressing pest control, supporting Predator Free 2050, Jobs for Nature, jobs on private and conservation land: all good stuff. All good stuff. 
But here are some questions I will be asking the Minister of Conservation in due course: where is the plan for all those jobs? There is a lot of money. Let's just talk about the Jobs for Nature fund; $200 million to fund jobs and create jobs. So these are new jobs we're talking about here: boosting predator control—wonderful; restoring wetlands—wonderful; regenerating, planting, and improving tracks—it's what we all want; huts and other recreational visitor assets on public conservation land. How are they going to do that? How are they going to do that in Fiordland or Otago and on the West Coast—where formerly there was very low unemployment, but particularly in Otago, where there has been a mass loss of jobs but a lot of those people in those jobs are in hospitality or tourism—and working in areas that are totally unrelated. The skill set is totally unrelated to what is required to working in the outdoors and in nature. How are they going to make that transition? Is the Government going to provide pastoral care for those people? 
Who are the agencies that are going to be delivering these projects? And what is the strategy between the Department of Conservation and those other agencies to make sure that not only do we get the outcomes that we need in the environment—and I've just listed them—but how do we ensure that that $200 million fund for new jobs, which I've just outlined, how do we know that is going to provide value for money for New Zealand? Because we've got to keep a hold of quality expenditure. It is simply not good enough to keep spraying the money around our economy on make-work jobs without ensuring that that money is well spent, is targeted, and gets the outcomes for which it made the press release, which sounded really good in the first place. It's easy to do a press release. It's fabulous, but delivering is quite another matter and one only has to talk to Phil Twyford to see that non-delivery is one of the hallmarks—and I'm talking KiwiBuild here—of this Government, and I could go on—light rail to Auckland Airport—but I digress. 
There's another thing I want to ask—and I will be asking—the Minister, and I expect some good answers. The question is: what happened to that $60 million shortfall in her funding through this Budget, which was caused by lost concessions due to the lockdown, of course—members will remember that—and which is exacerbated by no more coming, no more visitor levy coming across the border? So there's a $60 million shortfall. Where does that appear in her Budget documents, because I can't find it, and is some of that funding—that funding announced in the Budget—going to plug that gap, to plug that hole? It's not immediately apparent, but it is incredibly important because the public needs to know that the money that the Government allocates through the Budget, it's not the Government's money—like they seem to think that they are the providers of all things good in New Zealand. It's not their money; it is taxpayer money.
And here's another thing I want to ask the Minister of Conservation and believe that New Zealand needs an explanation for: what happened to that promise that she made midway through the lockdown that she would be providing financial relief to people who had concessions to hunt or to commercially operate or to undertake pest control on conservation land, but couldn't? What happened to that relief? Because the stories I'm hearing are that far from concession fees being waived during that time, they haven't. There have been promises made, and I have heard one person with a concession flagging to me that they are not only not receiving any assistance, but expecting an increase in the concession fee. Where is the thinking there? 
It's all very well creating jobs. It's all very well putting press releases around, flagging support for predator control. We all support those things. But where is the Minister supporting those small businesses who not only rely on concessions for their very livelihoods and the livelihoods of their families, but also make a contribution to biodiversity outcomes in New Zealand? What about them? Where is the mention of those people in New Zealand? Oh, I'll tell the House the answer because I've been looking. There is no mention. This is a "scatter the money around" Budget. This is a "scatter the money around" in the conservation estate. It's OK. There's no plan though—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member's time has expired.





Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Mr Speaker, I wonder if you could indulge me for a few minutes. I want to spend a little time—this is the first chance I've had to speak in the House since we have returned post-lockdown, and I want to acknowledge the sacrifice that families have made over the lockdown periods, particularly families who have lost their loved ones; families who have been restricted in their ability to care for loved ones, especially those at end of life; families who have been unable to grieve. I want to say a huge and immense thanks to all of those families who, despite really wanting to be with their loved ones, actually paid a sacrifice for all of us. So I want to acknowledge them. I cannot speak more highly of what they have done for all of us.
But I want to pay special tribute to my friend and colleague Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki for the loss of her mum. I want to pay special tribute to Jerome and Jules Mika and their family at the loss of Josiah, and to my special friend Stephen Hughes and his family at the loss of their dad, Richard Hughes. But most importantly, the 11 residents at Rosewood Rest Home: more than half of the deaths attributed to COVID-19, from my electorate, the loss of our kaumātua from Christchurch East. I want to pay a special tribute and acknowledgment to David Meates, the chief executive of the Canterbury District Health Board; his staff and team; the team at Burwood Hospital; and the staff of all the facilities who took the residents from Rosewood and cared for them and loved them during this difficult time. My thoughts, my prayers, my aroha to them all. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me that.
I have the most incredible, fantastic opportunity to work with and be the associate for some lead Ministers that I'm very grateful for: Megan Woods as the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration, Iain Lees-Galloway as Minister of Immigration, and Carmel Sepuloni as the Minister for Social Development. I'm incredibly proud of what the Ministry of Social Development has contributed to the joint venture looking at family and sexual violence and the Budget that we have produced this year: $183 million; $142 million for family violence services, $16 million for perpetrator services, and $25 million for elder abuse.
Overseas experience taught us in the lead-up to our own experiences of dealing with COVID-19 that we would experience a spike in family violence. During the course of particularly lockdown at level 4 the numbers were relatively stable, but we knew from the intel that we were getting from our family violence services that, underneath all of that, families were under some pressure, they were under stress, and there were some difficult times that they were experiencing.
Now, our key methods of detecting levels of violence within our community were no longer operating. We get a lot of information from our schools, for example, as key reporters of difficult times with families. And, of course, we weren't getting that information, but anecdotally, our refuges were telling us that violence was on the rise, and we had to be able to be prepared to support victims and families better. So I'm enormously proud of the $142 million for family violence services, proud of the work that the Ministry of Social Development does as part of the joint venture to put, in this particular case, a staffer from the ministry into the National Collective of Independent Women's Refuges to assess how they work and actually to look at what they need, and start to deliver, based on the need and the ability to deliver effective programmes, to victims and their families.
Now, this has come on top of significant increases that we have already made. So since coming to office, since taking over as Government, we've made extraordinary increases to funding for family violence, because it's been needed; that's what we've needed to do. So in Budget 2018: $76 million to stabilise and strengthen family violence services for victims, perpetrators, and families. Budget 2019: $90 million for specialised sexual violence services; $30 million for family violence prevention, including the programmes E Tū Whānau, Pasefika Proud, and the Campaign for Action on Family Violence.
In this Budget, there are a couple of things that have been very exciting for me. One of them is the $16 million for perpetrator services. Why I find that extraordinary and exciting is there is a huge opportunity for us to look at those people who use violence, and try and develop the circuit-breakers, the mechanisms that will support them to deal with the issues that cause them to use violence before they do that—whether it's by de-escalation through some of the programmes that are delivered, through Hey Bro or My Fathers Barbers. Simple things like having access to someone to talk to when you are elevating, when you are starting to become at risk of using harm, someone to talk to to actually help you to deal with your issues of anger and stress. Simple things, but preventative, that stop you from doing harm in the first place. This is a step in the right direction to us actually eliminating violence in our communities, and I think it's a great step in the right direction.
Also $25 million to address elder abuse. I can recall talking to the Hon Tracey Martin about this and saying to her that, actually, really, in the scheme of things, we don't really recognise elder abuse as family violence, but it is—it is. Our older people, our older citizens, deserve to actually be as safe as anyone in this country. And we have all got examples—constituents or others who have told us of how older family members may be placed under some duress to hand over assets or money or the like. So family violence does exist amongst our older citizens.
Just in the last few minutes before my contribution ends, I do actually also want to acknowledge the $63 million for water safety—the $63 million in this Budget for water safety. I'm particularly happy about this, living as I do on the east coast of Christchurch, and my constituency having a long length of coastline as part of it. Actually, when I'm exercising in the morning, I go past three Surf Life Saving clubs—four if I'm extending myself, but three, and they are particularly happy with this announcement. Surf Life Saving New Zealand, the Water Safety Council, and Coastguard all contribute to the programmes that they deliver to keep New Zealanders safe in and on the water.
I come from a family of fisher folk, and I know that for us—Pacific Island men, in particular, need to be encouraged to wear safety devices when they're out fishing. This is part of the wider programme to keep us safe, not only in but on the water as well. These services are run mostly by volunteers, and if it hadn't been for our community organisations and our volunteers, we would not have responded to COVID as well as we have. So I just want to send out a tautoko and a mihi to all of our community and voluntary services. Thank you so much for everything you have done during this really difficult time in our country, because without you we would not have come through this as well as we have. So congratulations to the Hon Grant Robertson, who has been extraordinarily nimble in being able to take what was a Budget that took a year to craft and turn it on its head so that we could respond appropriately and significantly to this difficult time that we all face. Fa'afetai tele lava.





Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak today on the Budget. As part of that, I'll traverse several portfolios. I want to talk to the health portfolio first of all. I'll cover a number of points in the Budget. I'll then also move to the tertiary portfolio and cover a number of things there as well. I think, talking to health, I want to say there are some things in health that I'm pleased with, some that I have a neutral view on, and some I'm looking at saying, "Gosh, I don't know if that's in the right place or not. I would do something different.", and I'll traverse some of that. But I think generally every health system in the world needs more funding, as does ours. It's a vacuum, and every health system struggles, and so it's good to be getting more money in health. It's a point of contention, of course, as to whether it's enough and where it's going to, but it is a good thing to have more in health.
Why I think particularly it's a good thing is around a point that I brought out last week, because more money is going to be needed at the health interface with the Customs Service. I'll tell you why that is: because when we open up our borders—and I may speak to it when we talk to international students, and I make the point that I think, safely, we should consider opening the borders to international students in a safe way. When we do that, the first point of screening—because we're going to need to screen for coronavirus for a long, long time—is the arrivals card that they receive when they come into New Zealand. 
About six weeks ago now, on 16 March, a new arrivals card was proudly waved here in the House by the Minister of Customs. The concern I've had with this is that one of the key questions on the arrivals card asks, "What symptoms do you have?" And the symptoms that it asks are "Do you have a cough, fever, or difficulty in breathing?" Now, again, remember, this is the first contact people have, the first screening for coronavirus when they come into New Zealand. The problem I've got with that and why I'm proposing that a part of this Budget is going to need to completely redo the arrivals card is because the three main symptoms for coronavirus in New Zealand are actually—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Sorry to interrupt the member. There's about half a dozen conversations going on just in this area, and it's really difficult for me to hear what Dr Reti is saying. I'd really like a few conversations to tone it down.
Dr SHANE RETI: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So the concern I have is that some of this Budget will need to be expended to completely renew the arrivals card. Why? Because it's asking the wrong questions. Our prime screening tool at the border is simply asking the wrong questions, and, indeed, it has been since 3 a.m. on 20 March. That is what the Minister tells me is when this new arrival card—and I recall her in the House, waving it around and saying, "This is what we're doing here now."
The principle is good. It's a health declaration card, which actually sits outside the flu pandemic response. It sits in another document, from 2016, around protecting international ports and borders. It's a good document. It's a good tool, but we've got to ask the right questions. The wrong questions, to reiterate, are "cough, fever, and difficulty in breathing". It's the difficulty in breathing part that's the wrong question, and we know that because when I queried the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) and said "What are the main set of symptoms that New Zealanders had?", they said "Cough, fever, and a sore throat." Were there only a few people with a sore throat? No. In fact, nearly 50 percent of people with coronavirus have had a sore throat, and when I talk with people who have gone to the testing stations and asked them "Well, what symptoms did you have?", the vast majority have actually complained about a sore throat. So it's a really key symptom, and our arrivals card—our prime screening tool—doesn't cover it. 
When this was raised with Professor Des Gorman, he pointed out that it was a grave omission and a grave mistake, and so I would strongly commend the Minister that, with this Budget, she look at very quickly redoing that arrival card. Go on an evidence base. Base it on science. Who knows or who cares where "difficulty in breathing" came from—that's a late symptom, long after the sore throat. Use the evidence that other ministries and our own ESR is bringing forward. Use that to redo the arrivals cards. So that's one of the things I'd like to see in this Budget—that in the health interface with Customs, some of the money is used there.
I then want to talk to funding for the Ministry of Health for their administrative arm, and I'm a big fan of more people at the bedside rather than managing the bedside. But, clearly, administration and management at the Ministry of Health is going to need funding, and I see they have received that. Why I think that's important is because it can fill in some of the holes, and I want to highlight one of those holes. It's one of the holes that came up through the Epidemic Response Committee, where the chairperson, the Hon Simon Bridges, took the Director-General of Health to task for being late with information back to the committee. In fact, he was questioning whether he was controlling the information to the committee. Then, on the 7th—
Hon Member: Completely incorrect. 
Dr SHANE RETI: It's not correct, and I'll tell you why it's not correct. I'll prove why it's not correct.
On 7 May, the director-general then put up on the website his response, saying that it's not correct. I'll tell you why that's correct: because at the meeting on 22 April, questions were put to the Minister and the ministry. They were sent by the clerk on 23 April. Nearly 10 days later—that is at least a week, if not two weeks, late—they arrived back at the committee. Those questions to that select committee were late. The Hon Simon Bridges was absolutely correct. What's even worse was that on 1 May and 4 May, the clerk actually followed up with the director-general's office. "Where are the questions?" "Oh, they'll be here tomorrow." "Where are the questions?" "They'll be here." No, they weren't. What's even worse than that is on 29 and 30 April, the clerk followed up with the Minister's office—in fact, his personal SPPS.
So the response, the answers to questions from the select committee, definitely were late just from that one committee. In fact, 50 percent of the committee questions in May were late. I know that because 94 percent of them were mine, so I was watching them and tracking and waiting for them to come back so that we could do a better job. So just this one committee, questions were returned two weeks late, and four times the clerk went to the Minister's office. The clerk went to the director-general's office and got no response, so much so that, unanimously, the whole Epidemic Response Committee passed a motion to send a letter of complaint to the director-general. Those are the facts. That's what's on the record. Furthermore, if we really want to get into further details, at least 50 percent of all of the questions that were asked by the select committee in the month of April were late being returned. Simon Bridges was absolutely correct. Ask the clerk; it's a matter of record.
So where I get to with this is saying, clearly, the Ministry of Health is going to need some of the administrative funds that are positioned there in the Budget, because we can see here, just from this very recent episode, there are holes there that need fixing. But I wanted to set that record straight, because the chairperson was absolutely correct. Ask the clerk; he's got all the details—really simple. Ask about all the other ones, by the way. The late questions from 14 April, due on the 17th, didn't arrive until the 21st. On 29 April, due on 4 May, received on the 6th—a whole litany of late replies to that committee. Absolutely evidence-based—need to correct that record.
I then want to talk to the funding that's put aside for vaccinations and just make the comment that last year was the year of vaccine hell for New Zealanders. If we started the year and talk about the meningitis vaccine, we've prosecuted that already in Northland. There is still more to come from them. I'm still unhappy that children weren't able to be vaccinated.
We then move to the running out of flu vaccines in May-June last year, if we recall. But remember: that's only a distribution issue! I don't think so. And when I said to the Minister here in the House and asked her questions—Minister Genter this was—around responsibility for the flu vaccine last year, she said "No, no. I didn't have a responsibility for that." Yes, you did. The delegation from David Clark was on 22 or 23 July. Every vaccine from then onwards you are responsible for. You are responsible for that. In fact, David Clark passed you that delegation—it was a suicide pass you didn't see coming—because it was very soon, almost 24 hours, after the select committee had prosecuted him for his management of the meningitis outbreak. He saw the trouble coming, passed it to Julie Anne Genter, and she took it up.
So vaccines and then, of course, we had the measles issue last year. We had the measles outbreak. My question has to be: what did we learn over the year about logistics and supply that are focused on this Budget, that improve it, that make it better? It's not clear to me that there was any organisational knowledge retained or any things that could be done better by the time we came around again this time and are running out of flu vaccines a year later. It's not clear to me we learnt anything. As the coronavirus infection hit us, did we learn that the backpacker in Mount Maunganui who developed measles and hopped on an Air New Zealand and then Cathay Pacific flight to get home to Germany and infected people on the way—did we learn that you need to ask the airlines? Because in that instance, they didn't even ask the airlines. Cathay Pacific or Air New Zealand let that infected backpacker make their way back through New Zealand and home. Why didn't we learn about contact tracing way back last year with the measles response?
So these are some of the things that I'm looking for in this Budget to make sure that we do a better job. It's a hard job—I get that—but it seems to me we haven't learnt anything from last year. This Budget needs to help fix that. Thank you, Mr Speaker.





MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I seek leave of the House to table a document produced by the clerk of the committee and received by me on 12 May which shows that information requested by the Epidemic Response Committee of the Director-General of Health was received by the dates for which it was requested.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It will be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.





ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): A point of order, the honourable—oh, sorry—Dr Shane Reti.
Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): I seek the leave of the House to—
Hon Member: Should be.
Dr SHANE RETI: —you're very kind—table a table sent to me from the clerk of the committee, showing the late responses to the Epidemic Response Committee.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): OK, we think it might be the same document. However, leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that? There is none. It may be tabled.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.





JAN LOGIE (Green): Talofa lava. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It's really lovely to get the opportunity to stand and follow on, I think, from my Labour colleague, the Hon Poto Williams, in talking about the Budget and the impact and role it's going to play in our effort to create a world where healthy, respectful relationships are the norm and where everyone in this country can feel safe. That is a piece of work that this Government is very engaged in, and I've got to say I'm really incredibly proud to be part of a Government where we're all working so hard together to be able to move towards that reality.
So, ahead of speaking to some of the details in the Budget on that, I do just want to specifically acknowledge the Ministers in this Government, particularly the family and sexual violence Ministers, the Hon Andrew Little, Carmel Sepuloni, Poto Williams, Nanaia Mahuta, and Tracey Martin, as well as Ministers Nash and Salesa, who were involved in putting successful Budget bids through to help us move forward, and in looking over all of them—and, too, to recognise that while this group has the responsibility for the oversight, actually it is everyone across Government who is engaged in this, and to do a particular call out to Minister Lees-Galloway and the leadership he's shown in ACC in getting them, just over this time, around the response to COVID, adapting really quickly to ensure that the funding was going through to our prevention agencies, who play such a vital role in our community, and to help reshape the prevention work to meet the needs of this context.
It's been really encouraging, as well, to see the work flowing through from Minister Hipkins in Education, where they responded to needs identified by the community of the concern about the impact on children needing to leave their homes at that time and not having the ability to maintain their attachment to school. So Education worked with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), other Government agencies, and our community organisations to be able to get educational resources to kids in that situation, including them being able to access laptops so that they were able to keep up with their school work just like other kids. I think that's showing the benefit of us all working together—that, actually, it's putting our families front and centre and making sure that we're not just kind of carrying on blithely doing what we think is needed and not checking whether it's meeting the needs of our community. 
This Budget has specifically—the key feature is about the resource to our front-line services that enables us to have the partnership between Government and community, and recognising that that is essential for us to be successful in this work. And it builds on the work from the last Budget, which happened to be the largest investment in family and sexual violence in this country's history in one Budget, and this investment now is the second-largest. But the biggest commitment in the last Budget was towards sexual violence services, because we knew that they weren't adequately resourced for the work that they were doing. This Budget really builds on that for the family violence sector as well.
I just want to reference the fact that we've been hearing from the experts, as well as from those services and our families, about the importance and the need for this for a really long time. The Family Violence Death Review Committee's reports have repeatedly pointed out the need to adequately resource our specialist front-line services, and for acknowledging that they were not adequately resourced and that their work is difficult and complex. We do a disservice to the families that they're supporting when we underfund them, because that results in higher caseloads and increased stress for workers, and that doesn't produce great results.
So it was a very moving moment for me to be part of the announcement around this package and to hear Women's Refuge acknowledge the importance of this moment in time, and actually visibly seeing transformation and the potential for fundamental change. One of Women's Refuge's critical roles has always been to challenge and critique, and that kind of comment would never be made lightly. I really think it is a demonstration of the work of this Government, of all parties coming together to commit to creating a future for us all that is free of these forms of violence. 
Just acknowledging that, too, that it is where Government agencies and Ministers have their lines of accountability—so, for Police, and Health, and Education—and all of those agencies' and those Minister's outcomes are reliant on those front-line services. They're the people that they call when things get hard and they don't know what to do. So it has made no sense to me that that sector has been so under-resourced for so long, and really it is a really significant moment in this Budget to see that change. 
And, just to speak and pick up on a point that there is funding in this Budget towards victims and their whānau, as well as to help people who have been using violence change—the latest Family Violence Death Review report spoke to the absolute critical importance of that. That $16 million builds on other funding already in MSD as well as through Justice, and it is really important, because we can't—one of the main shifts that we need to make in this work is from focusing on victims and holding them responsible for their own safety, to actually shifting our focus to ensuring that the people who have used violence are prevented from using violence again. So this money is critically important, as is the funding towards children's services, because we know that the impact of violence where children are physically abused, but even if they're in a household where there is violence—physical violence and other forms of violence—between parents or other people, that causes as much, if not more, harm to those children than if they'd been hit themselves. That is what the evidence tells us, and yet we have not resourced the services for those children to deal or heal from that trauma.
So this, again, is a really important moment in our shift towards ending this violence, because unless we intervene at that point, so many of those kids—we condemn them to having a future with that violence in their lives, and we get the chance to stop that. And that is something that I think we should all embrace and feel incredibly proud to be supporting, because it is that future for all of us, free of violence. 
Also to note that there is money in here, as well, for elder abuse and addressing elder abuse, at the other end of the spectrum. It's similar dynamics, often, to violence against people with disabilities, where there may be denial of medication, there may be denial of mobility aids, or financial abuse—that it traps people. Often, seniors, as well as people with disabilities, don't have pathways to be able to tell people in the same way that an adult with full mobility or communication skills might, and that this requires a specific response—again, a tailored response. It's really fantastic to see us putting more money towards that so that we can ensure their safety. 
All of this, of course, is supported by all of the other measures in the Budget around housing, and income, and strengthening the justice system, and community aid, legal aid—there is so much to this, about us transforming our society for all of us, to restore wellbeing even in this crisis. We are seizing that opportunity.





Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Budget is a crucial part of any Government's political year, but especially this year when we face the crisis that we do in our country. The COVID crisis has really made this country reflect—[Bell rung]
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Oh, sorry. My apologies.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: I think that's another 10 minutes—it's another 10 minutes. 
Michael Wood: We've had enough too, Madam Speaker.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes—ha, ha!
Michael Wood: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think members of the House possibly unanimously support the Speaker's decision.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Ha, ha! For another 10 minutes, yes, thank you.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon David Bennett—nine minutes, 44 seconds to go. My apologies. 
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Thank you. It's normally the other Speaker that interrupts me. But, no, the Budget's a crucial part of any political agenda for any year, and especially this year when we're looking at the crisis that New Zealanders encountered in the health sense and now in an economic sense. And it's been fascinating to see the reflection that we've seen through the Government and possibly through the community as well on the role that agriculture's going to play in the future of New Zealand. You know, the agricultural and horticultural communities represent the heart and soul of this country. They represent people that get out there and do the hard work, in whatever weather and under whatever financial conditions there are, to make the most for their future and their families' future and for New Zealand's future by delivering the hard export earnings that we need to enable our country to function and effectively pay its debts going forward now. 
They need to be valued and respected, and I think that in the last few years, they haven't felt that, and it's time they are given the message that farmers are valued, they are respected, and this country needs them more than ever now. That is the message that I want to portray today in this Budget speech, because we're hearing the right things, you can say, from the Government about the need for agriculture to deliver the economic prosperity for the country. But at the same time, we see that there are imminent dangers in the sense of the legislation that the Government wants to put in front of farmers to make sure that they aren't as productive and they are challenged when they shouldn't be challenged to that extent as they go about their business. So I want to do a big thank you to New Zealand's farmers and growers that are the future direction of the New Zealand economy. They always have been the base of the New Zealand economy, and the days that we forget that are the days that we take for granted the people that made this country so strong and now will make the country stronger as we go forward.
I just want to acknowledge Todd Muller as well, who's done a brilliant job in leading the National Party in the agricultural sector in the last year or so. He's got around the country and really delivered to farmers the message that there is somebody that cares, there is somebody that understands, and there is somebody that's going to work in their best interests and not just come to this House and take advantage of their role. So thank you, Todd, for the leadership you've portrayed in agriculture.
Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, it's too late—too late.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: And it would be good if members like that member over there actually did something for his portfolio other than stand there and just yell at other people in this House—actually do something.
I think that we need to thank farmers for what they actually do. You know, how many people actually go out there and put their whole family investment on the line every day? They borrow, they work hard, and they are challenged by the weather, by the finances that they have to keep, and by Government rules and regulations, and yet they still do that. Generation after generation of people come through wanting to be farmers and wanting to succeed.
Agriculture has got a huge part to play in our future, especially for Māori. It's one of the strongest parts of the Māori economy and will get even stronger in the future, and it's an important part if we want to build a stronger country.
Hon Willie Jackson: You don't support the Māoris.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: We support agriculture, and Māori in agriculture are one of the strongest ones there, Willie Jackson, so we do support them. So that is an important part of the future of New Zealand as well. So it's about employing people and taking that chance on their business, which actually means that they employ a lot of downstream people as well. Now, it's those people in manufacturing and those people in the service industries that are all directly as a result of the farmers' efforts. 
At this time, when we have got major drought going on in parts of the country, never has it been more difficult for some farmers, and the stress that they are under is truly immense. The drought hit the Waikato. It hit Northland earlier this year. Now it's still in the Hawke's Bay and other parts of New Zealand. We need to go out there and think about those farmers, because we're asking them to pay the bill for this country, and we're asking them to do that in the toughest of conditions, and we're not thanking them. We're not acknowledging them, and we're not giving them the respect that they deserve. That is what this House should be doing, because we're all in this together. The farmers know that, and they want to work and help and build the success of this rebuild of the New Zealand economy.
When you look at the Budget—you know this—there's some expenses in there, in the agricultural sector, that—I'm going to give credit to the Minister. I think he did a good job around the bovis system. You know, that eradication programme is a costly affair. It's not only costly for the Government, but it's extremely costly for the industry as well. It was a partnership between industry and Government to do that eradication programme. OK, it's had its ups and downs, and there'll always be some people that feel that the programme hasn't worked as well as it should have for them, but, in essence, we are moving in the right direction in that way. If New Zealand can continue to do that, I think that's a good sign for our farmers that there is support in this room. That is one thing that is in the Budget. It's been in the Budget last year and again this year, and I do congratulate the Government for their support in that, because that is vital for the primary industries going forward.
But they need more than that. They need the infrastructure investment that's vital to grow their products and their distribution chains. They need to see that there is that regional infrastructure investment, not some Minister coming into their areas once in a while and giving them small amounts of money for nothing that's really going to make any difference. They need the hard-core, solid infrastructure that's needed in their communities. Water storage, for example, was something that was canned by this Government, and it plays an important role in the future of agriculture and horticulture going forward. We've had a few little plays in that area by the Minister in recent months, but they took away that future of water storage from the rural community. They've taken away a lot of the big commercial investments in infrastructure and roading in many of our rural communities. They've said that they're hidden behind the roads that they don't need, and they're only going to present most of that money in Auckland. No, most of the money was going to go in transport to Auckland projects. It wasn't going to the regions, and they get little handouts and told be satisfied when the Minister comes and gives you a little handout. Well, we need more than that.
If we really value the people that are going to turn this country around, then we need to invest in them. We need to make sure that investment's strategic and that investment is long term and it's what they need for their businesses, not what people in this room determine is the best investment for them. We see that in forestry, where the hand of the Government is in that industry all the time, making it an inefficient industry. We need the efficiency of farmers to make the right decisions, and Government's role is not to tell them what to do. Government's role is there to be able to support them. If we really value them and we really want them to pay the bills, then let's go out there in this Budget and give them some support. 
Is there anything like that in this Budget to look after the farms that are going to pay the bills? No, there's not. There's nothing. Not one iota. If anybody was running a business and they knew that this was the most profitable part of their business going forward that had to hold the other parts of the business that weren't going to do well, you would invest in that profitable part. The Government should have invested in farming and the infrastructure of it if it really was genuine in wanting to support them. Rather, the only signal that farmers can take out of this Budget is one that they will become the cash cow for this Government, that this is a Government just sitting there waiting, hoping that it can then inflict on the community the cost structures that will take away their efficiency, that will mean that they—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The member's time has expired.





MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Budget 2020—and just opportune, timely, coming on behind the new agricultural spokesman for the National Party. I congratulate him on his new role. I agree with his sentiments, actually. We do need to show our farmers the respect that they deserve. We will be relying on them incredibly heavily—as we have for the last 150 years, actually—to see this economy on the way through. 
But the National Party have had a habit over these last three years that I've been in here in talking down the efforts of this Government in terms of supporting our farmers. I will be putting that right in a second. But I think we do need to acknowledge that we will be relying very heavily on our agricultural sector. 
But I think before we do that, we also just have to take stock and acknowledge that this Budget has been delivered against the backdrop of a once-in-100-year global pandemic. The response of the team of 5 million that has been referred to often has been nothing short of magnificent. We are now in an enviable position, compared to almost all our international comparators, of being able to focus almost totally on our economic recovery. This Budget—I would describe it as a kitchen sink affair. We have thrown the absolute kitchen sink at this situation that we find ourselves in, and I will give credit to Cabinet. 
The Budget process is six to eight months of grinding meetings and detail, and that would have been torn up on about 1 March, and we would have had to go through a whole new process—well, they did have to go through a whole new process—against a fast-evolving backdrop. I think under those circumstances, we've seen a Budget that delivers much of what we need, which is to keep the wheels on the economy as much as we can in the short term but also deliver some long-term investment into our economy that'll pay back over the long term. So we do have a plan.
I'd note the Opposition have mentioned ad nauseam that we don't have a plan. But when they've been challenged on their plan, they're yet to show that they've had any plan—apart from pulling the knife out of Simon Bridges' back. They don't seem to have been able to articulate anything else apart from a change of face. Well, Todd Muller is respected on this side of the House and is liked, and I will acknowledge the previous speaker has done a good job of lifting the profile of agriculture in the debates around this House. He certainly is an example, potentially, of be careful what you wish for. It does look to be a bit harder than it seems from the backbench, being the leader. 
So we came into this with strong books, which is absolutely key to this. We have managed this economy well. We have run surpluses. We did have a debt to GDP of 19 percent, and, yes, that will blow out to somewhere around about 54 percent under Treasury forecasts. But let's put that into some context. The G20, which is the 20 richest nations on earth—they went into this at an 80 percent debt to GDP. So we're starting this on the front foot, and the Government has stepped up. 
I will acknowledge the commentary around small business and particularly in the tourism. I was out last week. I managed to get on the road out through Central Otago, Queenstown, drove up to Franz Josef, and it is a very grim picture in a spectacular part of the country. They are doing it incredibly tough. Just to flesh that out a little bit, I stayed in Franz Josef—the Scenic Hotel there—one night. It's probably about a 200-bed hotel; I was the only occupant. So we've got a lot of work to do there. But we do need to get that trans-Tasman bubble. While we can support these small businesses with wage subsidies and the like, essentially what they need is tourists, and that trans-Tasman bubble will be key. It will be key, actually, that we all get out there and explore our own country.
So this Budget does, I think, as I said, strike a balance between keeping the wheels on in the short term and those long-term investments in infrastructure. Included in the total package: somewhere around about $15 billion in infrastructure, which is off the scale compared to what we'd been investing in recent times; and, of course, the $1.2 billion in rail, which we're very proud of here in New Zealand First—to have been a champion of that, in the long-term future of our multimodal transport system where rail will play a key role. 
But I do want to get to the agricultural sector. Despite the grim protestations from across the floor, the sector has been doing incredibly well: record exports over the last couple of years and actually holding up pretty good through this COVID situation as well. I note the red meat sector, for the first time ever last month, topping a billion dollars of exports, and that's incredible under the circumstances. I will acknowledge, too, the meat works, the fruit packers, the shearers during that initial period of lockdown—those essential services. I would like to acknowledge them because in the dozens and dozens and dozens of calls I was making into those industries, I never once heard anyone from any industry push back on the need to react—the imperativeness of looking after their workforce and wanting to comply with whatever rules the Government was asking for from them. In some respects, they were pretty tough—particularly in the meat industry, where you've got a lot of workers side by side—but they all did their utmost to comply and on most occasions, they actually commended the Ministry for Primary Industries on the way that they worked to make and enable that to happen. 
But in terms of the Budget, the previous speaker, David Bennett, minimised the work that has been going on within this Budget to support agriculture. We've got $193 million in there to continue the Mycoplasma bovis response, which is a world-leading initiative. No other country has attempted to eradicate this disease. We're on track—Minister O'Connor announcing those updated figures the other day of just 17 live cases at the moment, and another $193 million committed to that total package that is approaching $1 billion. So we are out there supporting our farmers. 
The $1.1 billion environmental package had significant money that will help farmers. The wilding pines, which are sweeping over large parts of our country and our back country—they are getting a significant $100 million investment, and the cost of doing it actually goes up 30 percent each year, so we need to get in front of this. We're well behind the eight ball, and this will help incredibly. Wallabies, possums—that sort of pest control—once again, we're behind. So this is an absolute opportunity to put some money into some, hopefully, short-term jobs that will allow people to be in a transitionary phase between careers but still have a job to go to that's absolutely meaningful and will have long-term payback. The money invested into fencing of wetlands and waterways—significant money being invested there, and another $100 million into that initiative announced yesterday by Minister Jones out of the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF). So these are all expenditure lines that will benefit farming and agriculture greatly. 
Of course, it's not about just keeping the wheels on; it is actually about growing the pie. The one thing that hasn't got a lot of traction or visibility in terms of the wider debate is the $216 million that was invested in New Zealand Trade and Enterprise in terms of an increase. We have to grow the pie. We have to be able to export and grow a value-added component, and we are now giving our exporters even more support out in the world markets to be able to do just that, so we can return those valuable export dollars, and the primary sector will probably benefit most of anyone out of that spend. 
I do agree with the previous speaker that we do need to do more in water storage. The PGF has made a number of announcements. I was in the Hawke's Bay on Monday. I've seen the drought up there firsthand. It is absolutely stark when you see it going into winter. With the paddocks brown and with water storage options on the table there, we do have to look much more seriously. Aquaculture is an area that we need to do more in. We need to be growing the pie, and we have made some starts, but we need to do more. 
So I am proud to stand behind this Budget. I think we have got those dual imperatives there. We have looked to hold up what we can of the current economy, but we have also looked to invest in New Zealand's long-term future, and I and New Zealand First are very proud to stand behind this Budget. Thank you.





MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise and join our caucus colleagues in actually critiquing this Budget. But before I get into some of the critiquing that I have to do for this Budget—because I have specifics that I wanted to mention—I want to acknowledge all of the members of Parliament who over the course of the lockdown and through level 4, level 3, and level 2—it's been amazing, the work that they've done in their communities. It's really lovely to see all of the members in 3D rather than 2D on a computer screen using a Zoom committee, and it's really lovely to see everyone.
I've lived in New Zealand since 1988, and over the years, as a member of the community, as a member of the public, and as a member of Parliament, I have seen different Governments actually produce Budgets. Budget times can be very exciting. It has ranged from austerity measures to lolly scrambles, and there have been numerous names. I think, this Budget, the Government has called it "Rebuilding Together", and I'm not so sure if that's an indication that it's going to fail, because in terms of building, this Government hasn't been known for building a heck of a lot. I mean, KiwiBuild was one of those things, and also the light rail that they intended to build along Dominion Road has actually been cancelled. So if they call this the rebuilding Budget, I'm not so sure if that is an indication that they didn't really have much of a plan. But having said that, it is an incredible amount of money.
I understand that it is actually not a time to talk about austerity, because the Government needs to spend the money to help New Zealand rebuild. I totally understand that. Having said that, it is an incredible amount of money that we are putting every single person in New Zealand into debt for. So the total budget that the Government has talked about is $140 billion, but if you look at a document called Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 2020—I think it is on page 28—the total borrowing goes up to $317.3 billion. That amount of borrowing, if one divides the total number of New Zealand's population, which is 5 million, becomes something like $63,460 of debt for every woman, man, and child in this country—that is $63,460 debt for every child, woman, and man in this country. That is the total borrowing that this Government is putting New Zealand into.
I guess when I look at some of the ways that this Government has actually worked and my idea that perhaps the rebuild idea is not something that they're going to do very well, it's because during the lockdown, one of the things that I have experienced is that the Government didn't seem ready, Government wasn't aware, and Government did not prepare well enough—for example, one of the things that I experienced as an ethnic person is that the information that went out to the ethnic communities in regards to COVID-19 information was very lacking. Often, people did not have information as to what they could do during lockdown, what they could do during level 3 or 2, and the translation services were not available, or the information, the posters, that should have been in different languages was not available.
I'd like to take this opportunity, if I may, to thank, from my community, the COVID19 Han In Yeon Dae—that translates to the "COVID-19 New Zealand-Korean alliance"—and the Korean Students' Association and the medical doctors and nurses who spent hundreds of hours translating Government PR and information about COVID-19, because that was essential for the ethnic, particularly for the communities who weren't getting the information fast enough.
During the lockdown, MPs actually have contact with the elected officials' email, and one of the things that I was constantly asking was: when is the Korean translation and when is the Chinese translation going to be online? Because these are the things that people were contacting me to find out if that information was available—it wasn't.
I heard earlier during question time the Hon Willie Jackson talked about the fact that he cared about the Māori, Pacific, and ethnic communities, and he actually represented them. I hope that he takes this lesson: there were a lot of things that were done that could have been done better. This is not necessarily a criticism saying that you didn't do it; it's saying that it was very late. This information is really, really important—for example, when the Government made a decision to not publish weekly publications and said that they weren't part of the essential service. Guess what! The ethnic newspapers fell into that so-called non-essential service. That means that ethnic communities could not publish in their ethnic language. I had to write to the Prime Minister and appeal to her sensibilities and say, "Actually the information that the ethnic communities require is in those newspapers and they need to be allowed to publish." Eventually, that happened.
The other thing is: what ever happened to the halal butchers? Initially, it was going to happen immediately, and then it took a week. I don't know how long it was before they actually decided that it wasn't going to happen. So this kind of information delay is what costs people money, what costs people jobs, and what costs people their business.
One of the things that I was actually hoping for in this Budget was a tremendous contribution from the Minister of communications. One of the main things that happened was that, because most people were working from home, because students were studying from home, people were trying to run their businesses from home, connectivity became a major issue for a lot of New Zealanders. For people who were living in urban areas, who had signed up to fibre connections, it was perfect: their entertainment was available on fibre or internet—any kind of connections—commercial videos on demand that they signed up to. But many in the rural sector, many in the regions, have terrible connectivity. That was one of the many, many complaints that I received, where their upload speeds were terrible. They could not run invoicing, they could not do banking, and they could not have their children educated—when they have more than one child, how many children are connected to their work, while the parents are also trying to work? 
I'd like to acknowledge the telcos—some of them—who have tried to help and assist by maximising the data, actually removing the data cap. But the data-cap removal happened only between midnight and 9 a.m., which was absolutely useless for people who were studying. I was hoping that, perhaps, the Government would contribute more in the Budget to expand the connectivity issue, to resolve some of the issue. I know there were earlier Budget announcements in terms of extending antennas and whatever, but the thing is that I thought maybe we would have seen a little bit more.
There are many people in the ethnic communities who run businesses. I have had numerous emails and phone calls where people are having to mortgage their homes, having to remortgage their homes, having to cut staff numbers because they just cannot make ends meet. During the lockdown, the very fact that some of them are actually running groceries, they're running butchers, they're running bakeries—they could not open, even though dairies could open using that one in, one out rule. They could have safely done that, as well, but it was deemed that they can't and that they weren't essential services.
There are many people in this country who come from different ethnic backgrounds and who run tourism businesses. I know it's very tough because we cannot just open the border and allow people to come in, because a lot of the infections actually happened from people who came from overseas. There are many people who run export education where students from overseas, who come to learn the English language, as well as different kinds of tertiary education courses, cannot run their businesses, because currently they cannot open their business. For those people, the wage subsidy does not help. It is a help in the sense that it pays for their staffers so that they are not at risk of getting, I guess, the redundancy, but it is coming very, very close where they're hanging on a by a sheer thread to hang on to their business, that they don't have to actually cut the numbers of employees. But they are saying it is tough. This Government has done nothing, and this Budget has provided nothing for them. Loading them with more debt is not helping New Zealand.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The next call's a split call.





JAN TINETTI (Labour): We've heard so much over recent weeks and, certainly here in the House, over the past couple of days about the challenge that we have all faced over the past few weeks. The first part of 2020 has been very difficult for many sectors and many New Zealanders.
Part of one of the sectors that it has been very difficult for has, of course, been the education sector, something that, as you know, Madam Speaker, I am incredibly passionate about. But I have to say, over the past few weeks, I have never been as proud of the education sector as I have become over that time. The responsiveness, the nimbleness of the sector, the passion of the educators to make a difference for their children has never been more evident than what we have seen since the beginning of the lockdown period. Educators across the country are putting their hand up to say, "We want to be an integral part of the recovery. We know our job. We are willing to do it. We are going to stand up and be strong." And that's why I'm so pleased in the unprecedented investments that this Budget has made into the education sector.
I want to briefly talk about the investment into the early childhood sector, something that I was absolutely just so, so pleased with. This is a sector that has been placed under significant strain. In fact, I'm not going to just say "strain"; this is a sector that has been haemorrhaging—haemorrhaging greatly—because of over a decade of underfunding from the previous Government. It has been a tough, tough, tough time for this sector, and so to see the priority given in this Budget to the early childhood sector was just fabulous, particularly into the actual workforce within that sector. The workforce, as I say, have struggled, and many with the same qualifications that I hold who haven't been paid much more than minimum wage for quite some time because of the lack of funding that has sat traditionally within there.
So we had the announcements of the pay jolt for the lowest paid of those teachers—a great first step towards pay parity, an announcement of 9.6 percent to the lowest-paid qualified teachers in the early childhood sector. But the one that I got the most feedback, the really exciting, exciting announcement, was that Budget 2020 provided $278.2 million to restore the 100 percent funding band for teacher-led early childhood education (ECE) services. We did used to have that, but, unfortunately, the previous Government saw that as something that they could get rid of in 2010. At the time, early childhood teachers felt that they were being undervalued by that Government. This announcement in this Budget is paving the way for a fully qualified early learning workforce. And why shouldn't our children be having fully qualified teachers in front of them? Our children and our future in this country are the winners out of this announcement.
I really just want to take this time to read out one piece of feedback that—I got many pieces of feedback, I should say, but there was just this one piece from a teacher who I felt quite worried about over the years because of how she didn't want to stay within the profession because she felt like she wasn't being valued. This is what she said: "Just wanted to say a huge thankyou to you and the Government to really see the value of ECE. I actually broke down in tears in this announcement. I've had some horrible stories from myself and other teachers who have been treated poorly for quite some time, but with this announcement, it just made me drop to my knees and say, 'Thank you.' Finally, my skills, my knowledge, and my qualifications are being valued. I can't thank you enough." I was delighted to hear those comments from her and really, really proud that we are doing something about a sector that is so critical for all our children.
I will say that in a meeting that I had last week with Post Primary Teachers' Association, the union that represents our secondary teaching workforce, they also said that this was an absolutely fabulous, fabulous announcement because not only are the teachers in their sector important; the teachers in the primary sector are important, but the foundational skills that those young people get in the early childhood sector actually set those children up for life. So it was a fabulous, fabulous announcement to be made.
We also had a fantastic announcement in the early childhood sector about Māori education around kōhanga reo—again, unprecedented investment into that particular sector. We've also had wonderful announcements around school lunches and really expanding that pilot from 21,000 children to 200,000. That is a magnificent investment and that programme, one that I personally know the benefit of, will make a big, big difference to our young people and to our communities. And then, of course, the restoration of night classes. This Government is absolutely committed to the place and role of education in supporting our recovery and our rebuild. 





Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. One of the first things that I did in level 2 in my community was head to King Edward Street in South Dunedin to my local cafe—Aroma Cafe, which is just down the road from my electorate office—and get morning tea for my Dunedin staff, as it was the first day that they were physically open. I asked the Aroma Cafe staff how they'd fared under lockdown. Bill, who's the manager and the owner of that small business, said that they just would not have survived without the wage subsidy. The same was true with my hairdresser, with the vet, with the car yard in Andersons Bay Road, who actually told me not only would they not have survived without the wage subsidy but also that what was heartening for them was that business was booming once people came out of lockdown, which was good news for them.
I want to give a real shout out to the civil defence coordination in Dunedin during the lockdown, and Dunedin City Council and the Otago Regional Council, who corralled and worked with all of the community groups, the social agencies, to deliver that welfare support and response; the Otago Chamber of Commerce and the employers' association that worked so hard with the local businesses right across the region; and the GPs, the care workers, the midwives, and all the essential workers. I have never spoken to as many supermarket workers as I did during the lockdown, particularly during that first week when there was so much nervousness and, literally, fear from those minimum wage workers who were on the front line, and without a lot of the supports that they needed, especially for those first few days.
I also want to give a big thankyou to the staff in my Dunedin office—and, in fact, my whole staff—who went like the clappers to form an online digital office so that we could respond to all of the hundreds and hundreds of calls and messages and help and support that was needed over that lockdown period. I know I'm not alone, obviously. Every MP in this House will have had behind them incredible staff who worked their butts off to provide the supports that were needed. I really want to thank Warren and Nadine and Larissa and Josh for the work that they did during that time.
Last Tuesday, I took a day to go down to Balclutha and Milton with Ingrid Leary, who's the new candidate for Taieri, who's replacing me when I stand down. We talked to dozens of people in the coffee shops and the shops along the main street, the community groups, the council—all who said, "Thank you. Thank you so much to the Government. Thank you, Jacinda, for moving so quickly, for putting in place the wage subsidy, for keeping us safe."
Now, of course we know that not every job or every business can be saved, but what this Government has done is not only put in place that $12.1 billion recovery package right at the beginning, but then was agile enough to move incredibly quickly to put in place the Budget, showing the agility of a Government and a finance Minister faced with one of the biggest challenges this country's ever seen, to be able to recast and refocus the Budget to deliver what is needed in our country right now.
Two things, in the short time left, that stand out for me is the free apprenticeships that are being made available and the reinstatement of adult education, which is part of the glue that holds our community together. We are a team of 5 million. When we work together, we're at our best.





Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Vaiaso o le Gagana Samoa. It's Samoan Language Week. I want to honour and acknowledge our Samoan community, its history, its heritage, and how language plays such an important part. So I acknowledge the week and the theme for this week as well, and to all of our Samoan communities as well.
The Budget debate is a debate in which many in the House and over previous years have always stood up. Often, and as has been heard this afternoon, people will make a pitch about what was and what wasn't done in previous Governments and what is being done in the current term of a Government as well. Let's just say, I'd like to put on the record that if we all own up, the fact is that there were things that we did in our terms of Government from the past to the present that we got right and things that we got wrong. I want to just put that and lay that out there.
But it is time for the Budget speech. It means that whoever is in the hot seat, they now get to be held accountable, and that's what the speech is all about. That's what this debate is all about. So today is a debate in which we can talk about the Budget for the Government of the day, to hold them to account to the things that they've said, to things that they promised and what significant difference that they have made. If I stand in this House, I can pick out a number of things and then begin to talk about them from my own perspective. I think that being the House of Representatives, and as a member of Parliament, I'd like to echo the voices of our community. What do they say when they reflect about this Budget, and what does it mean to them? So in some of my portfolios, I'd like to then speak from that perspective.
First of all, I want to talk about children and in regards to child poverty. When we look at the Budget, it is the first of a Budget in which there have now been recordings of the fact of the Budget implications in regards to child poverty. That's been clearly stated in page 17 of the Budget report that was released. So we know what the indicators are; there are measures. There are three key primary measures and six supplementary measures in that regards.
But I want to bring the words from the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAC). Now, we aren't always supporters, and I don't always support everything they say and do, but I do support the fact that there are significant areas that they have highlighted. One of the areas that they've talked about in their comment to the Budget is this: COVID-19 has shone a light on the glaring inadequacies in our welfare system we already knew have long existed since 1991. So that's long term.
So what we would say is that in my speech I want to talk about the systemic changes. When we look at the changes, we have parts of our Budget which deal with a number of key areas. But what key people in regards to what we're providing to our community are looking for is: are there any significant systemic changes in the system that will make a long-term difference? As I look through this and as I read through the reports, I want to come to the conclusions that have been made by the Child Poverty Action Group, and they start with the comment, in their conclusions, with this: "The risks which COVID-19 recession pose for children's welfare is of concern for CPAC, as it is, no doubt, for many other New Zealanders." Regrettably, there is little in the 2020 Budget which addresses these risks. And then there are many examples that they give from that.
So when we're talking about systemic change, when CPAC themselves have looked through that, yes, there are things that we've done to mediate and to deal with the current issues before us. COVID-19 has presented a number of them. But are there systemic changes? Can we track and trace the ability to say that this will significantly change the outcome in the long term for our children, for our whānau, for our families, and for our communities? So CPAC are telling us there aren't. So, again, I bring these words from the community itself.
If we go further, then, to look at some of the other responses and, particularly, to children. You would have known that there have been four different inquiries in regards to the uplift of children, especially in regards to Oranga Tamariki. That comes under my purview as the shadow spokesperson. When I look at the Budget and I look at what the Budget indicates, I want to point, first of all, to the work and the inquiry around Whānau Ora entitled "Ko te Wā Whakawhiti", which is "It's time for change". Inside of that, the community came together, the Māori community, and they indicated four key areas. These are four key years of systemic change. Here's what they asked for: they asked for the key principles of a whānau-centred approach; they looked for a systems-focused, kaupapa Māori - aligned, mātauranga Māori - informed—these were the words, again, that came out of Māori looking for a systemic change. Did we see that in the Budget?
If I look at the Budget in regards to Māori development, on page 22, and in the era of identifying and developing whānau-centred approaches to healthcare to improve the wellbeing of Māori and Pacific whānau: no budget. No budget at all. So that indicates to us, again, our community have spoken. There is no systemic change that's happening. Yes, we can stand up in the House; we can declare $900 million towards dealing with the issues of Māori—Māori children, Māori whānau. But when they say this, you can do that for a time, but will it make a difference? Again, I speak from the words of our community. Here's what they say when they're talking about this. Some of their words are: just spending and borrowing won't fix our economy or our communities. I want to quote because it has been written; it's actually in press here from Te Rūnanga-Ā-Iwi O Ngāpuhi CEO Te Rōpu Poa. Here's what he says: the Budget increase "looks okay on paper." But he was unsure if it would help families in the long term—in the long term.
Again, people are looking for systemic change. They're not unhappy; they're not ungrateful. Please don't get me wrong when I put these comments out. They're not ungrateful for the support that they're giving. But again, I ask the question: in the long term, what is there being done to increase changes? Here's what else they say: how do you assess a whānau that lives in the country as opposed to a whānau that lives in a household or in a town? Again, there is no systemic change here. There is no systemic change. These are the words from our own community that they're speaking out there. I then bring other words. Te Pūtahitanga o Te Waipounamu—here are the comments that are coming from them: "We [are] looking for a budget that would enable opportunities to address hardship, to nurture aspiration and to foster innovation—it is unclear at this time whether this budget will deliver on our expectations."—on our expectations.
The Government is in the hot seat of responsibility. What the community are looking for is systemic change. I would have to say the comments that are coming up—and these are not my comments; these are comments from the community. So the Government can turn around and they can argue. They'll only be arguing against the very people who they're wanting to serve. There is no systemic change, and that's what's becoming clear to us here in this House as well.
I want to acknowledge the Hon Aupito William Sio and the work that he's done, and his announcement that he made: $195 million. That's significant. That's gone out into our Pasifika community. When I look at the list of those things that have been announced down here, I first of all go back to the work that was done—and I was there at Eden Park, in which we had the announcements of significant work around looking at some key planks around systemic change. One of them was around economic development for Pasifika—economic development for Pasifika—and the areas that we think that could make a difference. The community were engaged, they were consulted; they were asked for what would make a difference. But when I look down at this list of what the $195 million will do, I'm not seeing a systemic change. If anything, there's the support of some of the work that had already been started under a previous Government. First time I've mentioned it; don't want to go too far there.
But I just want to say that my whole speech in this debate is the question that the community is asking, that you can meet the immediate needs—thankful and grateful—but in the long term, are you really making a difference for the life of our whānau, of our children, of our communities? And they're asking this. Yes, in the Pasifika Culture and Heritage Fund we've got empowering Pasifika participation, expansion of Tupu Aotearoa programme across New Zealand, Pacific Aotearoa Community COVID-19 Recovery Fund, Pacific skills. We see all these things; they're immediate. But there is nothing in here that tells us that there is systemic change.
So in my final minute, here's how I propose that this Budget would be. It is all purpose but no plan. There was all purpose—
Michael Wood: Good speech. You should be on the front bench.
Hon ALFRED NGARO: —in meeting the current need of COVID-19. It's all purpose. That's right, Michael Wood. All the sense of what it has. But what the voices on the community say is this: where is the plan? Where is the plan? We've got a plan. Give me another 10 minutes and I'll tell you what that plan is. These are the words, by the way, from our community, not my words. These are the words. Yep. You can hassle and haggle because why? Because it hurts; because what I'm saying rings true to you. That's why in your community, when they turn around and they say this, that it's purpose but no plan—all purpose but no plan. So you're in the hot seat now. You get to make the decisions—
SPEAKER: Order!
Hon ALFRED NGARO: Not you, Mr Speaker, but to the Government of the day, it is your turn at the hot seat of responsibility—
SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.





Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to.





URGENCY
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the passing through all stages of the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill; the passing through remaining stages of the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill; the first readings of the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill, the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, the Veterans' Support Amendment Bill (No 2), the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill, and the Food (Continuation of Dietary Supplements Regulations) Amendment Bill; the second readings of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill, the Resource Management Amendment Bill, the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill, the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill; and the committee stage of the Privacy Bill. 
This urgency motion does two things. First, and importantly, it allows us to progress two pieces of legislation that are directly related to COVID-19. And, secondly, it allows us to extend Parliament's sitting hours in order to try and catch up some of the business that the Government would have progressed whilst the country was in lockdown. 
The first two bills are a direct response to the COVID emergency. The Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill will allow temporary income relief to people who have lost their jobs as a result of the impact of COVID-19, and it needs to be put in place immediately in order to allow this to happen. The Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill responds to the rapidly changing global economic circumstances, and it strengthens the Government's ability to manage temporarily heightened risks that arise from those, and we want those protections to be in place as soon as possible. 
The recent suspension of normal House business took away up to 60 hours that would normally have been devoted to Government business. The loss of this time has meant that many of the bills in the motion that I've just moved have not been enacted in the time frame that had been expected and the benefits of those law changes have been delayed. On the first readings, only the Veterans' Support Amendment Bill (No 2) will go through an accelerated select committee process, which will enable the ways in which the bill will help veterans and their families to be put into effect without delay. The other four first readings will go through a regular select committee process, and putting them through the House now will allow select committees to hear submissions before the election. 
The motion includes four second readings and a committee stage. I will make it clear that these bills will only be progressing by one stage during this urgency motion. So the effect of this is not to in any way truncate the process these bills would regularly pass through in Parliament. This simply extends the time available to debate them. They'll return to the House for their next stage at a later date. The subjects that these bills cover include mental health provision, reform of the resource management and public finance structures—all matters that have a renewed focus as a result of COVID-19. 
Urgency will not continue. The Government does not intend to continue urgency beyond midnight on Thursday evening so members can make travel arrangements for Friday with a degree of certainty.





A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 56
New Zealand National 55; Ross.
Motion agreed to.





SOCIAL SECURITY (COVID-19 INCOME RELIEF PAYMENT TO BE INCOME) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
Hon 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 first time.
This bill contains minor and technical amendments to ensure that our recently announced COVID-19 income relief payment can be implemented on 8 June 2020. On Monday, this Government announced the COVID-19 income relief payment to provide support for people who have lost work since March due to the impacts of COVID-19. Like Australia, the UK, and many other countries, we can't escape the reality that there will be job losses and people's lives will be affected. We've already taken significant measures to support people, protect jobs, and help businesses stay afloat against the impacts of COVID-19. Just to name a few, we implemented the wage subsidy, which has supported more than 1.6 million employees throughout lockdown; increased main benefits by $25 per week and doubled the winter energy payment; developed a small-business cash-flow loan scheme; injected $27 million into the social services sector; and invested a further $30 million through civil defence emergency management into helping those with immediate needs around food and welfare.
As with the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes, widespread redundancies were expected, and temporary financial assistance was introduced to reduce the impact on those who lost their jobs. The COVID-19 income relief payment will help cushion the blow for families who have experienced an unexpected job loss due to the economic impacts of COVID-19. This payment is temporary financial assistance in recognition of those 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.
This payment is one of a range of financial assistance initiatives that the Government is providing to New Zealanders. Under our confidence and supply agreement, we committed to an overhaul of the welfare system, and this Government has already taken steps to increase income for New Zealanders. We implemented our Families Package, which was the biggest boost in household income in a decade for thousands of families. In Budget 2019, for the first time in New Zealand's history, we indexed main benefit increases to wages and also removed the punitive sanction 192. And, as I mentioned in this speech, this year we have increased main benefits and doubled the winter energy payment. We are already seeing the impacts of this. For example, for a person receiving sole parent support with a six-month-old, no other income, and living in Nelson, increases under this Government have meant a total increase of $155.91 compared to a person in the same situation in 2017.
This Government has also delivered a jobs Budget that not only extends the wage subsidy for our hardest-hit sectors but also is focused on creating thousands of jobs. Our $1.6 billion trades and apprenticeships training package will provide opportunities—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I apologise for interrupting the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner adjournment.
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We are investing an additional $150 million into expanding the Ministry of Social Development's (MSD's) employment services, enabling MSD to respond to increased demand, including providing some services to people before they enter the benefit system. Other investments include $12.5 million towards strengthening employment services for disabled people, and $59.6 million towards expanding skills for industries' pre-employment and in-work training, to support the Government's construction accord. These initiatives will make a huge difference to New Zealanders seeking further work or training opportunities, and we also know that unemployment, unfortunately, is likely to get worse before it gets better. That's why the COVID-19 income relief payment is an important part of the next steps of the Government's response to COVID-19.
We know that many people who may be faced with job loss might not qualify for a benefit. In ordinary times, we'd expect many of these people to quickly find other work or manage their costs over time without extra support. However, these unprecedented times we face mean many of these families and individuals will be under pressure to get back on their feet quickly to meet their living costs but will be doing this in a different labour market than they have faced before. This payment will provide a cushion for up to 12 weeks for people who experience a job loss between 1 March and 30 October this year and whose partners earn under $2,000 per week. The payment has two rates: $490 for those previously in full-time employment, and $250 for people previously in part-time employment. We know that some people may need additional income support; so, if eligible, recipients can access supplementary and hardship assistance from the Ministry of Social Development.
This bill ensures that entitlement to this additional assistance will accurately reflect people's circumstances by taking this payment into account when determining eligibility. The bill does this by making a minor amendment to include the COVID-19 income relief payment programme, which I am establishing, as a welfare programme in the definition of income in the Social Security Act 2018. As the payment itself is temporary, so is the amendment in this bill. The provision making the payment income will be repealed as soon as the programme is revoked and not replaced. We're moving apace so that those who will find some income relief from this payment can access that support as soon as possible. This bill helps us achieve this, and I commend this bill to the House.





Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm pleased to stand as the first speaker on the Opposition side to speak on the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. I'm not sure that many who are watching this will realise that it is the intention of the Government to put this legislation through all stages under the urgency motion that we are under. 
The first thing I want to say is that any New Zealander who loses a job absolutely, totally should be supported with income support. You know, much has been said of the wage subsidy, which I think has been an incredibly important part of the response to date: the ability for—especially when businesses in level 4 lockdown, and level 3, to a lesser degree in lockdown level 2, have struggled to operate—the wage subsidy getting to people who still needed an income is important. 
But where the area of disagreement comes in is that we actually don't see that what's proposed here is fair. I want to go through that in quite a lot of detail in this first reading debate, because, at the end of the day, what we are talking about here is a scenario where somebody loses their job and, depending on the timing of it, gets twice as much as the next person. That's where, at the heart of it, we don't think that what is proposed is fair. Unfortunately, having only seen this bill yesterday morning, we haven't really had the chance, as we would have liked, to have worked with the Government to improve the legislation and to improve the support available. 
Now, one of the things that has been said that I want to put on record first and foremost is that this is what the Government did, the previous Government did, in the Canterbury earthquake recovery. That's not accurate. It's not accurate, and I want to explain that clearly for the House and for those who are watching. In the Canterbury earthquake response, there were two packages of support: one was similar to the wage subsidy, which has been picked up by the Government, which is fantastic. That was in place for a short period of time, about eight weeks. Then, at the end of that, what happened instead was there was a temporary lift for all those on benefit: $50 a week for those single people, $80 for a couple. So it is not accurate to say this is exactly the same as what happened in the Canterbury earthquakes. It's not. It's not. What happened after the Canterbury earthquakes is the National-led Government increased benefits for those directly affected in the rebuild, and it was a temporary increase related to Christchurch. So it is important to put that on record. 
One of the things that is incredibly important when we're also looking at this is the group of people that are eligible for this support, because I think it is important as part of the context. So this is open to someone who has a partner who is earning up to $100,000 a year. Potentially, that person who's been made redundant and has lost their job may have been earning a similar amount. So this is a household that's potentially had $150,000 to $200,000. They've got a redundancy package of $29,000, and because they lost their job on 1 March, they get twice as much as a person who lost their job on 1 February. I'm sorry, but I don't see the fairness in that.
So the other thing that I think is important to understand, and I'm sure we'll get into questions with the Minister in the second reading, is about the timing of this. So the Government had committed to, and the Greens have pushed for, an overhaul of the welfare system. So which of the 43 recommendations is this? Or, as the Minister says, is this completely something new that's only because of COVID-19?
Hon Tracey Martin: Yeah.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That's—no, because actually the Minister in her own answer in question time today also then indicated that this potentially was a permanent change. If it's a permanent change, is it part of the overall welfare overhaul? So then does that mean that the Government is committing to a two-tiered benefit system and, depending on your circumstances, you get a whole lot more on benefit than someone else?
So the question is—
Hon Tracey Martin: Oh dear. You just want to race to the bottom.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Tracey Martin, how is that fair? How is that fair? 
Hon Tracey Martin: Honourable. Honourable.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: How is that fair? Because, actually, I don't think it's honourable—
Hon Members: Ha, ha!
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —and I don't think it's fair to treat two people very separately. The Minister might think it's a joke, but I'm sorry—if someone has lost a job recently, recently being in the last six months, they're not laughing right now. They're not laughing right now. 
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I don't appreciate being misrepresented by the speaking member in the House. I am not laughing at people losing jobs. Please do not misrepresent me.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What was the point of order? 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon Louise Upston, do you want to take the remaining time? 
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you. Usually in this House, when we raise points of order, we raise them for a breach in the rules—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): It might be best just to resume your speech.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So it is a challenging topic. It's very challenging, you know, for people who have lost their job. They absolutely want to know they're going to be supported. And so, in terms of support by the State, it's also a very relevant and very true question about: are they going to be treated fairly? Unfortunately, what we're seeing with this piece of legislation—and I accept that the intent of it is good. I agree with the intent to support people who lose their job through no fault of their own. So some of the measures that have been introduced—for example, removing the stand-down period—fantastic; get faster access to support for people who need it. But I have not heard the Minister say why it is fair for two different people in two different circumstances—one person gets twice as much as the next. So, as I said, it is not the same as what was done in the Canterbury earthquakes. I think it's important to put that on record. 
We are going to go through all stages of this bill tonight. But I do want to know, given this is, you know, a $590 million commitment, why was this then not about saving jobs? The Minister will well know that it is much easier to keep someone in a job than to get them into a new one. And so, you know, in terms of supporting people at a really challenging, difficult time in their life, actually it's better if they don't lose that job in the first place. So the $590 million in terms of investing that in saving a job would have been a far better option than what's being proposed here. 
Sadly, you know, maybe it is a reflection of the fact that the Reserve Bank today have come out and said this is the worst economic hit in 160 years. And they've come out and said that, potentially, the number unemployed is twice what was in Treasury documents a week ago, and that's 18 percent. I don't want to talk about 18 percent; I want to talk about the individual who wants to be able to put a roof over their own head and food on the table for them and their family. And, in a time of need, no matter what that time is, whether it was December last year, whether it was because of COVID in the middle of March and because of the extension of the lockdown and the ability for a business to open again, you know, they should be supported equally. 
On this side, it is very clear for us the fact that we need to support people in their time of need. We need to support them to get back into a position where they are in the driver's seat of their own lives. As Professor Peter Gluckman said before the Epidemic Response Committee, it is actually giving people agency. It's giving people agency over their lives, and that's what, you know, we're all committed to. But, actually, it should be done on an equal basis and there should be fair treatment. 
So there will be other contributions that I will make as the evening goes on, but I do want to finish on the question of: why wasn't this included in the Budget? Why wasn't this included and referred to a select committee like other COVID-related Budget legislation so at least, even in a short period of time, there was the opportunity to be constructive, helpful, and for the public to have a say? Thank you.





PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is really with great pleasure that I rise to take a call to speak to the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill—a bill which shows that this Government continues to invest in our people; a bill that will help to go a long way, along with other supports, to cushion the blow that COVID-19 has had on people's lives. And all that that side of the House can do is whinge as though we're saying on this side that this is the one single bullet that is actually going to make people's lives better. That's not true. This is an important part of the economic response by the Government, but it sits alongside the wage subsidy scheme, it sits alongside tax support for small businesses, the targeted packages for the most affected industries. It sits alongside the Budget, where, on this side of the House, we've been talking about protecting and creating jobs. So probably the one thing that I agreed with the previous speaker on was the fact that we do need to protect jobs, and that's exactly what we're doing. So that should be good news to that side of the House. Maybe that will make them perk up a little bit and be a little less flat.
But the fact remains that the beneficiary bashing that we've seen from that side of the House—the fact that, when this side of the House, this Government, indexed main benefits to wage growth, which the Children's Commissioner said was the single-best thing we could do to address child poverty, that side of the House voted against it. They voted against all the progressive measures that we've taken to make people's lives a little bit better. And this is—
Hon Andrew Little: I thought they said we were being unfair.
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: They did say we were being unfair, Minister Little. What they want to see is a race to the bottom. That's why they're saying that we are being unfair. The minute we take steps to make people's lives a little bit better, suddenly it's all unfair! Why didn't you vote with us, then, to make the lives of those who were the most vulnerable a little bit better?
Now, I just want to quickly put on record the fact that the previous speaker alluded to the fact that this is not a temporary payment. That's absolutely untrue. It's for 12 weeks, it's for those who have lost their job because of COVID as of 1 March, and that has been said time and again. So I'm not sure where she gets her information from, but it's not correct.
This is an excellent bill. The COVID-19 pandemic that we've seen, as many have said, is unprecedented. We haven't seen devastation of its ilk since the Great Depression, and, on this side of the House, this Government is determined to do everything we can to help people's lives, to cushion the blow from COVID-19. I don't feel the need to belabour the point, but I commend this bill to the House.





SIMON 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—1,000 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 38,000 people came back to New Zealand in that period of time—38,000 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 $29,999.99. Again, a line has been drawn that, if you have a redundancy payment of $30,000 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 $2,000 a week; that seems rather high. That turns out to be about $100,000 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 $30,000 to obtain. So there are some problems, I'll talk to them later.





Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): I cannot believe I just sat in the House and had Simon O'Connor quote the Little Red Book. Unbelievable, unbelievable. The world's gone mad. We definitely have a crisis going on! However, there was much inside that contribution that I'd like to pick up on. But the first thing I want to do for the New Zealand public is just actually clearly articulate what is the name of the bill that we're currently discussing. It's called the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. So we're not actually discussing the COVID income relief payment; we're discussing how it will affect your tax. Hence why many of the comments from the Opposition have literally nothing to do with the actual bill we are talking about.
But let's pick up on some of the comments from the National Party, shall we? Because I haven't heard them clearly articulate it; I apologise if I missed it. I'm going to make an assumption that the National Party's not supporting this bill. Is that right? Could anybody over there nod? Perhaps the whip could nod. Is the National Party opposing this bill?
Hon Alfred Ngaro: We've already said that.
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't listen. But that's good—no, thank you, thank you, the Hon Alfred Ngaro. I really appreciate his directness; he's upfront always—always honest, puts forward when you ask a question. You can always guarantee you get an honest answer from the Hon Alfred Ngaro.
Now, let's go back to—I did listen to some of what the Hon Louise Upston said. Now, she said that she doesn't understand why and that the Opposition are playing a game of unfairness. So that's the word that they're using at the moment—"unfair". This is "unfair". So, just for all those New Zealanders out there who have lost their jobs after 1 March, who are transitioning because of COVID from one job that now no longer exists, but with the other supports that this Government is going to put in place around the Ministry of Social Development and the career hubs and the matching-up of your skills to the jobs that are still there, or the jobs of the future—just as long as all those individuals who are going to use this temporary 12-week payment to make sure that you are able to still put food on the table, that you are able still to actually pay your mortgage, or pay your power bill, because this Government—this Government—doesn't want this crisis to throw you into chaos. We don't want you to lose your home. We don't want more New Zealanders without homes. What we're hearing from the other side of the House is they would like us not to give you this relief. They would like us to take this money and give it to business.
Now, we're already doing a whole lot of things for business. We're still working with business. We're working with Business New Zealand. We're working on putting in supports for small and medium sized enterprises. You've heard the Prime Minister announce it. You've heard others announce it. We are already working with businesses. But we will not work with businesses at the cost of our citizens. So what we're hearing from the Opposition is that they will oppose this piece of legislation because they don't want our citizens to be supported; they want us to take this money and give it to business. And it's not that we're forgetting business; we just think that there's a balance here. We just think that we need to support our citizens whose businesses, the businesses that they worked for, have not survived because of COVID.
Let's go to the 1 March date. Mr O'Connor says that it was just arbitrary—just picked at random, OK? We had the first case of COVID in New Zealand on 28 February. We closed the borders to all bar New Zealand citizens and residents returning, on 19 March. That is why we went as far back and as close to what was the beginning of the restrictions inside New Zealand, and to give it a couple of weeks forward from that because of what we knew had been happening to New Zealand businesses. And that is why we've got 1 March. Mr O'Connor obviously doesn't remember what happened and the time line of when it happened. So that's the first thing.
The Hon Louise Upston said she couldn't understand why there were two different sets of payments here: those for the 113,000 to 114,000 New Zealanders who had been on the jobseeker benefit before COVID and those that had lost employment from 1 March. But, in the same sentence, she said, "Two different people in two different circumstances." I give you the answer. We're talking about two different people in two different circumstances. One does not take away from the other. One does not take away from the Government's work to improve what is the safety net that is required for those individuals who were among the 112,000 to 113,000 before COVID hit. Nothing is taking away from that work except COVID. The Hon Louise Upston's quoted somebody who's said—I think it was Adrian Orr; I'm not quite sure, sorry; she didn't mention the name—that this might not be a one-in-100 event; this might be a one-in-160 event. And yet the Opposition seems to have a difficulty with trying to understand why we would move in and actually put in something different. It's because the circumstances are different.
Mr O'Connor suggested that we should have had a regulatory impact statement on something that actually is not the bill. First of all, he wanted a regulatory impact statement. He spoke mostly to the actual income relief payment—that's not what this bill is; this bill is about how it will be treated as income—but he said that he was prepared to let it go during a crisis, but, now that the crisis was over, he expected to have all the regulatory impact statements back up and running. The crisis is not over, and if we're talking about—again, if I go to what his colleague said: if we are going to have unemployment at 18 percent, and the worst case scenario by Treasury was 24 percent, the worst-case scenario—and that is in papers that have been released—if that is where we are going, this is a crisis of mammoth proportions. And this Government is up and running and doing things differently to make sure we support New Zealanders. Kia ora.





Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I rise to take a call on this bill and in particular just to, probably, address some of the comments that have been made by the Hon Tracey Martin. It's not all happy campers on the other side of the coalition Government, and they know that. They've seen that. The Hon Andrew Little is laughing. He probably hasn't read the press releases that have come out from the Greens. And either they got it wrong or something's not quite right. They're not all happy campers there.
So, just to be clear, the reason why we don't support this is because it actually does set up a two-tier system. We support wage subsidy. We support the need to be able to support businesses. And the comments that were made about the Canterbury earthquake as an equivalent to when the National Government were in power—they need to look into the detail, and the detail was that that was a particular subsidy that was covering those who were in businesses and covering a subsidy and other unintended costs that they had to cover. This is different. You can't say it's the same. But here's what I'd like to call that—when we talk about the parts of this bill that are important in all three readings, here's what the Green Party says: "This is a broken promise." Word for word. Either someone got it wrong or it's their words. This is from Marama Davidson herself. So where have things gone wrong? Not our words. And, after me, I know Jan Logie is going to have to stand up and is going to have to speak to it. But she said these words: "This is a broken promise." And here's what she also said: "We're not satisfied that the promise has been fulfilled." 
Why is it a broken promise? They're very clear. They're intelligent. Here's what they're telling us. It sets up, in their words, a two-tier system; not our words, in their words, a two-tier system. Why? Because it actually means that the Government of the day, who has the responsibility, are admitting that the current level of benefits are insufficient, are insufficient to meet their needs. Not my words, their words—your coalition. They're not happy campers on the other side because they know this to be the truth. So here's the thing, though, that I find very interesting. I'm going to be interested to hear the speech from Jan Logie, because what Marama also says is this: "There'll be no retaliation, no action to this response, to this broken promise but we'll continue to speak out." 
Well, I say to the Greens: where are your principles? You have championed consistently around poverty. And if you want to stand on principles, you've challenged us—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, the Hon Alfred Ngaro. Could you please not bring the Speaker into the debate. Thank you.
Hon ALFRED NGARO: I have to say to the Greens that the challenges that you've made consistently on principle in regards to benefit levels, and here you are faced with this dilemma— 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm sorry. Mr Ngaro, could you please not bring the Speaker into the debate. Second warning—thank you.
Hon ALFRED NGARO: The Greens, you put this on record and here's what you said: "It's a broken promise." It gets even worse because Metiria Turei also went on the record as well. Now, I can't repeat the words that she spoke. She was right out there and she said this, Metiria Turei, kicking up the fight of a year, calling her former Government's partners—I can't repeat the words, but they're inflammatory. They're words that go to the core of what even she believes, that this current Government has broken its promises with the Greens, that what they've highlighted is quite clearly that this is a two-tier system. 
So what will other people in the community think about the fact that those—and we're trying to say this, and New Zealand First have talked about the fact that it is for those that have been affected by COVID-19. We all agree with that—the impact. But what of those, say, for instance, who were made redundant on 5 February, not in March. Will they be able to access their funds? Answer: no. They're in the same predicament. COVID-19 may have impacted their business that they're a part of, their employment. They get no access to this fund as well. So where's the justice for them, I say to those on the other side. 
Here's another point I want to put out to you, by the way. And I want to read this: "What about those who are migrant workers? Where's the support for them?" And this has got to hurt because it comes from Sue Moroney, chief executive of the Community Law Centres. And here's what she says: "It was disappointing the Government hadn't used the opportunity to address migrant workers who'd lost their jobs but couldn't access any support." There's a bit of silence on the other side. Why? Because it's not coming from us. It's coming from one of your own in the community. If you were truly wanting to meet the needs of those who're out there, what about those migrant workers? Sue Moroney has declared the fact that there's disappointment in the Government, who haven't considered their conditions and the challenges that they face. 
It's quite clear that, on our side, it's not the fact that we don't support the need to ensure that those who've lost their jobs because of COVID-19 need some support. But the way that this is being done is not right. We know that, in the heart of those in the Green Party, they actually agree. And for the first time Jan Logie is going to have to stand up in the House—and I don't want to use that political terminology, "swallowing dead rats", because I don't think that's appropriate, especially with the Greens—especially with the Greens—even though I know that she's used it so many times in this House. When we were over there and she was over here, she used the words "swallowing dead rats". So, wow, welcome to political life when you're in a coalition Government. When now you're on the other side—excuse me, Madam Speaker—when the Greens are on the other side, the Greens are going to have to make their decision about what they will do.
We do want to support our communities, but we can't support this bill, this Government, in the intent of what they are doing. It sets up an unjust system that we believe is not fair. If they wanted to be fair, if they really wanted to get to a point where they made a difference, then how about investing not just the wage subsidy? How about a GST—what do you call it?—refund that we have proposed? How about the issue around ensuring that they could be able to capitalise back into capital investment, into machinery and so forth, up to $150,000 in our small to medium enterprises and businesses? What about looking at the ways of sustaining our businesses so that they could stay alive, still be able to function, giving them cash flow so that they could ensure they could keep their workers on the books, employed, ensuring a sustainable future for them?
But, no, what we've done here is we've gone to create again the form of a welfare State. In fact, that's actually what Grant Robertson said in his speech on the Budget: we're going back to the days of Joseph Savage; we are creating a welfare State. And that's exactly what's happening here. This is the creating of a welfare State. Rather than supporting businesses, we're now going to do this. I look forward actually in a moment to hear Jan Logie fumble over her words, trying to get her thoughts cleared together to try and justify her position.
As I've read out before, she knows, the Greens know, this system, this bill is not right. We do not support this bill. We oppose this bill in all three stages.





JAN LOGIE (Green): It's a pleasure to rise and speak to this bill and just to point out that the Opposition make it very clear that there is no choice for us, because, if it's between at least making progress for some versus the drive to the bottom on that side, then, actually, this is a step forward. It may not be what we want, and it's not, but, boy, is it better than the alternative.
What I want to say is that the Greens—at the heart of our position is a belief that everyone should have enough to be able to sustain themselves and that we want a welfare system that is resilient and works for everyone. And we are a long way from that, and we have a lot of work to do. That work has started, but we're not happy with where it's at. We want more work to go on.
I will acknowledge, though, that this is, of course, in contrast to nine years of the vilification of people needing support from the State, of the creation of sanctions that stigmatised people who were unable to work, to the point where the survey showed us that the most discriminated group in this society was people receiving income support, and that was a result of the Opposition's policies. So to suggest that, actually, we would be better off sitting on your side, well, hello! That is just not the reality. That would not be serving our goals or be consistent with our principles or in any way give respect to the people who are struggling still in our communities. We want everybody lifted. And this does not do it, that's true, but it enables some people to progress through this difficult time a little bit easier.
So, if we can create that as a pathway for other people to move up to, then I call on everybody in this House to actually ask why we have to have this differential response. And, when are we going to have our next steps towards bringing everyone else up to this point? Because, if we do believe in everyone being able to sustain themselves and get through the precariousness of this challenge and the next ones that are to come, then, actually, we need to implement the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report and, as they said, to do that with urgency.
I do want to point to, for us, a couple of points that we've spoken about—that, for us, this is evidence around the fact that it's not possible for people to transition from work and into our welfare system and maintain and care for their families, because our welfare system and levels of support are not high enough to enable them to do that. The point was raised by the Hon Tracey Martin that we are in a crisis situation. There's a prediction for there to be, I think, around at least a 160,000 increase in the number of people needing jobseeker support. If all of those people were to be made homeless, as well as their families, because they were forced on to our inadequate welfare system, then we would have a very significant problem as a society—much more significant and more problematic than what we have now. And that's not an answer. The answer is to push for more for those others.
I do want to acknowledge that, when this policy came out, my dear previous colleague Mojo Mathers looked at this and went, "This is a kick in the guts to all the people on income support with disabilities", who are vulnerable and have been bearing the weight of COVID as vulnerable people and feeling and seeing their costs go up. And now to see that that sense of isolation and vulnerability means nothing—is how they are interpreting it, and that, actually, people in paid work were again being privileged. And I want to acknowledge that feeling for people, because I get it. It's real when you are struggling to put decent food on the table, to be able to do the things that you know you need to do for your own health and wellbeing, because your income is just not enough. Then it's hard to see others being put before you. That doesn't speak to our experience of being all in this together, and everyone counting, and New Zealanders sacrificing themselves to save the lives of the vulnerable. That, for them, did not connect, and that is one of those reasons that the Greens want more. We want everyone else to be brought up to this point as well.
For us, another point of vulnerability in the welfare system, that this policy demonstrates, is around relationship status, and the fact that this legislation enables somebody to have a partner who is in work and allows them to access the support is great. I'm very, very pleased to see this as a wedge into changing our welfare system to remove this enforced pre-emptory dependence that does not match the way any of us live our lives in the 21st century. And I do want to acknowledge how much of a shock I think a lot of working people got to find out that, if they lost their job, they wouldn't be entitled to any support as an individual if their partner was still in work, or that they would be forced into having joint finances under this policy. Because that, for most people, is just something that they believe: in a relationship, they should have the choice of when the time comes to merge, or if they ever want to merge, their finances. And, for many women, in particular, financial dependence brings risk. Many women, for very, very good reasons, actually seek to maintain independent finances from a partner, to be able to have options in terms of managing their own safety if need be or their own sense of autonomy from their own past experiences. So it's really pleasing for us to see this piece of legislation provide an entry point for that change in our wider welfare system. We really look forward to that work being extended throughout the welfare system. 
Another point I would just like to make, though I do know there will be more speeches through this time, is just about the fact that this is so necessary, because, in part, New Zealand, we have very, very low rates of redundancy in our employment relations contracts. In fact, if you look across the OECD, New Zealand is at the bottom of the graph when it comes to support for people's incomes after leaving a job or being made redundant. We had the welfare system as one answer to that; compulsory redundancy is another. But it's got to be either/or a mix of both of them, and this piece of legislation just really shows us how pivotal that gap is at the moment.





Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Well, that was almost 10 minutes of a fascinating insight into the thinking of the Green Party. So are we all clear on their position now? For those who may be confused, let me see if I can summarise it simply for them: the Green Party deeply dislikes this bill; the Green Party members think this bill is fundamentally unfair—you with me so far? Green Party members around the country loathe this bill and are speaking in the most unflattering and most unparliamentary terms about the Labour and New Zealand First parties, with whom they are in the current Government, and I certainly couldn't use the terminology that was used by the former Green Party leader, who is no longer a member of this House, and I wouldn't want to, but we certainly have taken that on board.
Tim van de Molen: So, surely they're opposed to it?
Hon TIM MACINDOE: So, from all of that, one would, as Mr van de Molen has brilliantly just deduced, assume that the Green Party would oppose this bill. But, for those who are unsure, the Green Party have noticed that the National Party also considers this bill to be very unfair, and so, for that reason, you put all the other concerns to one side and you vote for the bill, because you couldn't possibly vote with the National Party. That's it in a nutshell—that's it in a nutshell.
Well, perhaps that's why the Green Party and the National Party aren't all that often on the same page, but we actually are in our thinking on this bill and on the important principle that it is fundamentally unjust. Of course, we were also on the same page on that despicable waka-jumping legislation that went through Parliament, which they loathed and which their members were appalled by, but, just as Ms Logie has indicated that they are doing on this bill, they swallowed an enormous, marinated dead rat.
The Green Party, of course, would love to support the National Party's initiative to implement a marine sanctuary in the Kermadecs. We have fought continuously to try to get that bill introduced. They want to support it, but their good friends in New Zealand First won't allow them to do it. And, just a few weeks ago, disgracefully, the Green Party supported the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill that went through this House under urgency, as this bill is tonight, with no select committee process, no opportunity for the public to raise their very sincerely held concerns, but they voted for that as well.
So every time the Greens could have the opportunity to exercise the power that their numbers would give them to defeat legislation that they find repugnant, they bottle. They turn and go in the other direction because, for them, it is more loathsome to be on the same side as the National Party than it is to be on the side of principle. Jan Logie is shaking her head, but she knows that to be true, and I've just given her four very clear examples of why that is true.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Macindoe, feel free to slide into the content of the bill that we're debating.
Hon TIM MACINDOE: Madam Speaker, I am talking about the principle that is leading to a party supporting a bill that we think is unfair and they think is unfair. I cannot see why that wouldn't be relevant, because New Zealanders have a fundamental sense of—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, Mr Macindoe, could you just resume your seat momentarily. You're an experienced and competent member of Parliament. I asked you to refer to the bill. Directly challenging my request is out of order, and I would ask you to refrain from doing it again. Please address the content of the bill that we are debating. You had three minutes. I think I was pretty generous and fair, but I would ask you to now debate the content of the bill. Thank you.
Hon TIM MACINDOE: Kiwis have an innate sense of fairness. This bill is fundamentally unfair. They feel injustice keenly even in the best of times, and these are not the best of times. No one doubts, as the Hon Louise Upston indicated when she led off for the National Party in this particular debate, that those who lose their livelihoods, lose their income, lose their jobs during a downturn should receive support. No one questions that. That is fundamentally fair—that we come to their aid in those times of need. But, once this Government sets itself on a course of action, they reject any attempts by other parties to work with them to come up with something that is fair, and we would've done that with them here. Instead, they plough on, very poorly researched, very poorly led, to make a really fundamental error.
I want to suggest that a bill that locks in a two-tier benefit system will cause enormous hardship and unfairness, and it is going to lead to further problems down the track. So, as I say, the Hon Louise Upston pointed out that unfairness—and she also asked the question of "Why this bill? Why this measure?"—wasn't included in the Budget that was delivered in this House less than two weeks ago. Has this issue suddenly arisen over the last 13 days? I don't think so. Could it have been anticipated more than 13 days ago? Absolutely, it could have been. Should it have been part of a package of measures that a responsible and integrated Government would introduce at that time in order to ensure that they responded to the needs of people who were going to lose their livelihoods? Of course it should have. But, instead, it's more indication of a shambolic Government that flies by the seat of their pants.
It's almost as if they've had another idea on the back of an envelope, just a couple of days ago, and they've come in and they have failed to recognise that what they're doing here is locking in a real injustice. I'm happy to speak about that again at a later stage but, for this point, I ask the next speaker simply to indicate to us why this wasn't even thought about at the time of the Budget, and why this Government is quite willing to discriminate against those who have been beneficiaries for a longer period of time, who may have lost their job before the commencement date for which this bill applies, because, if they can't answer those questions, they should not support this bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The next call's a split call.





KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Well, isn't this an interesting evening in the House? As we cast our eyes to our friends in the Opposition, there is one thing that is very, very telling: that is not the party that John Key and Bill English led. That is not the National Party that John Key and Bill English led, and isn't it interesting to see that the member the Hon Paula Bennett isn't in here speaking to this bill tonight? Do you know why that's interesting? Because, in 2011, it was the Hon Paula Bennett who—
Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you. There's been a long tradition in this House that you can't mention the absence of a member in this Chamber. 
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Oh, I'm sorry; I misinterpreted it. I thought that the member referred to the other member not taking a call. If you did say that the member was absent, then—
KIRITAPU ALLAN: I said, "Wasn't it interesting that the Hon Paula Bennett is not taking a call this evening on this particular piece of legislation?" Because, in 2011, it was the Hon Paula Bennett, speaking as the Minister for Social Development, who, in a time of crisis—when the Christchurch earthquake hit, what did she introduce, and what did that Opposition team lament in this House? It was the job loss cover. And, in 2011, who was the member, on 16 March 2011, who got up in this very House and said, "I am proud of this Government, who understand the needs of those that have been impacted and who will provide a wraparound service."? Yes, it was indeed the Hon Louise Upston who spoke with such fervour about how the job loss cover, a subsidy payment which put $400 in the hands of Christchurch people who were impacted and had lost their jobs—it put $240 in the hands of folks who had lost their job as a consequence of those Christchurch earthquakes. She lamented how significant that job loss cover was then. 
So too I now turn to the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, who at this time, as the Minister for Social Development, has to respond to a crisis and is doing exactly what any caring and compassionate Government should do: ensuring that we look after the most vulnerable in a time of crisis. She is looking after those that have lost their jobs, because this side of the House know that that is the right thing to do. So I commend this bill to the House. 





AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's my first call since we've returned from the COVID lockdown break, so I'd like to start with talofa lava, everyone. Malo le soifua maua ma le lagi mamā. Happy Samoan Language Week.
Here we go again. We're being asked to pass a bill under urgency that has far-reaching consequences for our welfare system and our country. Again we are being asked to do this under the banner that these are unprecedented times. Job losses hit at the heart of families—all the more reason that the way that we support New Zealanders through this crisis, through job losses, is given due diligence. 
So these are unprecedented times. Let's talk about unprecedented. Let's talk about this Government's decision to suspend Parliament during lockdown; whilst National agreed that at level 4 lockdown it was necessary, we do not accept that the Government was allowed to fall asleep at this time. A crisis is the time that our country needs our Government the most.
The fact that there would be job losses was known as soon as lockdowns were proposed. So, despite the Government's attempts to gloss over what will be the biggest economic challenges that we face in our lifetime, despite its attempts to smile and wave at the wave of job losses its decisions have caused, despite its attempts to avoid admitting that people requiring wage assistance are actually unemployed now, the reality is that it knew that a huge number of jobs would be lost. The Government has had nearly three months since lockdown to develop an effective and comprehensive income relief response to the tsunami of job losses that were on the horizon. Whilst we were getting daily health announcements from the Prime Minister, Ministers who should have been front and centre in the response to job losses were missing in action. Now, late in the game, we get this.
Let me be clear—and it's been made very clear by members of this side of the House that we support income relief for New Zealanders victimised by the lockdown. Our New Zealand people cannot be blamed for the economic devastation that we now face, where we have estimates of unemployment anywhere from 10 percent by the end of this year to something predicting double that number.
I agree that the Treasury forecasts of unemployment and then the recovery are wildly optimistic. Whilst I don't want to get into a discussion about the economy at this point, I cannot, under any scenario, see how Treasury can forecast unemployment to drop to just 5.7 percent in just two years. These numbers are gerrymandered numbers, and New Zealanders will see through this. So New Zealand faces a prolonged and deep period of unemployment, and, yes, we have to face the reality of providing income support to New Zealanders who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed. 
So a prepared Government, an organised Government, a Government over its brief, a kind Government would have been doing the hard work over this period during the lockdown, to prepare this work, to have their bills ready to go, to have the opportunity to engage with us on this side of the House, giving us adequate time to appraise the bills and be ready to go through and debate a rigorous process; that hasn't happened. It has come to the party late. It is ill thought through. It is punitive. It penalises New Zealanders who lost their job in February by paying them half of what New Zealanders who lost their job in March will be paid. Merely by the timing of when you lost your job, you get a better golden ticket than someone else.
So that willingness on our part has been sorely tested. To work and to engage with the Government, we're willing to engage, at a time of crisis, to make sure that we provide solutions for all New Zealanders at this particular time of crisis. I do not support this bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The next call's a split call. I call Willow-Jean Prime.





WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly on this bill tonight. It does appear—I've listened to all the speeches in this debate—that they are actually debating the scheme itself but not actually what this bill is addressing, which is that the income relief payment is to be treated as income so that, when assessing the other types of support that you might be able to get from our welfare system—accommodation supplements, for example—they are actually assessing what people's actual incomes and financial status is. That's what the purpose of this bill is.
I do want to commend both the Minister of Finance and the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, Minister for Social Development, for the introduction of the relief payment. This aligns the timing of that payment coming in on 8 June. So it's important that this bill that we're debating right now passes all stages so that that can be done and the additional support that they may be entitled to can be assessed according to the payment and support that they are actually getting. So I commend the bill to the House.





PAULO GARCIA (National): Talofa lava, Madam Speaker. Good evening. I'm very happy for the opportunity to speak to the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. The finance Minister, the Hon Grant Robertson, has said on many occasions that the Government cannot save every job or business it wants to—while the Government cannot save every business, it wants to make sure people are in the best position to respond and recover and rebuild. But, in the proposing of this social security amendment bill, establishing a separate benefit on top of the jobseeker benefit for a certain type of people over a certain period of time, which is to be debated now in urgency, does not really get to the point of making that rebuild, that positioning, to be able to respond and recover.
The issue is not really that the income relief payment shouldn't be made. In fact, it's going to be made, and it's a good thing. The issue really is that, by creating this bill, an inequality arises from people who have been receiving the jobseeker benefit and from people who will then be able to receive the income relief payment. The Government estimates that about 230,000 people who will lose their jobs due to COVID-19 between 1 March and 30 October this year will get either $490 a week or $250 a week. Also, all 305,000 people who were on benefits on 29 February will stay on normal benefit rates. The income relief payment is $490 a week, tax free, but after tax, the jobseeker benefit is basically half that—$250 a week. Sole parent support is $375 a week. We all know that these are amounts that are just the basic, but that inequality is the one that raises the issue of unfairness. The question really just needs to be asked: why this bill when the jobseeker benefit already exists, and why in urgency?
Also, another issue is that the businesses do not really get support and have not been receiving support. Throughout the week of the recess, I had been able to drive through and meet with businesses—medical practices, restaurants, bakeries—from Wellington down to Auckland. For the average restaurant, owned by a couple who both work in it with, let's say, five workers, who have survived through the wage subsidy, the business itself gets to a position of not being able to continue. They asked the question of why they have not been given support, the same with a medical practice that was established just before the lockdown, and while the wage subsidy pays for wages, it does not give assistance to the business for it to be able to continue.
Finally, I would like to just point out also that the migrant workers, who are really, really, really suffering, have not received any special payment as well—and just to raise that in this debate. Thank you, Madam Speaker.





KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill contains minor and technical amendments. It needs to be done. It needs to be done to be able to give the relief that needs to be given. And they laugh and they cackle and they carry on, despite the fact that, when the Christchurch earthquakes hit, they did exactly the same. And here we are, only a matter of days after they wobbled and they changed their leader and their leader stood up and said, "We will not do opposition for opposition's sake", what are they doing a couple of days later? Doing exactly that. We know that this bill, if they were in Government at this time, would be debated today—introduced by them. It is a classic example of Opposition screaming out for a platform. It's only a good idea if they come up with it, and I think it's a shame. There's no point in delaying this any further; it needs to get done, and the National Party would do well by themselves for just putting the politics aside and getting behind it.





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.
Bill read a first time.





Second Reading
Hon 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. 





Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I did put on record in the first reading—but it appears the Minister wasn't listening—a clear distinction between the job loss cover package, which, as one of the speakers quite rightly said in the first reading, the Hon Paula Bennett introduced in the Christchurch earthquakes. It's the Ministry of Social Development's own website that actually talks about the job loss cover. That is the equivalent of the wage subsidy. 
So when the Government was looking for solutions to support employers who weren't able to open the doors to keep people employed, the wage subsidy is a great solution, because—absolutely—first and foremost, we want to make sure people are connected with employment. So the job loss cover that the Minister referred to actually is the wage subsidy. So Minister, it would be really helpful to not confuse the two, or to be blatantly political in terms of misrepresenting it. So the job loss cover in the Canterbury earthquakes was temporary and it was the wage subsidy. 
What followed that, as I said before, was an increase across the board for every beneficiary, depending on whether they were single, partnered, or had children, and the Minister has said they have lifted benefits in response to COVID-19 by $25 a week. Actually, she's also admitted they were going to do that anyway in the Budget, so that wasn't actually a COVID-19 response. Actually, in the House, that's something that the Minister has already referred to. But in terms of income support, in a time of crisis you absolutely need to tailor a response to that set of circumstances. What we have here is the very real effect of having as many businesses locked down for longer periods of time than, for example, in Australia, which is we will see greater levels of job loss, right? So we will see greater levels of job loss. 
So the first thing we would have liked to have seen—because, obviously, the Government has choices about how they spend money, and this wasn't in the Budget, even though the Budget was only two weeks ago. The $590 million could have gone to the tourism industry to keep people in tourism jobs. It could have gone to the redeployment plan. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, but this is a second reading, so we stick quite closely to the bill. 
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: So in terms of this income support bill, actually, it is inaccurate to describe it as a technical piece of legislation. There is $590 million that goes along with this piece of legislation. What we have seen and what we are reasonably puzzled about in terms of the process is why, two weeks after a Budget, legislation is being introduced under urgency, all stages being passed today and tomorrow, with no public opportunity for scrutiny. 
So the Minister quite rightly said we've been very constructive as an Opposition. We encouraged the lockdown; we encouraged the lockdown to be earlier. We wanted to make sure that people were getting support through things like the wage subsidy, but part of that is actually being able to be involved in the scrutiny of legislation that is then part of the next steps in recovery. So it is still puzzling, and the Minister hasn't answered the question as to why it is being introduced in urgency, why it's being done now, and why, when there's been several months now into this crisis and there was a known quantity, unfortunately, of people losing their jobs, there wasn't a situation where the legislation could have been scrutinised, like the other COVID-19 legislation was, through a select committee for even a week—even a week—because then you have the ability, and the House has the ability and the public have the ability, to tease out some of these issues. 
It's not that often that National and the Greens agree with welfare policy, and we both agree this is not fair. So if I think about the contact that I have had from people receiving benefits—someone who has been on supported living payment for years—why is it that they aren't entitled to more during this crisis? Why is it that the person who's newly unemployed, whose partner's potentially earning a hundred grand, and who has got a $29,000 redundancy payment is entitled to twice the amount of the person on the supported living payment? 
I listened to your speech, Jan Logie, and I accept it was probably a very hard one for you to give, and I know you are very connected to the very people that will miss out as a result of this bill. You made the comment that in a crisis like this, you would expect that we are all in it together. Unfortunately, this legislation doesn't do that. 
So in my electorate, a third of the workforce in Taupō are in tourism, and there's no mistake: we're expecting a significant impact on the tourism industry. If someone was employed in the tourism industry in the second week of February and they lost their job because the borders to China were closed, they're not entitled to this support, but if you lost your job in early May, you are. So how is that fair? 
We'll continue to raise the issue of fairness and whether it's someone on a supported living payment, whether it is a sole parent who's lost their job, who doesn't have the resources of the sorts of people that are getting twice the level of support proposed by this. It might be someone who's got a mortgage, who has the opportunity to get a break on their mortgage for six months or the opportunity to get an overdraft to kind of cover them through this rough patch—and I fully accept it will be rough. But for the people that will get twice as much benefit under this piece of legislation, many have many more resources than the person who's on supported living payment and has been for 10 or 20 or 30 years. 
So, yeah, if we want to have a debate in this House about how we better support people, let's have a proper process. Let's have a proper debate about what it is that people need during a time of crisis, but actually everyone; not just some. 
My colleague talked about migrants. Where was the consideration for migrants if there's an interest in supporting people who've lost their employment? If it was a proposal that was just looking at the fact that a partner had kept their job, why wasn't that a consideration at the job seeker rate? Why does it have to be twice the rate that another job seeker is getting? These are the sorts of issues that if you'd had Action Against Poverty, if you'd had the Salvation Army, or if you'd had the Children's Commissioner in front of the select committee, we could have actually pulled those issues out. Actually, as we've seen, a lot of those advocates who stand alongside the people outside the Ministry of Social Development's office and outside Work and Income—the beneficiary advocates—they're pretty angry today. They're pretty angry because this is clearly a piece of legislation that disadvantages and treats the most vulnerable New Zealanders unfairly, and that's why it's on the issue of fairness that National isn't supporting this legislation. 
It is not the job loss cover of the Canterbury earthquakes. That was the wage subsidy, which of course we support. [Interruption] No, don't misrepresent me. The members of the Government don't understand their political history. This is about making sure that those who are the most vulnerable in New Zealand right now are treated fairly. Actually, they'll have no voice in this—they'll have no voice in this—
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Ah! 
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —and I'm sorry that this bores the member opposite. Generally, she's quite enthusiastic for groups like that to be able to have their say in Parliament, but, unfortunately they don't. Even if it was a shortened process, they would have had the ability—
Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Read the bill—it's a technical bill. 
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: A technical bill: $590 million—$590 million. Did you get that? Yeah. So it is a change to the Social Security Act that comes with a price tag of $590 million. You could have actually spread that across every beneficiary. This Government chose not to. 





ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I came to the House early tonight to listen to this debate, with a real hope—a real hope—that, actually, we would have the Opposition's support. I'm dashed. My hopes are dashed. 
I remember a time back in the 1990s—this is going back a long time, I know—when I was a single mum, and I remember the "mother of all Budgets" and I remember the cuts at that time. I think about that, and then I hear the Opposition talk about the fairness and I think to myself, "When did they change their spots?" Suddenly, today, they care about our most vulnerable. It really disappoints me. I genuinely hoped that the Opposition would support. 
Now, we often hear that this is an unprecedented time. Actually, it's an overused term, but the reality is we are in urgency putting in place support so that people can keep their homes. We are in urgency supporting people to manage a crisis that is not just local. It is not just national. It is across the world and is unprecedented. 
So I rise to speak in support, obviously, of this bill. It is a very small bill, actually. It makes some technical amendments which have a lot of meaning—that is true. But it is nevertheless an incredibly important bill to give people some breathing room, some opportunity to survive a period of time where they are not prepared and have not been prepared, and we as a country have had to spend a lot of time thinking. I want to acknowledge my Minister the Hon Carmel Sepuloni for the work that she and Grant Robertson have put in around trying to support people in this situation. Do we want to do more? Of course we do, but the reality is that right now we have to do the most urgent and the most important things. We've put in a whole pile of things to help support people across our community, and this is just one of those. 
Now, the bill has got an interesting name, and I think it's really important that we make reference to the name, because this is the crux of the bill, really: Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. Under clause 5(2), inserting new clause 8A into Schedule 3, it ensures that a person's income includes a COVID-19 income relief payment received by that person. Essentially, it means that those people can earn income as well. So if they have a redundancy payment and if they have a partner, then they're able to access this short-term support. 
We are in unprecedented times. This does not mean that the world is turning on its head. This does not change the way that we think about things, but it actually enables, at a time in history, support for people. It is similar to the earthquake job loss cover provided back in 2011, which the National Government, of course, put in place and I hear from the Hon Carmel Sepuloni that we supported it wholeheartedly. So, therefore, I would like to just ask the Opposition: if they really meant that they are not just going to be in opposition for opposition's sake and if they genuinely want to help and support at a time when we are in absolute crisis, then just support this bill. Let's get on with it. Let's help people in this country survive a crisis. Thank you, Madam Speaker. 





SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I said in the House, I think it was last week actually, addressing another bill that was being rammed through the House in urgency, that you can often see the problems with rationality and inconsistency when emotion replaces reason. The member who has resumed her seat—and I appreciate her contribution, of a sort. The Opposition is opposing this for valid reasons, which I'm obviously happy to outline. 
But it's also the duty of an Opposition—triply so under urgency—to put pressure on the Government to make sure any bill is fit for purpose. But I'll also point out to the member who has resumed her seat, who's so worried about opposition, that she might want to look at the party sitting in front of her who actually do oppose this bill—that being the Green Party. It had to swallow, as was well noted in the first reading, the dead rats, because we can see from their press releases and supporters that they are incredibly unhappy with that. So I encourage the Labour members to have a talk to the genuine opposition to this bill, if you will, from the Green Party. 
Look, the problem with this bill is, again, it's being rushed. A colleague of mine, a fine colleague, Tim van de Molen, was pointing out through brief interjections that this has been—and, in fact, the member who took her seat, Angie Warren-Clark, was saying this is urgent. Well, OK, let's take that prima facie: it's urgent. Well, why did it not come up in Budget urgency? In fact, we spent more time talking about forests and customs than we did about this, so it makes no sense. Again, emotional? Tick to that. Rational? Not. 
We're also here at a second reading speech, which normally comes after a select committee stage. We haven't had it. That's a problem. We are talking almost $600 million of New Zealand spending as a consequence of this bill. I'm very happy to accept those members who say this is a fairly technical bill—it is. But what it enables is almost $600 million worth of spend from taxpayers, by the way—by taxpayers. It's one of the great ironies. I've often used the phrase in this House "to be bribed with your own money". That's to complete the phrase: taxpayers' money being given to taxpayers, who pay the taxes. It's sort of a great giant circle. The left have never quite got their head around that. 
But we haven't had a second—sorry, the second reading has come in without a select committee process. We haven't delved into the inconsistencies that I was pointing out in the first reading. Why an arbitrary date of 1 March? I know there was a glorious attempt by the speaker after me in the first reading to point out why 1 March was not arbitrary. We danced around a little bit. We didn't seem to note the pandemic declared on 31 January, or that we closed the border to China on 3 February. Somehow, 1 March just popped up. We haven't looked at those inconsistencies. We haven't looked at why a redundancy payment of $30,000 is the right limit. This House has not addressed the question yet, and maybe it will in the committee stage, of why there are not transitional phases, if you will. 
We haven't addressed those who have been deliberately excluded, such as migrants. I'm very pleased the likes of Paulo Garcia have raised that. It's a major issue and I know the likes of Paulo have been working very, very hard on behalf of their—well, not only New Zealand, but migrant communities. 
The other problem we have is that a select committee is normally where people come and speak. They share with us their views. I think the irony is that normally the people who would come on a bill like this are friends of the left. It's probably slightly naughty of me to say at one level, but normally it's the friends of the left who come in and talk, yet they're not allowing those people. In fact, when we look again at the departmental report, the only people that are being consulted with are bureaucrats. Now, they do a great job—kudos to them—but you'd expect in a select committee stage, and then coming to a second reading, that we would have heard in a space like this from benefit advocacy groups, from those who run budgetary services, the Salvation Army, and the churches. Of course, they're not de rigueur at the moment with the left. We can keep them closed. We don't want to hear from them. But the irony, of course, is that you can close the churches, but they don't close the multibillion-dollar services which the churches provide. But that's another debate. 
But we've had no external consultation whatsoever. In fact, officials here say that the bill only makes consequential changes to the Social Security Act and, therefore, we don't have to talk to people. Well, the little words put on a piece of paper are not all that consequential, but I would say—particularly hearing from others on the other side just how important and urgent this is—that's pretty major. You'd want to hear from people. The fact that it's almost $600 million is pretty substantial, too, but they have not been heard from, and my little note here against what officials are saying: "Oh no, we don't need to talk to people."—my very erudite and deep thinking says "Rubbish". 
Fundamentally, too, we have a little bit of a problem that the bill is trying to say this "payment" to only a specified, if not discriminatory group of people is income. So OK, that's fine, but it's not going to be treated as income for tax purposes. Now, I'm not advocating that it should be, but we have this funny contradiction beginning to develop that it is not a benefit, it's not a grant; it's income. Now, normally, income would be taxable, but we're not going to tax it. Now, again, it's one of those strange things which normally a select committee might just tease out, look at the consequences of that, but we haven't had it. Why is that? Why are we rushing it through? 
So, on that, it's my little gift to Tracey Martin, I'm going to finish early for her benefit. 





Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Just a small package, wrapped up in a bow, from the Hon Simon O'Connor. I'm not sure I want to accept the small package, but there you go. It's been a very interesting contribution, and so what New Zealand continues to need to understand as they're listening to this and watching this is that the Opposition doesn't want you to get support. So that's the basis of the argument from the Opposition—"We don't want you to get support." They want to take the $600 million and they want to give it to businesses. Recognising that businesses are getting a whole lot of other supports from this Government, we'll continue to support business and we'll continue to support our citizens, but the Opposition says, "No—shouldn't do it." 
I understand that the Opposition also said that this is nothing like Christchurch and that Christchurch was a wage subsidy. It was a wage subsidy and it had nothing to do with replacing income after job loss. This is a press release from 29 March 2011. The title of the press release, the headline, is "Job Loss Cover". Now, this is a press release from then—it was the National Government. I am looking for the talent. Mr Muller says that those benches are full of talent; I am looking for the talent. I'm not quite sure—oh, Mr Macindoe has waved. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm actually looking for the member to talk about the bill. 
Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Oh, I am. I am, ma'am. So this bill is about an income relief package and how it will be treated as income, but up to this point, there have been comments by the Opposition that this is nothing like what has happened in Christchurch because that was a wage subsidy and this is actually about people who've lost their jobs. If I could just quote here: "People who lost their jobs and have no option to stay with their original employer will get support as they look for alternative work,"—Ms Bennett. Oh dear, oh dear. It's always interesting when the Opposition members forget what they did when they were in Government, and we're still looking for the talent. We endorse the bill. 





Hon 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. 





JAN LOGIE (Green): Thanks, and happy to take a call in the second reading on the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. Before getting into the substance of this, I do just want to respond to some of the comments from the Opposition trying to characterise the National Party and the Green Party as being in agreement on this issue. The precondition for us being in agreement is your wanting to urgently implement all of the recommendations of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG). If you're on board with that, and if you want incomes to be at a level where everyone is able to sustain themselves and to do a 360-degree turnaround on your entire history in Parliament, then, yes, we are on the same page. But until you get to that point, we are not on the same page. 
So I really just also want to say we are supporting this bill, and the reason for that is, well, we want everyone else to come up to this. I do just want to talk to the fact that the reason for that is we know that people in our communities are struggling. We know that the queues for food parcels and outside Work and Income offices are growing and that the Auckland City Mission—
Hon Alfred Ngaro: Talk to the details of the bill. Talk about the bits that you agree with and that you don't agree with. 
JAN LOGIE: —in 2002, were issuing 3,000—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: He is right. It is my job, but I would like to come to the—
JAN LOGIE: This is on topic, Madam Speaker. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Relate it to the bill. 
JAN LOGIE: It's about people and hardship and need, which this is about addressing. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, but the second reading—look, just a procedure thing. I'll just stop the clock for you. But remember that the second reading normally comes back to the House after a select committee process where the House accepts the premise of the bill, the contents of the bill as discussed. So the background and the scene-setting for everyone is normally your first reading. The second reading is a much more focused debate. So if you could come to the bill, it would be helpful. 
JAN LOGIE: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just to help me in terms of clarification, because my understanding was that in terms of going through urgency, there was often some leeway in terms of being able to provide that context, because it doesn't happen through the select committee. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yep, that's right, and I gave the member leeway to talk about the relationship with another party, which is nothing to do with the bill. 
JAN LOGIE: I was just responding—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: And I have given some leeway, but I am saying to you, you actually need to refer to the bill and the contents of the bill. 
JAN LOGIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, specifically, what this does is ensure that the Government's initiative to provide support for people who lose their jobs in response to COVID-19—that they are able to access the additional support. 
Hon Alfred Ngaro: You're reading the Government's PR. 
JAN LOGIE: No, I'm not. I'm speaking about the bill. This is—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Keep going, keep going. You don't have to respond to it. 
JAN LOGIE: Madam Speaker, I'm finally doing what you ask, and I'm being challenged by members of that party. Never mind. 
So it's about the support and the implementation of the funding for that, and to ensure that those people, while they get that support, are able to—
Hon Alfred Ngaro: Oh, you're just reading the PR—the Government PR. 
JAN LOGIE: Madam Speaker, I'm finding it quite difficult to hear myself, actually. Is that—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, look, in fairness, it is a fairly robust debate. If it becomes a barrage, then I will interfere. But I really do think that if people make statements, they can be challenged, and they interject. He does have a loud voice; I accept that. 
JAN LOGIE: I really was just struggling to hear myself. So it's about ensuring that those people are able to access the support. If they meet the criteria for being able to access additional support through Work and Income, they are able to do that. To meet those criteria, it's pretty much required that they demonstrate hardship and there being a gap between their income and their outgoings that needs some measure of support in between. If we are to ensure that the impact of this is delivered, then that's actually quite valuable. 
So I do just want to say in terms of the reason where we're being challenged for supporting this, because we've pointed out that as a party, we want everyone to come up to this level. But when you know and you see the degree of hardship that exists, I just don't see how anyone in any conscience could want to see 160,000 more people subjected to that hardship. That's why we're supporting this legislation, because it prevents that many people and more from experiencing that. It gives us an entry way, and we hope that this discussion will really help the country understand the need for fundamental change to the system, because that's what we all need. That's really—
Hon Alfred Ngaro: The very thing you argue, the very thing you criticised us for from this side—welcome to Government. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: In fairness, the Hon Alfred Ngaro, that's starting to become a tirade. 
JAN LOGIE: It was—thank you. I will also point to the fact around this and the discussion that was picked up by the Minister in talking about the ministerial welfare programme and the fact that this initiative has the support of the Council of Trade Unions and that there was a reference, and a whole chapter in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report, about the need for more active labour market policies and support for people as they transition in and out of unemployment, and this we're experiencing right at the moment on a mass scale that we have not experienced since the Great Depression. 
I think it is also useful to link that, which I'm sure would have come up in a submission, but the Productivity Commission, who's been looking at these policies recently, has looked at the fact that in New Zealand, relative to other countries, we really are just so out of step with other countries around the world. OECD countries place little or no obligation on employers to pay redundancy, but New Zealand is unusual in having neither mandatory redundancy pay entitlements, except for certain vulnerable workers, nor any earnings-related element in its income support system, and that this also was referenced by WEAG. 
This is at the heart of what this initiative is. I think that is in the long term a conversation for us as a country, where we've heard very clearly that people do not want a two-tier welfare system—and we agree with that—and that people really are now coming towards realising we need to increase main benefits and ensure everyone can live in dignity. Where does our support sit for the interconnection between redundancy and that welfare system? The Green Party does believe there is work to explore in this space, and at this moment in time, this policy is a response to that. 





Hon 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. 





PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to clarify a couple of things, so I'll take a short call, because, frankly, there wasn't a lot coming from that side of the House that warrants a response. 
In response to what Mr Macindoe said when I talked about the stigma that his colleagues have repeatedly brought upon beneficiaries and the most vulnerable, who need support, it was the words of his colleague Mr Simon O'Connor in this House tonight. He talked about those people as "those people"—the people who needed a little bit of extra support. It was about those members' track record of voting against things like the indexation of benefits to wage growth. Those are the things that I pointed to in my previous speech, Mr Macindoe, when I said that the track record of that party across the House is woeful when it comes to those who actually need support. 
Now, in terms of how this is different to the job loss cover extended after the Christchurch earthquake, Mr Macindoe, you said that this piece of legislation is unfair because someone who lost their job before 1 March wouldn't be eligible for it, and you asked how it was fair that somebody losing their job after that would. Now, I'll take you back. You obviously can't remember the job loss cover that your party put in place after the Christchurch earthquakes, where somebody who lost their job before the earthquakes wouldn't have been eligible for that specific, temporary, additional support. It's exactly the same. So when that side of the House says that this is unfair when they did exactly the same thing, there's a word for that that we can't use in this House. 





AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm happy to make a contribution on the second reading of this bill. Much has been made, perhaps even defensively from members opposite in the House, around this bill being temporary, as if that's a licence that it shouldn't be applied fairly. It isn't. Being temporary is not a licence that we shouldn't be giving it due diligence and applying these measures fairly across. Job losses don't fall neatly into this eight-month time frame. There are job losses before this period, there'll be job losses in waves during this period, and there will be job losses after this period. So it isn't fair. 
I would think that for New Zealanders who have either recently lost their jobs or perhaps are in a process where they are anticipating losing their jobs, or even those who are not sure how long their businesses will be able to sustain them, there would be some anxiety when they look at this bill. They're sort of thinking, "What's going to be there for me when I might lose my job, which could be outside this period?" That would cause some anxiety, and it does create uncertainty when you're providing a temporary measure. But, again, it's in a fixed period and there's no plan of what happens afterwards, because, as we know, job losses are going to continue in waves after this period due to COVID. 
I want to talk through some of the issues that have arisen as we work through this very hasty, ill-thought-through, and disorganised piece of legislation. I realise that that description fits every bill that's been passed under urgency these past three weeks, and I want to highlight what I mean by this. Earlier today, the Hon Louise Upston noted to the honourable Minister Carmel Sepuloni that the current rules would see a woman with a husband on $99,000 per annum who loses her job because of COVID-19 and receives a $29,000 redundancy payment be eligible for this income relief payment of $490 a week, tax-free. In the meantime, a woman—perhaps a sole provider for her home—who loses her job and receives a $30,000 redundancy payment will not be eligible for the income relief package. Where is the fairness in how this is being applied? 
But it gets worse: a person who lost their job in March will be able to receive a $490 weekly payment. A person who lost their job pre-COVID will only receive $250 a week. Where is the kindness that has been applied here to these two different situations of people losing their job? This two-tier welfare system is still papering over the cracks in this Government's performance, because it is two-tier. It says to people who recently lost their jobs that their loss is worse than someone who lost their job four months ago, and this creates resentment. That sets Kiwis up against each other at a time that we're meant to be kind. At a time when this Government cynically says that it's the team of 5 million, it turns around and says, "The team of 5 million, except for those of you who lost your job a few months ago. Sorry, not for you." That's not kindness, and that's not what this National Party stands for. 
So let me be clear: we do have to make provision for the wave of job losses coming through—job losses that will see New Zealanders struggle to keep their homes, struggle to keep their families on track, and struggle to manage the devastation that job losses cause—but this Labour Government is not making provision for supporting our fellow New Zealanders. No, it's doing a job half done. New Zealanders don't want welfare; they want their jobs. This bill stops at welfare, and the Prime Minister was clear she had no intention of going the extra mile to try and save those jobs. That was a burden to be carried entirely by small-business owners. Those small businesses we talk about—the local butcher, the hairdresser, the dressmaker—they too have to now borrow. They've been told "You've got to borrow to survive." That's not kind—that's not kind at all. I do not support this bill. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. 





DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this bill, but not in opposition to the Government that is trying to solve a very urgent and difficult problem. The problem that they're trying to solve is that the unemployment insurance, such as we have it in the form of jobseeker support, has been a rip-off for a long time, and a lot of people thought that even though they knew this, it would be OK because it wouldn't happen to them. What we're seeing now is tens of thousands of people suddenly dependent on a very, very small benefit in comparison with the taxes that they have paid in, often over many years. So there is a need to ensure that what people get paid out is somehow proportional to what they've been paying in, and there's no proportionality in this legislation that we've had to date. 
The bill on the table tonight is designed so the Government can basically say, "We acknowledge there's a problem and we want to give some people who have lost their job more recently more money." Now, I can understand they're very bluntly coming at the problem. The reason I oppose the bill is that we don't vote on the intentions of the Government; we vote on what the bill actually does, and what the bill does, as far as we can tell, is it legitimises an incredibly blunt response where if you earn less than $100,000 or if your partner does, then you get money. If you lost your job on one side of a date, then you get money; if you lost your job on the other side of a certain date, you don't get money, and it is just such a blunt instrument. It's going to create, as some of the other members have said, massive and perceptible unfairness, and it's going to build resentment as it does it. 
I've thought a little bit about what the Government could do and how it might use this legislation counting COVID payments as income, if it had the wit to do it. I think the long-term solution for New Zealand out of this crisis and this realisation that what you get out of unemployment insurance is nothing like what you pay in is that we're actually going to end up looking to the Canadians and following their model, and how does that work? Well, it's very simple. You pay in a percentage of your income, and if you become unemployed, you get 55 percent of your income. So there's actually some fairness and proportionality to what you pay in and what you get out. How simple and how fair is that? Of course, there are a lot of other adjustments built into it. Depending on how much unemployment there is in your region, they'll tell you how long you're eligible to stay on it and what sort of work sanctions you have. Well, that makes a lot of sense because it means that people get treated fairly, based on the circumstances they face and how much they've paid in in the past. It's not the kind of blunt tool that creates unfairness that we have proposed in this bill tonight. 
So my message to the Government and ACT's message to the Government is that we understand the problem you've got, folks, and it's a big one. How do you make a welfare system that's not fit for purpose work in a short period of time for a major problem that is affecting people up and down New Zealand—an inadequate benefit system for this kind of event? 
Well, my next message to the Government is: nice try, but must try harder. A much more elaborate scheme, much more proportional to need, and much fairer could have been designed in the time available. But, as with some of the other COVID programmes such as the business loans scheme, which nobody took up, this one's been done on the fly. It's been done bluntly and, I'm afraid to say to the Minister, it's shonky work. So for that reason, ACT can't support it, but I hope the Government will take the message and try a bit harder. Shonky work; not shonky person. 
Hon Member: The member is shonky. 
DAVID SEYMOUR: Bitter, bitter. 





KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't see any need to delay this. 
It's very clear to those watching at home that this bill is needed. It is needed to provide exactly the same provision that the previous Government provided after the Christchurch earthquake. Despite their creative attempts to argue otherwise tonight, the facts remain the same: after the Christchurch earthquake, there was temporary relief brought in to top up the unemployment benefit for those that were directly impacted by the Christchurch earthquake, and yet here we are, after another shock to this country, proposing exactly the same thing, and the National Party, because they are desperate for a platform, because they are tanking in the polls, and, let's be honest, this has been a shocking week—the saviour has turned out to be a flop—says "So we may as well oppose something." 
The question that the National Party have to answer, and the thing that they will need to justify to people when they go back to their electorates at the end of this urgency, is why they voted No to prevent those who lost their job as a result of COVID-19 from getting extra support. I imagine that those that are in that situation will take the opportunity to write to their local National MPs and ask them to explain. 
I have sat here all night and I have seen nothing but political games and empty rhetoric. I hope that between now and when they go back to their electorates and answer those emails, they'll have something based on principle and values, rather than on just playing silly games. I commend this bill to the House. 





PAULO GARCIA (National): I stand briefly to speak on the second reading of the bill. The issue really isn't whether the extra payment is good to make. The concerns have been raised: the bill creates inequalities, it is a doubling up, it is something that is on top of something that already exists, and it is being considered in urgency, without the opportunity to flesh out these concerns. There has been talk about history and the similarities of the efforts to provide extra assistance, but could the $590 million be better spent? Maybe it could. I am not an expert, but the question is there. 
Hon Member: No, that's right. 
PAULO GARCIA: Yes, I am not an expert, and I'm not shy to accept that. The question exists, and that is why the truncated process doesn't seem appropriate. 
In a matter of four days, I met with four restaurants, two bakeries, a medical practice, and a small chain of hotels—a total of probably five employees here, four there, 10 there, 100 there, coming up to, let's say, 500 people. Each one, each business, had been focused on what could be coming to assist them to keep them going to bridge the gap to get to the next stage and keep open. The wage subsidy pays for employees, not the business. The Government has said to them, "Go to the banks.", and they have. Banks will not lend when you have zero income and an uncertain future. Then Government loans, through the IRD, were offered. Businesses could not be approved loans, even with the offered guarantees by Government. At least for these businesses that I have been able to speak to—for them, they struggle to want to keep going, not just for the desire to keep going and keep their people who have been working with them over time for longer, but they just wouldn't be able to do so. 
Is it possible that $590 million could have been used in this unprecedented time a little bit better than the history has shown? That's all, Madam Speaker. Thank you. 





JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): It's a delight to take a brief call on this bill at 5 to 10 in the evening. I would like to acknowledge the work that the Minister has done during this incredibly challenging time. We have heard the word "unprecedented" and the reality is that what we're facing hasn't happened since 1918, and I won't use that word. But, look, it certainly has been a challenging time. Unfortunately, a number of people have lost their jobs, and this is an example of a Government providing support for people who have lost their jobs due to COVID-19, to provide support for a 12-week period at a rate the equivalent of the wage subsidy. 
Now, we've heard a number of arguments from both sides. Obviously, the Government here support it. The Opposition have made their views known, but this bill is basically about supporting people, caring for people, while they're going through difficult times, and I'm certainly proud of the work that the Minister has done on this bill. I commend this bill to the House. 





A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. 
Noes 57
New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross. 
Bill read a second time. 





DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. Do you want to take a point of order? 
KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I'm sure we all appreciate that by the time that you call in the Chair to resume the committee stage, then we will have struck 10, so I therefore move that we adjourn until tomorrow. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I'm sorry, I asked the member to help us out. We can't do that because we are in urgency. 
Kieran McAnulty: But that's all right, because I've used up the time. 
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not quite—not quite. You could take another point of order and help. So the House is now in committee for consideration of the Privacy Bill—oh, sorry, I've turned the wrong page. Let me find the right page. 
KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I really don't want to point this out, but I believe it's not the Privacy Bill that we're about to bring into committee stage there. So I just thought I'd take a fortuitous point of order to give you time to find the right name of the bill that we are about to discuss in committee, but, actually, I believe I may have used up all the time now, so I'll just sit down.
 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. However, the House is suspended. I will resume the chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.
In Committee
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)