Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill

I move, That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole House on the Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill that it have the power to consider and, if it thinks fit, to adopt amendments that are not within scope of the bill but are broadly related to family incomes, reducing child poverty, and the well-being of families.

I move this instruction to the committee, which the House will note is a debatable instruction, because we are debating today and will be debating in the committee of the whole House very shortly, a bill that seeks to do some honourable things. It seeks to look at issues to do with targeted social assistance, improving incomes for low and middle income families with children, and reducing child poverty. There will be amendments that are moved by this side of the House that will be in the scope of the bill, but this side of the House is of the view that we should be discussing things somewhat broader than that.

So this instruction that I have moved today—after looking at a few Hansards from an honourable gentleman who’s done this a few times in the past, seeking some inspiration, in fact, we’re of the view that we should broaden the scope of what the committee can consider, we should extend the powers of the committee of the whole House, and, as you would know, sir, the way to do that is to move—[Interruption]—well, maybe one day. As you would know, Mr Speaker, the way to do that is to move an instruction to the committee of the whole House, so I do that.

I’ve moved this instruction and, should it be accepted by the House, the instruction would allow the committee to consider in a broader fashion matters that are important to the Parliament and important to members of this House. I’m of the view that the wider issues around family incomes, the wider issues around reducing child poverty, and the wider issues around the well-being of families should be considered as part of the committee’s consideration of this bill. There are matters that we want to raise and we want to debate and that we want to have considered by way of amendments that we will be placing on the Table, if we get the opportunity, after this instruction has passed by the House. We’d like those to be debated, and some of those issues will be out of the scope of the bill but they should be debated. So we want to broaden those powers that the committee has.

We have been doing some research. We’ve got former Ministers of Finance and former Associate Ministers of Finance, who have been beavering away upstairs on matters that we could put up to improve this bill. They’ve been beavering hard—Mr Joyce—but we want to go broader than what the current Standing Orders would allow and we have come up with a range of issues. I mean, we are aware that the Labour Party, for example, has a strong view on setting measures for child poverty. If the committee was given more power to consider this bill, then we should be considering broader matters around measures on child poverty. It’s not necessarily something that we would support if it’s in the form that the Labour Party might have put up, but we think we should be having that debate. We think the committee should have the power to consider amendments along those lines, and whether they come from this side or that side, it’s completely up to members.

There are issues to do with food in schools, for example. We know there’s a political debate right now around funding for a charity. It would impact on food provided in schools, and so as an issue that broadly is in line with issues to do with the well-being of families, we should have the power to be able to debate that by way of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) and by way of an amendment if we wish to. Giving the committee the power to do that would be important.

This side of the House has some strong views on early childhood education and some strong views on how that impacts on the well-being of families. Also, we know that the cost of early childhood education is an issue that can contribute towards reducing child poverty in this country. If the committee had the power to consider SOPs and amendments along those lines, those are the types of issues that we’d like to see discussed.

We are also aware that school fees and the cost of school uniforms are issues that are important to families. Those go to the heart of many family budgets and the way in which parents can afford to provide things for their children to enable them to attend school. We’re of the view that that should be an issue that should be debated through the committee stage on this particular bill. So giving the committee power to consider those issues, giving the committee broader power than what currently is allowed for under the Standing Orders, is very important.

There are also other issues that our members have put up by way of members’ bills—members’ bills about issues that we think should be debated by the Parliament. If we give the committee of the whole House power to consider those issues by way of an amendment here, that would give us the ability to put forward for the Government’s consideration important issues to do with families. I mean, I know that Dr Parmjeet Parmar, who may be in this House right now, has a newborn child bill, which is of importance to many people and it is something she believes passionately in. Should the committee be given the power to consider that very issue, then we would want to put that forward as an amendment that we might want to consider.

There are other issues that have come forward. I know that there are some issues to do with dental costs, which is an issue that’s important for many members on our side of the House. We believe that goes to the fundamental question of well-being for families. It’s a matter to do with reducing child poverty if it can assist those children longer term and in the future as well. We believe that compulsory GP registration is something that should be considered. Income splitting was something that Peter Dunne—let’s just consider Peter Dunne for a moment. He was someone who was in favour of income splitting. I’m not sure it’s something we would want to pick up, but they might. They might want to pick it up. Training allowances—all of these types of matters are costs to families. All of these types of matters impact on the income that’s available as disposable income for families, and all of these matters, we think, the committee of the whole House should have the power to consider.

So I appeal to the other side. The other side of this House has put forward a bill that, in their view, has some honourable intent. They’ve put forward the view because they believe that there are some issues this House should be debating under urgency. They believe they’re urgent matters to do with family incomes, urgent matters to do with the well-being of families, and we are saying, “Yes, if the committee is going to debate that, then we should be considering it in a broader sense.” Having a broader debate in the Parliament, in the committee of the whole House, just before Christmas, so we can put on the table all of the views that parties in this Parliament have around families, around incomes, around the well-being of families—we should be doing that. We should be signalling to New Zealand, and we can do that by way of the committee of the whole House if we give the committee wider power to do that.

So I know there are other members behind me who have issues they wish to raise. I know there are other members who feel strongly about giving the committee broader powers to do this, and so I’m going to—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member’s going to sit down. All I’m going to do is ask the member to stop being repetitious. He’s now gone on a bit of a track that is repetitious. This is a very, very tight debate and repetition is not allowed.

Well, I think I’ve made myself clear.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think several times.

There are other issues that this side of the House may wish to debate on this very motion, so I’ll allow my members to do that now.

I rise in support of Mr Ross in his motion to give the committee of the whole House greater ambit for discussion and potential amendments. Look, I would never stand here and seek to in any way sound like I was giving advice to a member who has much more experience in these matters than I could hope to at this stage. But I do think it is important, in talking about why we should do this, to acknowledge that the circumstances we find ourselves in today, with a bill that is a Government bill and introduced under urgency, in no way obviate the right or stand in the way of the right of Parliament to determine its own proceedings and destiny. If I might offer just one simple example: although urgency meant we moved immediately from first to second reading—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am going to interrupt the member and ask him to come back to the very narrow subject matter of it, and while I’m on my feet I’m going to ask Jan Logie for the second time—thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The simple point I’m making is it is right for Parliament to determine whether or not the committee of the whole House should look at a wider ambit for its discussion, debate, and potential amendment in the committee of the whole House stage to come, because if we look at the ambit of the bill itself and the way it explains its objectives, it is very broad—about low and middle income families, about child poverty in particular, also about assistance—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to refer members now to Standing Order 176, in particular paragraph (5), “Any debate on the question for an instruction is restricted to the subject-matter of the motion. It may not extend to the principles, objects, or provision of the bill …”, which the member is now doing.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. So the point that I think could also be raised—not to traverse areas that Mr Ross has—that is relevant to the matter in front of the House is, for instance, the area of digital inequality. I raise a comment that the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media made recently in a public speech that the lack of home internet access is the highest factor in social deprivation—a matter that we are considering this evening. Now, a little bit earlier this year, in her role as an MP—but, obviously, not as a Minister—she was even more clear in a statement that “Digital inequality is going to be the new measure of poverty.”

So that’s a matter that’s very relevant to the discussions in the House tonight. It’s something I think that members on both sides of the Chamber may wish to debate. That member who raised that comment in her capacity as a member of Parliament for Dunedin South, and, indeed, at the time, as the Labour Party spokesperson for ICT, also made comments at the meeting where she made that comment that—and I can’t quite quote, but I can remember the substance of it. It said, “We don’t need any more research. We know what needs to be done.”

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! This is now—I think it’s the second of the three-strikes warnings. The member will refer to the subject matter of the motion.

The point I simply make is that members have an interest in the elements that contribute to poverty, and that by giving the committee of the whole House the ability to have a broader discussion, it allows members on both sides of the House to raise matters that we might know that me, personally, or other members—my colleagues—may have an interest in but also that, through their public utterances, other members have also acknowledged some level of interest in.

So the point I’m simply trying to raise for the House and for you, Mr Speaker, is that by us saying that we think this is a good thing for the House to consider, there are at least some utterances in public that suggest that the elements that we think could be covered are matters that members have shown some interest in in public. So we’re not simply stating a hypothetical—that they might have an interest in something. I’m merely trying to reinforce that there is some matter of public record that the things that we are mentioning are not simply a figment of our imagination or our own personal desires.

But I do think that if the House were at least to consider and possibly grant this leave, or motion, to broaden the debate, it does allow the House to consider matters that are of import to the bill.

OK. We’ve now hit repetition.

Oh, thank you, Mr Speaker, and I assure the House I’ll be very brief with my contribution. But I think, when you consider the motion and you consider the debate that’s occurred, what the motion is asking for is for the House, or the committee, to have the power to consider and, if it thinks fit, to adopt amendments that are not within the scope of the bill.

And, in speaking to that point, I want to raise a couple of points that you, Mr Speaker, made at the start of the debate—that you wanted, after giving an urgent debate earlier, the debate to be relatively concise. And, if you had the opportunity to be listening to the debate, it has been anything but, and there have been some very wide-ranging contributions from members. I can think of Jan Logie raising the issue of the universality of the health system and the universality of the education system. I can think of the Hon Tracey Martin raising issues around the ease of engagement with Work and Income when one applies—

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 76/5, which says, basically, that matters that are one step removed or foreign to a bill cannot be introduced by way of an instruction; they can be introduced only by way of leave. I think both the motion moved by Mr Ross and now the debate are certainly one step removed and foreign to the bill.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I—

Speaking to the point of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I don’t think I need—I mean, while I respect the member, I don’t think I need his assistance. I’ve been listening clearly to his speech, and my view is that while he might’ve been come up to the edge of some problems, I think as far as he went, he was all right. I’m not saying that, looking at that Speaker’s ruling, it would’ve applied to the two previous speeches.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. If I could finish by just quoting a member from Hansard on 16 November 2010. This member said, “the ability for the House to instruct the Committee is one that has been used on a number of occasions. It is a way of bringing things into scope that would otherwise be out of scope.” This very sage member went on to say that “The Leader of the House and other … members have the ability to vote against the motion if they so wish, and [that] is their right to do so, but it is also the right of members to move such motions. It has happened at least two or three times in this Parliament”—and the member was referring, of course, to a previous Parliament—“[when] the House was considering a matter and before it was referred to the Committee.” That, of course, Mr Speaker, is yourself—the Hon Trevor Mallard, as you were then, pointing out—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thought it was very well put.

And I must admit I had a huge number of examples from Hansard that I could’ve used, all of which were the Hon Trevor Mallard taking the opportunity to widen the scope of a discussion in the committee stages. I have taken one that I think is succinct and to the point.

Members have the right to raise this. At the end of the day, it will, at some stage in the evening, or perhaps tomorrow, after 9 o’clock, be put to a vote, and then the House will decide about the widening of the scope.

The Hon—oh, Dr the Hon? No—the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Happy to take it either way. Look, I want to join—

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

That’s with respect to the “Hon” and the “Dr”—no other reference intended. I’m delighted to join my colleagues in supporting the motion to give a clear instruction to the committee to enable a wider discussion of bills. The reason, firstly, that we need to do that is this isn’t some minor matter. This is a bill, under urgency, involving over $5.5 billion of New Zealand taxpayers’ money, and we are also in a—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Again, I’ll refer the member to Standing Order 176, which is very, very tight. The member cannot traverse what’s in the bill.

The argument that I want to present is why the motion that has been moved by my colleague makes good sense in allowing a wider range of issues to be referred to. The motion—and I’m happy to read it so that it’s very clear—is that the committee needs the power to be able to adopt amendments that are not within the scope of the bill, but are broadly related to the issues of family income, reducing child poverty, and the well-being of families. So, fundamentally, it’s about whether we’re going to give the committee the power to be able to discuss alternative, and better, ways of spending the $5.5 billion.

Now, it’s absolutely right that this is not the time to debate the specific issues in the bill. This is the time to debate whether we want to let the committee of the whole House debate those broader issues as to whether there are other, and better, alternatives. We are in the unusual circumstance where we are in urgency. It’s either extraordinary in the sense that the package that is contained in this bill was not supported by the largest numbers of voters in the election that just passed a few months ago—quite different.

Right, the member will resume his seat.

I move, That the question be now put.

Yes, I have no doubt that members are ready to make a decision on the question.

Sorry, I’m just going to interrupt now. I do want to remind members that all votes are to be held in silence and that this is the last warning for that member.