Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill

We are now examining Part 2 of this bill, and, while it won’t be the exclusive focus in this part from this side of House, it is certainly going to have some focus, and that’s the winter energy payment. I thought it would be worth discussing, at the outset, just how this winter energy payment came about. It is a peculiar beast indeed, because it is neither a payment for winter or, indeed, a payment for energy—but we will come to that. It is definitely a payment. I think it could probably best be described as a payment in lieu of a superannuation increase that was arranged by the previous Government for superannuation.

The gestation of it is this: that, actually, under the previous Government, the Family Incomes Package was of course adjusting the taxation thresholds, and that was to flow through to superannuitants. A superannuitant couple would receive just under $700 in the course of a year in terms of increased superannuation, on top of the superannuation adjustment that they would normally receive on 1 April each year.

Of course, the difficulty for the Labour Party was that when they reinforced their abhorrence of any change to tax thresholds and decided they weren’t going to change the tax thresholds, they were left with an inconvenient truth, which was that that meant the superannuitants wouldn’t get anything as a result of the Family Incomes Package. And so the winter energy payment was born. Of course, it was, weirdly, created to be just slightly more—just ever so slightly more—than the superannuitants would have received under the previous Government’s package. Or is it? Because, actually, in the first year, it looks like it will be less—significantly less. And I know my colleagues will want to look into that at some depth.

Also, then, there’s the issue of who actually qualifies for it. We’re going to want to examine that significantly, because there are some fish-hooks in this. Initially, we were told at the time of the election that there was going to be a signing-up process. We were going to have thousands and thousands of superannuitants lining up at Work and Income offices across the country—no doubt with their passports, to avoid any suggestion that they were foreign superannuitants—and they would then have to register.

Now, thank goodness—thank goodness—the Government has dropped that. We now have an auto-enrolment process. And yet, at the same time as having the auto-enrolment process, we are told, with a straight face, that superannuitants who leave the country during winter won’t be able to continue to keep claiming the winter energy payment. It’s going to be on an honesty box system, I understand, not unlike when you go to somebody’s house and they leave out something that you can buy—for example, some eggs—and you have a little honesty box and you put your money in. So that’s an honesty box system, which is admirable, but, generally, to ensure the system is robust and there is integrity, there has to be some way of actually monitoring the honesty box system.

In our case, in this country, when we provide somebody with a benefit—and this is undoubtedly a benefit—then we do police the requirements of the benefit, otherwise it’s unfair on other people. So either the Government is actually going to do something about this to ensure that there is some form of confirmation that we don’t have superannuitants abusing the system, such as they say, or we’re going to actually do what Carmel Sepuloni wants, in making it so that there are no responsibilities for any benefits. This just might be the precursor of how they’re going to handle the benefit system from here, which is an honesty box system all the way across.

There are some very significant things to address in this system that is being proposed in this part of the bill, but can I say this: it’s a shonky idea, it comes around for a shonky reason, and we’re very, very cynical about it.

I firstly want to deal with the issues in this part that directly contradict assurances that were given by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister during the election campaign. We both know that around the country, the issue of the previous Government’s tax cuts was raised at many of the Grey Power meetings around New Zealand. I was particularly interested in the very large Grey Power meetings and the absolute reassurance that was given by Jacinda Ardern that superannuitants, under the Labour Party’s policy, would be no worse off than under National’s tax package, which would deliver, as Steven Joyce said, just under $700 per year for 750,000 New Zealanders.

What we see in this bill is that 700,000 superannuitants are going to be worse off—a direct contradiction of what the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, said, and also Winston Peters, who pretends to be the champion for superannuitants but has actually, by sleight of hand, taken hundreds of dollars individually—hundreds of millions of dollars—off them in Part 2 of this bill.

Let me explain why. Under National’s changes from 1 April next year, every superannuitant would be better off by $680 as a consequence of the tax reduction. That amount actually increases in 2019 and 2020, and if you calculate that based on the December economic update that we’ve just had this week, we would expect that to get up to $705 in year two and $730 in year three. So in every one of the next three years, this Government is taking money off superannuitants. That is, in year one, next financial year, the winter energy payment provides superannuitants with $466—$466 is the energy payment for the year—whereas the tax cuts would have provided them with $680. That is, they’ve robbed $260 off every superannuitant couple across New Zealand.

When did they tell them that? Is that what Winston Peters—and I’d like to challenge the New Zealand First member in the Chamber: when did they tell superannuitants that a Labour - New Zealand First Government would make them over $260 worse off? When did they tell them that they were going to take $150 million collectively off superannuitants? So that’s my first problem—my first problem is the Prime Minister and Winston Peters have broken their word to superannuitants.

The second is, of course, that the tax package provided for that amount to increase each year with the average wage increase—no such provision in this winter energy payment. It’s a fixed amount. Each year going forward, superannuitants will be worse off.

The third challenge I’ve got for the committee is this: I would have heard a speech from Winston Peters at least a couple of dozen times, screaming in this Parliament that superannuation is not a benefit. And what does this part say? This part, New Zealand First, defines superannuation as a benefit and not an entitlement. So, in this part, New Zealand First rats on their assurances to superannuitants. Those 750,000 New Zealanders that have contributed so much in their life to this country are being fiddled against assurances that were given during the election, as a consequence of the parts in this bill.

So I want to challenge both the Minister in the chair, Stuart Nash, and particularly the New Zealand First Party: why are you taking money off superannuitants? Why are you breaking your word, both from the Prime Minister and Winston Peters, to Grey Power? Why, at a time when New Zealand’s books are so good, are you depriving superannuitants of these benefits?

Thank you, Madam Chair Tolley. I rise to take a call on Part 2 of this Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill. On the other side, as you’ve heard, we are challenging this bill. At the same time, too, there are parts of it where we’d like to make the bill better. We know the training wheels are still on at the moment. They’re still sort of wobbling a little bit—they’re struggling a little bit—and so we feel that with some of the expertise that we have, we’d like to offer some suggestions around that. I know that members over there will appreciate this.

My contribution is on the amendment that I’ve put forward in regard to the winter energy payment, section 61FE in new Part 1KA. In particular, to do with: “The purpose of the winter energy payment is to provide … financial assistance” and support—in particular, section 61FI(1), to add an extra subsection (c), and this is how it reads: “if the person has nominated, in a form and manner approved by the chief executive, to use their winter energy payment for additional home insulation or heating sources, in 1 annual instalment.” Also, in section 61FI, “Winter energy payment: instalments, rates, and payment”, to insert new section 61FI(2)(c): “for recipients who have nominated to use their winter energy payment for additional home insulation or heating sources”.

We believe that’s important. The Government on the other side, only two weeks ago, had the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) where they advocated very strongly for the importance of insulation—in fact, on many occasions they talked about the importance of that in regard to the current building code and standard, from 1978. They want it included to 2008, so there was very strong advocacy and support that insulation becomes critically important. What I would add is that what this is—it is actually to create some flexibility. When we talk about the winter energy payments, it doesn’t specifically say what those payments could be used for; it could be all sorts of manners of things.

We think it’s important—and I’m sure the Government would think it’s important—to put some checks and balances in there, create a bit of flexibility, and focus on insulation. This committee has heard about the importance of insulation and what that gathers. We know that there are approximately one million houses that are still uninsulated. Under the previous Government, the National Government, we had insulated at least 30,000 Housing New Zealand houses, and another 350,000 houses in the general populace as well, so this would add to that as well.

So I think it’s really important, and I’d like to hear from the Minister about the fact that this amendment would be something that would add to it. It would create flexibility. If we’re going to talk about the efficiency and saving for the family in their situation, during that winter period of time, then you can spend a whole lot of resource and money on paying the power bills, but if you’re not creating a home that is warm, that is dry, then it’s money that’s just wasted. I would say that’s critically important.

The second part of my amendment also includes heating sources. We know that’s critically important, because when we think about the heating sources, the most common heating source at the moment that is not only efficient in its use but also cost-effective is the heat pump. Many homes now are actually ensuring that they install heat pumps there. The heating source means that now we are also putting it down specifically to an appliance that, again, would ensure that the home is dry, is warm, and actually meets those needs for the family as well.

My contribution for the amendment that I’m proposing to new section 61FI, in the winter energy payments, is to ensure that there is an opportunity, a flexibility, to look at home insulation—as I said, there are over a million homes that aren’t insulated at the moment, both ceiling and floor—and also the importance of heating sources. I know that as an electrician—when I first started my apprenticeship I was working for Ward Chandler Electrical and Jim Cato Electrical, who had contacts with Housing New Zealand. Part of my role was to go into many of those Housing Corporation homes, but also into other homes, too—homes owned by residents who were low-income families. And, in many cases, I had to remove appliances that were not only inefficient but were costing those residents at that time huge amounts in their power bill.

So I think that what I am proposing is not something that’s unreasonable. I’d like the Government just to consider this. This is a practical solution. It’s a practical amendment that, again, is for the insulation, and what it would do, what we’ve heard from experts is that it would increase the efficiency of the warmth of a home by 35 percent—35 percent.

So rather than actually just saying that it’s for winter payments such as your power bills, why not allow the flexibility for those that need their homes to be insulated to have a heating source that would be reliable and efficient and effective to heat the home? I think, actually, it’s a very practical solution that I can offer to the House and to the Government as well.

Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson Tolley. I think it’s important at this early stage to just get some things clear here. First of all, what we heard—Dr Nick Smith talks about the meetings he attended up and down the country. What I heard in the meetings that I’ve attended is that for about the 60 percent of pensioners or superannuitants who rely solely on the pension to live—solely on the pension—the winter power bills were one of the greatest imposts they faced in wintertime. So what we have said is, “We’re listening. We heard what you had to say.” New Zealand First and Labour thought long and hard about this, and said, “What we will actually do is help you during those, sort of, six months where we know your costs increase significantly. So what we’re going to do is we’re going to give you some money to help you pay that power bill.”

But when the Hon Steven Joyce said, “Well, how is this going to be policed? You’re going to put something in place that means if you’re away for 28 days—how’re you going to know this?” Well, I would’ve thought that a former Minister of Finance would’ve actually known that the 28-day period exists for superannuitants who head overseas for longer than 28 days if they’re receiving any sort of supplementary payment. And, in fact, there is an information-sharing agreement between the Customs Service and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), who administer this. So this is not new here. This is not new in any way, shape, or form. And the reason we did this is we just felt it was unfair to those who were here for others who’d gone to the Gold Coast, as has been brought up a number of times on this side of the Chamber, and were wintering on the Gold Coast—this is not for them; this is for Kiwis who are here in winter to ensure they can pay their power bills.

Now, one of the reasons we did this is we looked at the stats. We looked at the stats and said, “Is it acceptable in this country that 40,000 New Zealand children end up in hospital in the middle of winter for respiratory diseases? Is it acceptable in New Zealand that, in fact, 9,000 superannuitants end up in hospital with pneumonia? No, it’s not—not acceptable in any way, shape, or form. So what can we do to alleviate this?” And we felt that the winter energy payment was the perfect way to do this.

Now, if that side wants to argue that it’s not important to help superannuitants over winter, go hard. Do that. But we just think this is the right thing, because it’s what we have been told. The other thing that is quite false—and I was interested in Dr Nick Smith’s comments here when he said, “We are actually taking money off pensioners because of the average wage.” And, again, the former Minister of Finance should know—because, of course, he would’ve read the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update—that the average wage is predicted to grow under Labour, therefore, we are actually giving more money to superannuitants than they would’ve received if the Opposition had been in Government. Luckily—luckily—they are not.

And it is universal, because we felt it was important to make it universal. So it’s not an honesty box in any way, shape, or form. So, Mr Joyce, I just want to repeat this point, because Mr Joyce was not in the Chamber when we made this point: there is an information-sharing agreement between customs and MSD, so they will pick people up who are offshore—

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Oh!

—for over 28 days, Mr Joyce. So it’s OK.

Having said, though—having said that—this side actually trusts superannuitants to do the right thing anyway. We don’t distrust everyone in any way, shape, or form.

As to the Hon Alfred Ngaro’s amendment, we won’t be supporting this. It’s really just a practical reason. That goes back to the 28 days. If you receive it in a lump sum, then you decide to take off on the 27th day—or you decide to take off—then how is that equitable? What we’ve got to look at here, Mr Ngaro, is the equity around this. It’s the equity.

💬 Hon Alfred Ngaro: But if they stay, though?

If they stay, then they’re going to get it in equal payments, which is how it should be. Getting it in a lump sum is just not fair. What we’re about, on this side, is fairness and equity. As the honourable member will know, under the healthy housing legislation that will come through under this Labour - New Zealand First Government, we will ensure that landlords actually do have to provide a warm, dry house.

💬 Hon Alfred Ngaro: Low-income families who are residents that own their own home.

Low-income families—they will also be covered under the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act. So if they’re renting a house the landlord will also have to provide a warm, dry house.

One thing I would say is we think this is fair, we think this is equitable, and this is not taking money off pensioners whatsoever. We have listened to pensioners when they said one of the greatest costs for them is the winter power bill.

I’m going to call Ian McKelvie, and before I do I’m just going to say to him, I think he has already talked with the Clerks but he has two amendments in place. One is to insert new clauses 79 to 81 to increase the age qualification for superannuation. He was hoping that that would be a new Part 3. The form of the bill means that it’s more appropriate to be a subpart of Part 2. However, his second amendment that’s on the Table, inserting a new Part 3, requiring the Retirement Commissioner to report on the impact of the bill on the well-being of retired persons is acceptable as a new Part 3. If I give the call to the member, he can talk to that first amendment as a subpart of Part 2.

Thank you, Madam Chair Tolley. The arthritis has got pretty bad this morning, getting up and down in this place and not getting a call, so I’m very pleased you’re giving me one. I did want to say a couple of things—[Interruption] I do need to qualify that comment with a couple of things.

💬 Hon Alfred Ngaro: This will not help you. This package is not for you.

The first thing is—this package absolutely is for me, and I’ve got to declare a conflict of interest. So I must declare a conflict of interest as we go into this discussion, but that was not really where I wanted to get to. I do want to commend the objectives of a lot of the stuff in this bill. I also accept that a lot of those objectives have been borrowed from a previous Government and had their meaning changed, but that’s absolutely fine by me, as long as it achieves what we want to achieve in the end.

I think the challenge I’ve got with some of Minister Nash’s comments a moment ago is that it isn’t necessarily equitable. One of the things I want to raise that’s particularly inequitable is that superannuitants in care, and those in rest homes who are currently cared for in a different manner than those that are, in other rest homes, caring for themselves, don’t get the same benefits out of this. So I think that the point I’m making is that the power supplement, I guess, or the winter energy payment, the “WEP”, as it’s named—sounds like a power company to me—isn’t necessarily equitable for everyone. I think the other thing that really challenges me about that—and it’s particularly pertinent in the Rangitīkei at the moment, when in the southern end of my electorate you’ve got to have the heat pumps on because it’s so blimmin hot the grass hasn’t grown for months, and in the northern end of it, we’ve still got snow coming—I think that that’s the other inequitable thing about this: that it’s useful for the cold parts of New Zealand, but not necessarily so useful for the parts of New Zealand that aren’t so cold. So it isn’t altogether equitable.

I wanted to pick up the point that the Hon Nick Smith raised, because I think it’s a very important point, and that is that this proposal does, effectively, potentially take money away from superannuitants who otherwise may have got a benefit under the National Government’s tax cuts. I think that was significant, as well. I think the other point the Minister raised that I find a little confusing is that if we’re going to apply this to power bills, for example, we should have specifically applied it to power bills. It would have been a much more suitable way of doing it, I think, because, effectively, it doesn’t necessarily mean the power bill gets paid any better than it does now. I think that we heard earlier in the discussion that people are responsible for their own ends. They certainly are, but I guess one of the challenges we have is that people don’t necessarily use that responsibility in the manner they should. So I think that’s a little bit of, I guess, a deficiency under this project, and it probably needs a bit of attention.

I think the point I wanted to make was that I don’t think it is equitable. It certainly is taking income away from our beneficiaries. The other point I wanted to raise quite strongly was that I don’t think that our superannuitants should be termed as beneficiaries, either, and that point was raised by the Hon Nick Smith, as well. That’s continued right through this bill. It talks about our superannuitants being beneficiaries. In fact, it’s an entitlement that you work for all your life, and you get to my age or a little younger, and you qualify for it. So just on to the—

💬 Hon Member: Yes, it’s great.

It is, too—ha, ha! No, but it is.

I’ll just very quickly get on to my amendment, which, Madam Chair Tolley, you have informed me has been appended to Part 2 and become an amendment to Part 2. In fact, I might just read it: “The purpose of this part is to tie the age of superannuation eligibility to the winter energy payment provisions of the Family Package … to ensure the affordability of the provisions of that policy by raising the superannuation eligibility age to 67 no later than twenty years after the enactment of the Families Package … Bill.” That does two things. One is it, effectively, would raise the eligibility to 67, and the second one is it attaches the benefits of things like the electricity benefit to those changes. In other words, it makes it continuous. That takes us back to the policy that the National Government implemented some time ago—

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: So you’re trying to be advocates for superannuitants, and now you’re going to raise the age.

—and I think that despite New Zealand First’s bleatings, that is a point that I think is strongly accepted by the New Zealand community. I think also that for those of us of that age—[Time expired]

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. My point of order is in regards to scope. In the response from the Minister, he included comments in regards to the healthy homes package that the Minister was talking about in regards to the upcoming Budget and the package that was soon to be released—potentially, in 2018. I take it, then, that we’ve been quite clear in our directions from the Speaker around scope, but because the Minister has entered this comment into his reply, can I take it that we can make comment on the comment of the Minister?

No, because we are in the committee of the whole House and we are examining part by part.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. It’s a pleasure to speak to this bill and speak to an amendment. I particularly want to speak around the winter energy component.

I wanted to focus on this bit of the bill, and I want to focus initially on the objective of the winter energy payment (WEP), which is stated in the explanatory note of the bill as follows: “The WEP will support those recipients to meet their household heating costs during the winter period.” I want to just focus there—I’ll come back to it—on heating costs during the winter, not cooling during the summer. I will come back to that point.

I think the dilemma this amendment seeks to correct, and the amendments I wish to make are several—firstly, with the definition of winter and its correct application in this bill to 122 days, starting initially in July and then later progressing to a May start. Secondly, there is the duration of 22 weeks, or 154 days.

Now, it’s a winter energy payment, so what do we understand by “winter”? Well, why don’t we ask our premier meteorologist, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA). They decide, or they define, that winter is June, July, and August—92 days. Internationally, the Southern Hemisphere is considered to have had winter this year from 21 June to Sunday, 23 September—92 days. Surprisingly, Tourism New Zealand calls winter June, July, and August—92 days. New Zealand.com has it as June July, and August—92 days. Across a whole range of domains, winter is defined as June, July, and August, and as a much shorter period.

Maybe there’s some alignment, actually, with the electricity sector. Why don’t we go and ask some of the retailers what they consider winter to be? So I had a look around and Meridian does define a buy-back period for solar energy as winter, and, again, it doesn’t match at all what this bill is calling winter. You know, it may well be that the public and the retailers have got used to some concept of winter—particularly, winter in the electricity domain—and yet we’re going to change everything and confuse people.

I think introducing another definition of winter would be confusing, so there are some questions here. Why is the start date next year in July? That’s too late; winter’s already started. And then, when it’s moved through to May, that’s too early; winter hasn’t started. Why is it 22 weeks—154 days—when everyone is saying winter’s actually 92 days? Why does the winter period not align with any other definition of winter that I could find?

Now, if we look at 154 days—let’s say that the programme had been in place and we add 154 days to 1 May this year. That would push the winter energy payment through to October. If we look at the NIWA’s latest report on October, they tell us this: first of all, it was 30 degrees in Cromwell in October—way too warm to need an energy payment. Secondly, they also state that temperatures were “well above or above average temperatures for most of the country” in October—again, hardly winter.

The bill specifically says “heating” and not “cooling”. If the programme were in place right now—and it started in May and went right through to the hot month of October—many consumers would have their heating devices, heat pumps etc., on auto-regulating thermostats. What would happen is, as the weather warmed, the device would change to cooling, at exact counter-purposes to what the objective says the energy payment can be used for. It very clearly aligns to heating—which makes sense—in the cold periods, but because of climate change and various other reasons, as it gets warmer, and as this period projects the 154 days, those devices will automatically change to cooling. I would suggest that’s at counter-purposes to this bill.

So the problems that I’m finding here are that the dates suggested are too long and are outside of anyone’s definition of winter. Secondly, pushing into the warmer periods makes the heating requirements redundant, and auto-cooling is at cross-purposes to this bill. Now, a couple of suggestions: the suggestion with this amendment is that if we align the definition of winter with the NIWA definition, then it does actually solve a lot of these problems. Secondly, if we resolve or we try to resolve the thermostatic auto-adjustments by changing the definition of the purpose to “cooling” as well—I think that’s going to make the bill messy and diminish the intent and purpose that you have. So the amendment that I have on the Table is that the NIWA definition of winter be considered by the Minister. Thank you.

I want to talk about the winter energy payment. This winter energy payment in Part 2 of this bill is a random, plucked out of the air, nonsense payment. Let’s be honest here: when they cancelled the tax cuts, as the legislation does, the vulnerable members of our community found out they’d be out of pocket. They thought, “Oh, there’s a lot of votes there. We better sort that out.”, so the brains trust at Labour dreamt up a winter energy payment, because it sounds good. It’s a bit of fluff. So let’s now look at the specifics of this fluff.

💬 Hon Member: Oh, he’s got the fluff out.

Ha! The winter energy payment is there for those in receipt of a main benefit, New Zealand superannuation, or veterans pensions, to heat their homes in winter. With all due respect, it’s not about winter, it’s not about energy, and it bears no relationship to the underlying winter energy costs. It is simply a stopgap measure contained in the provisions of this bill. That coalition Government is all about fluff. It feels good, it sounds good— good intentions, but no substance.

In schedule 18A of the bill, they made it $700 a year for superannuitant married couples, which is a cynical attempt to beat our change, which was worth $676 per year in our tax package. Creating random payments like this just adds another layer of bureaucracy that bleeds the system dry.

But back to the relevant parts of the bill: this will make superannuitants have to go cap in hand to Work and Income to get their winter energy payments. It’s ad hoc policy. It feels good. It just adds complexity to the tax and transfer system—for example, in the regulatory impact assessment: this payment “creates a situation where some beneficiaries become worse off when they earn additional income in a particular income range, creating disincentives to moving into work or increasing hours of work.” The payment mainly affects job seekers who have no children. This is especially relevant to my electorate of Northland—the great Northland—where we have a higher number of beneficiaries than the national average. Any disincentives to encouraging people into work I oppose.

This bill has provisions that say: if recipients of this payment are out of the country for four weeks, they don’t qualify. Who polices this? Is it the Customs Service? Is it IRD? Is it in Work and Income? That’s the question I’d like the Minister to answer. It just adds another layer of bureaucracy to the system.

This is a tax and spend Government, which we differ philosophically and fundamentally with. We believe in working hard, allowing people to keep to keep more of their hard-earned money, because it’s their money. So that’s why we resist the moves by this bill to cancel the excellent tax package relief we put in. This coalition Government is replacing this with an unclear, ad hoc measure like a winter energy payment in Part 2 of this bill. Of course we oppose it.

Oh, Madam Chair Tolley, thank you very much. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Revenue, the Hon Stuart Nash, in the chair, and I hope that he will help me with a few answers to the questions that I raise. The first question I have is a very basic question: why is it called the winter energy payment—why is it called the winter energy payment? Because when I look at the purpose, the purpose of the winter energy payment is to provide targeted—and I want members on the other side of the Chamber to note that word, “targeted”—financial assistance to help certain people meet their household heating costs during the winter period.

Now, Mr Nash, when he took his earlier call, talked about targeting 40,000 kids who lived in unacceptably cold houses through the last winter. If it’s targeted to those people and only to those people, he’s got my support. But I don’t think it is targeted. Because maybe the Minister is not aware, but I’m going to receive it, and I don’t think I do live in a cold, uncomfortable house in the winter. I don’t need it, and therefore I cannot see that it is targeted.

My second point—reading the purposes—is it says it is for people to meet their household heating costs. How will the Government ensure that the payment of $750 to a superannuitant is used to meet their energy costs? Because I suspect some might look on the internet and see an Air New Zealand Grabaseat option to go from Christchurch to Nadi for a couple of weeks in Fiji. And that’s what they could use their $750 for, and I want the Minister to tell me how he will know that that won’t happen.

Then the other one that’s been raised in the committee today is the question of superannuitants who are then out of the country for more than 28 days and whether they will continue to receive the payment. The Minister, in his earlier comments, said that there’s a memorandum of understanding between Customs Service and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). So I want the Minister to tell the committee how effective that memorandum is. Does it catch 100 percent of superannuitants who last year took a good Grabaseat fare and took that flight from Christchurch to Nadi? Did it catch them if they were out of the country for more than 28 days?

Because I’ve got to say, as a recent superannuitant, I didn’t know about the need to inform MSD if I was out of the country for 28 days, and I suspect a large number of other superannuitants don’t know that either. So I want the Minister to tell us, to get to his feet, and explain to the committee succinctly: how effective is this memorandum of understanding and how many people did it catch last year who left the country and did not inform MSD that they’d done so? Because I suspect it’s not an effective mechanism, and if it’s not an effective mechanism, then people will continue to take this payment whilst they’re out of the country.

The other question I want raised and clarified—and it would be better if it was done early in the debate rather than later—listening to the comment from the earlier speaker, Matt King, is there is confusion about whether there is auto-enrolment or whether it’s a matter of going to MSD to enrol. I think superannuitants need to have that clearly said to them today in this Chamber. Is it auto-enrolment for all superannuitants whereby, effectively, they get a winter energy payment but it is not necessary for winter heating costs; it’s an addition or a discretionary spend.

The other question I have for the Minister—so I hope he’s making note of all these—is: what adjustment is there to be made to this winter energy payment for different parts of the country, which have different mean average temperatures through the winter? The member comes from Napier. Let him tell the committee today: what is the mean monthly temperature in Napier in August, as compared to my city of Christchurch or as compared to Sarah Dowie’s city of Invercargill? I can tell that Minister. He may not have the figure, so let me help him: 10.3 degrees is Napier, 7.9 degrees is Christchurch, and poor old Invercargill shivers all winter at 6.6 degrees—and sometimes that’s not only for August; that could also be for December. So what is the adjustment that’s truly made to equate this payment to the actual temperatures that people face?

In the last question, was any consideration was given to Shane Reti’s people who will actually be constituents and pensioners who find they need it in the summer, not in the winter?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair Tolley. It was very kind of you to answer my call. I’m delighted to talk about this. It seems to me that the winter energy payment, which we’re focusing on at the moment, is emblematic of the intellectual and moral incoherency of this bill and much of the Government policy that we’re talking about here. The Government has decided that it will not allow superannuitants to benefit from a tax adjustment, which, just to remind listeners and viewers to Parliament—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, we are actually on Part 2.

Yes, indeed, we’re on Part 2, but I’m just—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Deeply on Part 2.

—trying to explain the context for this winter energy payment, which is $700. I’m trying to get an understanding of why, and I’d be interested if the Minister could explain again to us why they settled on exactly $700 for a couple and $450 for a single person. Because it seemed to me that there seems to be one speculative reason for that, and that is just to try and plug the gap that is left by withdrawing the tax adjustment, which would have had the consequence for superannuitants, because their payments are linked to the average wage, of seeing their income rise by nearly $700 a week if they were a married couple. So I’d be interested to understand the rationale for the number that they came up with for this winter energy payment.

But the broader point I’m wanting to make is that rather than allow people to receive money on the back of rising average incomes and choose what they want to do with it, they have taken the view that, no, they want to come up with a whole lot of—and Mr Joyce has referred to spaghetti—spaghetti in terms of a number of allowances that complicate the system, make it more administratively difficult, and start to flow. Because, of course, if you have a winter energy payment because people are concerned about the cost of energy, well, I suppose there’s a logic we should probably also introduce a fresh vegetables payment as well, because they get expensive at times of the year. And there should be also a payment that relates to the rates increases, and there should be payments that relate to a whole host of things that superannuitants have to deal with.

If you go down this track, what you end up doing is rather than entrusting and believing that people can make judgments for themselves about what they want to spend their money on, instead you have a whole lot of allowances, and what you end up with is a very complicated system that is difficult to administer, difficult to understand, and difficult to predict for older people as they’re trying to work out how to manage their affairs and budget, and that undermines the simplicity and coherency of the system we have.

But, anyway, getting back to the incoherency of the broader policy, it’s terrible, this idea that Mr Peters in the House yesterday referred to, a dreadful process of taking from the needy to give to the greedy, which he would never support. That’s why he didn’t support the tax cuts. But now we’re talking about a winter energy payment that goes to some of the richest people in the country as well. So there’s no coherency about how he’s gone about doing that. That is replicated time and time again, right across the Government decisions that were made around not agreeing with this idea that things should be targeted to those most in need, but, instead, putting on the table a cumbersome, administratively expensive, and confusing way of doing things in order to appease what they see as particular groups that were left out because of decisions that they made earlier.

Why would we think it was a good idea for a superannuitant to receive a one-off payment over the winter, supposedly to spend on winter heating, rather than for it to continue to be pegged to the average wage, which was rising because of tax cuts? They were only adjustments to the thresholds and everybody should have had them anyway. They would continue to get that adjustment every year and that amount of money would continue to grow and they would get a much better result than what is being delivered here by this winter energy payment. For me, I struggle to understand the logic of it, and I’m very keen to hear from the Minister as to where they came up with the figure for the $450 and $700 and how they explain it.

I call the Hon—

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: Stuart Nash.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Stuart Nash.

Ex - Deputy Mayor of Napier—ha, ha! There are a number of questions here that I would like to answer. First of all, to the Hon Paul Goldsmith: it is not a one-off payment. OK. The former Minister said it was a one-off payment; it is an equal payment over six months. OK, so it is not a one-off payment. When that member mentioned that in fact it was going to some of the wealthiest, is he suggesting that this should be means tested? If that member is suggesting that the Opposition wants to start means testing pensions, then we completely and utterly refute that.

Now, the Rt Hon David Carter—there is one point that he made that I would like to utterly refute, and that is that the winter temperature in Napier is only 10 degrees. It’s at least 15 degrees. It’s a lot warmer than that. I don’t know where you got your figures from.

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek leave of the committee to table some parliamentary information prepared for me by the Parliamentary Library, which will confirm that the Napier August mean monthly temperature is 10.3 degrees.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That is not a point of order. The member is interrupting the Minister to seek leave, so just—

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: I said point of order and then I sought leave to table the document.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I will put the leave. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: Objection.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): There is objection? Well, I did look over and I did ask; it’s a bit late. It may be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

The Rt Hon David Carter also talked about the fact that he is getting the winter energy payment and how can that be fair. Well, I would like to inform the right honourable member that under clause 61FH it is called the “Winter energy payment: election not to receive”. So if the member would not like to receive the payment, then he is more than able to opt out, and I suggest he probably does, as will the Dr Nick Smith, because I’m sure he’s 65, as well.

I want to address a couple of points that the Hon Shane Reti made as well, and also Ian McKelvie made the same point. It’s been made a number of times, so let’s address this now, and that is the definition of winter. Are we actually suggesting—are the members actually suggesting—that, in fact, people do not turn on heat pumps or electric blankets or heaters before June or after August? Of course they do—of course they do. This is a practical response to when the seasons turn cold.

We all know that and this is what this is addressing. If we just said, “OK, there is very pure evidence that no one touches a switch to turn on a heater before June, or after September, or whatever the honourable member’s definition was, then maybe.” But we know that that is absolutely not the case. What we do know as an absolute fact is that power bills increase over winter. Now, the Rt Hon David Carter mentioned, “Well, how do we know this money’s going to be spent on power bills?” Well, what we do know is that as power bills heat up over winter, you pay more for the power bill. This money is to go towards paying that power bill. So what we are doing is we are making a practical solution to what we know is a good issue.

Now, I’m not too sure who made the point—I think it might have been the Rt Hon David Carter. He talked about, “How will Customs Service know when someone is out of the country for longer than 28 days?” I made a mistake earlier. It’s not a memorandum of understanding; it’s actually an information-sharing agreement between customs. What happens is that it picks it up automatically when someone is out of the country for longer than 28 days. So the payment will stop automatically. So it is auto-enrol—we’ve made that clear. When they’re out of the country for longer than 28 days it will un-enrol. You don’t have to do anything else. However, my understanding is that if someone re-enters the country, then they will have to sign up, once they return after they’ve been away for longer than 28 days.

I think that’s all the points—yes, I think that’s all the points I’d like to make at this stage. But I would just like to reiterate the point that this is a practical solution to an issue that we have identified and that is that well over 60 percent of those receiving the pension rely on the pension as their sole source of income.

Thank you, Madam Chair Tolley—a tremendous choice. It’s been fascinating listening to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Stuart Nash. I have to say that he did not answer the point that was raised quite fully and impressively, I think, by the Rt Hon David Carter. What an impractical suggestion. He was suggesting it’s a practical measure. What an impractical suggestion it is to have a bill where you, effectively, say to any member of the public who’s eligible, “Here’s some money. The taxpayers are happy to give you a dollop of money. But don’t take it.” Really, Minister—are you seriously suggesting that that is going to work? It’d be like, Minister, you saying to your children, “We’re going to take you out and we’re going to let you spend quite a bit of money on Christmas presents, but you don’t have to.” I wonder how many children, realistically, are going to say, “Well, I’m not interested in taking that. I’m very happy just to sit down and watch my father have a latte or something.” It is not realistic, and it’s very, very bureaucratic and cumbersome, as is the measure he just talked about, about people being out of the country for a certain period of time.

Well, I think it comes as a surprise to all of us on this side of the Chamber that we’re even debating Part 2 at this very early stage in the day. I think most of us expected we wouldn’t get on to Part 2 until tomorrow morning or later, because, after all, Part 1 had so many weighty measures in. The important point about that was that we were putting a whole raft of questions to the Government, very few of which they even acknowledged and hardly any of which they actually answered. And so here we are this afternoon already looking at Part 2, and there are also some very important and weighty matters in Part 2 that do require a detailed engagement from the Government. I acknowledge the fact that we’ve had a couple of calls so far from the Minister in the chair, Stuart Nash, but apart from that, again, we’re seeing Government members with their heads down, clearly not taking any notice. They’re here only because they’re on the roster. They’re showing no interest at all in the fact that these are fiscally very important measures. They must look at Part 2 of this bill and consider just what they are doing—

💬 Hon Member: It’s only happened in the last two minutes.

I say to Mr Faafoi—Mr Faafoi who’s suddenly woken up from his deep slumber. It’s always lovely to see Mr Faafoi awake and smiling across the Chamber. Ha, ha! He must understand that in this bill the Government is spending the lot. This is a one-hit wonder where they’ve dished out everything they’ve got for the next three years. They really should be taking a much more intelligent approach to how they answer the questions and why they’ve made some of the decisions they have. And they certainly must give the public some answers. They’ve got to answer the very legitimate point that was raised by the Hon Nick Smith as to why Jacinda Ardern, when she was the Leader of the Opposition, and the man who’s now her Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, went around the country, effectively, misleading superannuitants who now lose under this bill. And there is no question that superannuitants are losing. Dr Smith has rightly posed the question, the Government cannot run away from answering it, and I challenge them to do so. Mr Nash certainly didn’t in his first call.

For superannuitants, who we all acknowledge will struggle with power bills—anybody on a low income, anyone who’s on a benefit, and superannuitants will struggle with power bills. But this is not the way to assist them with that. When I take one of my later calls on this particular part, I am going to speak very specifically to my amendment and, I think, also that of the Hon Jacqui Dean and the Hon Alfred Ngaro, who’s already mentioned his. We’ve all got some very practical suggestions on how to improve this aspect of the bill, and I really urge the Government to focus very clearly on those proposed amendments, to look at the practical suggestions that we’re all going to be putting forward across the next few hours. Because this is what constructive Opposition is all about, and which we believe will make those much more effective measures to assist those, particularly the superannuitants who may struggle with their power bills, or, at least, with dealing with the issues that they confront during the winter.

So, at this stage, because time is running out, I just want to urge the Government again to engage in this debate. These issues matter. They shouldn’t just be dismissed because the Government members are hoping to get home in a hurry. This is the choice of the Government to introduce this bill under urgency. We’re here engaging seriously on it. We expect the Government to do the same, and, in particular, to explain why they’ve made some of the decisions that they have, which have now been legislated for in this bill and are poorly focused, hugely expensive, in many ways will not meet the target—[Time expired]

I rise to speak on Part 2 of the Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill. I have a number of amendments that I have presented. I want to just talk specifically about two of these so far. I want to echo the comments that the Hon Tim Macindoe made, and that is about how the Opposition is using the opportunity of the committee stage to support the Government in their objectives and to improve the law, and to make sure that the legislation is drafted—given that it doesn’t have the scrutiny of a select committee process. I would urge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Stuart Nash, and other Ministers responsible, who perhaps—for example, the Minister for Social Development, who may have a particularly stronger interest in some of these clauses.

I want to talk to one of them and that is the one related to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). My proposition is that the Ministry of Social Development must take reasonable and appropriate steps to explain to every person about the rules of absence from New Zealand. The Minister in the chair talked about those who are receiving superannuation payments after the age of 65, and how there’s this kind of complicated Customs Service checks you in and out type of process, but then the person has to sign something when they return.

My proposed amendment is actually putting a responsibility on MSD for explaining it to those who receive benefits. I’m not just talking about superannuitants; in this case I’m actually also very, very clearly and specifically looking at those on main benefits, who are also going to receive the winter energy payment. I have a strong interest in those who are receiving main benefits. I want to make sure those people who have real needs get the support that they are entitled to. In this instance, while they could have had a lift in benefit payments across the board, like we did when were in office, this is an increase but in a slightly different way. So I would want to ensure that MSD have taken practical and reasonable steps to ensure those that would be entitled to receive this benefit understand the rules around their absence from New Zealand. If, as the Minister in the chair says, it’s important for those on benefits as well as superannuitants to receive this winter payment, for the betterment of their own health and the health of their children, I think this is an important, practical change that would enable MSD to better support the clients they are working with.

Another one that is similarly related, and relates to the ability of those who, in reality, over time will become very reliant on this benefit—just as it was a great move when we increased benefits for the first time in 43 years, this will be incredibly important for those on main benefits. So my second proposed amendment is to provide a number of limited—and I say limited—exemptions. The Minister, I’m hoping, will take this into consideration. It is that a person may apply to the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development for an exemption on the absence on the following conditions: if, for example, they have to care for children who, for a period, might be located overseas—that particularly would relate to those who are over the age of 65—or health conditions that may require time in warmer conditions. It would be a little unusual if, on the one hand, the objective of the Government is to improve the health of New Zealanders, to then insist that they stay in New Zealand if they have a health condition that would be affected. In some cases, there would be people who would be required to travel overseas if they had a family member, for example, that had a serious illness.

These are compassionate grounds, and so I would seek the opportunity to allow those who are receiving the winter energy payment two things: one, to be able to apply to the ministry’s chief executive for exemptions; and the other to be clear that the ministry had provided their information.

Madam Chair Williams, I want to come back to the effect of this part on superannuitants and get some clarity from the Minister in the chair, Stuart Nash, in that he has failed to answer some questions that are crucial for 750,000 older New Zealanders.

The first question—I’d be more than happy for the Minister in the chair just to indicate with a nod of his head: does he accept that the consequence of this bill is that our superannuitants next year will be worse off? The Minister says he doesn’t—that’s OK. I’d just like to take him through it, and if it gets him advice from the officials, I’d be very delighted.

The previous tax changes that we’ve made were going to provide a benefit from 1 April next year based on the wage of $686 per year. So, for that first year, from 1 April 2018-19, if this bill had not gone through, every one of those 750,000 New Zealanders would be better off by $686. When I read this bill, it tells me that in the first year, the winter energy payment comes to an amount of $466. Now, look, you don’t have to be a mathematician to work out that $686 is quite a lot more than $466. So the only conclusion the committee can draw is that this bill is taking money off superannuitants. It’s a bit of a facade to dress it up as a winter energy payment, or what it is, because it’s not linked to anything; it’s just money that our superannuitants get in the bank.

So the real question I’ve got for members of the Government: what have they got against superannuitants that they want to take about five bucks a week off them next year? At a time when our books are so good, when so many New Zealanders are being able to share in the benefits of the strong economy, why does this coalition Government want to make all our superannuitants five bucks a week worse off next year? I’ve not received any explanation from members opposite.

I suspect what’s happened is that Mr Robertson has had difficulty getting these numbers to add up, and so he’s done a sleight of hand and delayed the winter energy payment from what was promised during the election campaign of 1 May, pushed it out by two months, and, as a consequence, robbed superannuitants in New Zealand of a bit over $150 million.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: For goodness’ sake, this is a clause by clause, line-by-line analysis of the bill.

Well, the member from New Zealand First—he’s popping his head up. Why doesn’t he take a call and explain: why is New Zealand First backing $150 million being taken off superannuitants? Can any member on the Government benches explain to me: where did they tell New Zealanders that they were going to take $150 million off them next year?

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: Professor Tabuteau didn’t know.

Well, I suspect Mr Tabuteau didn’t know, but here’s the thing: I’ve always assumed that the Deputy Prime Minister, in Winston Peters, was “Mr Superannuitant”. I’ve heard him so many times wanting to champion their cause, so my question for New Zealand First: why, within six weeks of getting your hands on the baubles of office, are you screwing the superannuitants by 150 million bucks?

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: You’ll be home for dinner, Nick.

Why? Well, the member up at Mana is interjecting. Can he explain why every one of the superannuitants in his electorate will be worse off by five bucks a week as a consequence of the bill and what’s in this part? The Government is silent, and so I simply challenge the Minister in the chair to come clean and to explain to the committee why, next year, they’re going to take $150 million off superannuitants, or five bucks a week.

That’s not what Labour campaigned on, it’s not what New Zealand First campaigned on, and it’s not what the Greens campaigned on, and I’m looking forward to going to the next Grey Power meeting and saying that Helen Clark and Winston Peters broke their word. I’m actually organising a mail-out to all of my superannuitants to tell them how much worse off this Government is, and I’d delight in the clarity from the Minister in the chair as to why—under the tax cuts they would have got $686, and next year they’re getting $466, and they’re being robbed.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson Williams. I would like to thank my colleague Nick Smith for that contribution, because it is a very, very important contribution that he’s just made. I actually think the good news is there may be a solution, if the Government is prepared to entertain it. They haven’t entertained much so far, but perhaps they’ll be up for this one, given that it will make superannuitants not lose out through this package.

So I’m proud to tell the committee that I’ve lodged an amendment to the bill, which I think will be discussed in a later debate, that will give us the opportunity to shift the start date this year to 1 May so that the superannuitants get exactly what was advertised before the election. I’m always here to help. That way, we’d be able to ensure that those superannuitants get that.

There is, of course, a simpler way. This whole charade, actually, needs to be simplified and in particular in relation to this so-called winter energy payment, which isn’t about winter and isn’t about energy at this point. All it is, in fact, is a payment. So why doesn’t the Government just make it a payment? After all, all they’re doing is compensating people for the loss of missing out on the previous Government’s package. That’s all they’re doing. So why didn’t they—rather than go to this elaborate charade, why didn’t they just say, “We’ll legislate to give superannuitants a one-off increase over the next 12 months.”? And then it could just flow on.

The other thing that the superannuitants miss out on now is that the $680 that they were going to get goes up each year by the average wage. This winter energy payment doesn’t go up each year by the average wage. So it diminishes over time. So a much simpler way would be not to do the winter energy payment at all; just to bow to inevitability and to actually pay the superannuitants the amount they were going to get under the Family Incomes Package of the previous Government—much, much simpler. But, once again, we’re seeing the Government wanting to take the long way round, wanting to do more complicated things, wanting to confuse New Zealanders.

So we have the other part of the ludicrous charade. It’s been declared to be a winter energy payment, therefore we have to maintain that charade and start policing whether people are leaving the country at the wrong time to qualify for the winter energy payment, which is only called a winter energy payment because you have to call it something.

So now we’re going to have—and I appreciate the Minister in the chair, Stuart Nash, saying that he’s got an agreement between Inland Revenue Department officials and Customs Service officials, so the beady eye of Government will be watching which superannuitants leave the country at the wrong time and, more importantly, which ones return at the wrong time. Mr McKelvie, where are you? You’re in trouble, mate, because they’ll be watching you to make sure that Mr McKelvie doesn’t actually miss out or, more importantly, doesn’t take the winter energy payment that he’s not allowed to take.

So they’ll have a list of superannuitants that leave the country in winter, and they’ll have another list of superannuitants coming back—I presume this is what’s happening. I presume they’ll have another list of superannuitants as they return to the country. Is that right, Mr Nash? And then they’ll be checking that the right period of time has elapsed between the departure and the arrival, so that the winter energy payment is not lost. So, as complicated as that is, I think that’s how it’s going to work, so far.

But then the very interesting bit happens after that. What happens next? Does the IRD just simply whip it out of the superannuitant’s account? I mean, do they actually take it out of the superannuitant’s account? That’s a fair question. How does the money get recovered if, for example, the superannuitant is stuck overseas because the flight is delayed? What will be the appeal process by which they can go to IRD or perhaps it is to customs and say, “Look, I’m terribly sorry but Air New Zealand’s plane got a flat tyre”—or whatever it was—“and I wasn’t able to come back into the country.”? What is the process of appeal that we’re going to see, through this?

I think we do need to know this stuff. Actually, this is going to affect 750,000 superannuitants from next year, and they need to know whether “Johnny Clipboard” is going to pop up at their place and interrogate them about how long they went overseas for—whether “Johnny Clipboard” is going to come around and sit them down and say, “I need to see your tickets. Perhaps I should have a look at your suntan, just to verify that you went and you came back.”

This is serious. It is a ridiculous idea, and it’s what happens when you start with a small problem and you try and change it, and it becomes a bigger problem. So now we have a winter energy payment that’s not a winter energy payment.

I call the Hon Jacqui Dean.

Oh, good choice, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. I’d like my contribution to follow on from my colleagues who have raised very real issues around the winter energy payment. I’m glad the Minister in the chair, the Hon Stuart Nash, is still here. I just want to clarify, firstly, something that he said and I am interested in his answer. In his intervention three or four speeches ago, he noted that the payment would—the heat pump would go on in about May, and the energy payment would last for six months. So I would just like the Minister to take a call in due course to confirm whether it is—in his words—six months, or whether or not it is the 22 weeks, as is noted in the bill itself. We need some clarification around that, because I think the Minister, by saying six months, just adds to the confusion that people who are eligible, which is most people because it is an untargeted benefit—most people who are on a super payment or are on a benefit payment to which they’re entitled. So I’d like clarification on that for those people.

I’d like also to question—and, in the spirit of wanting to help the new Government craft a decent piece of legislation, I’d also like to suggest a slight change that, in my humble view, will make this payment more useful to those people to whom it applies, and that is by way of my amendment, which seeks to replace all references to “winter” with “eligible”. The reason I’m suggesting taking “winter” out and inserting “eligible” in its place is to propose that in places like, say, Alexandra, where winter temperatures indeed drop to quite low levels—well, as night follows day and as summer follows winter, in the summer it gets piercingly hot. So the temperature can rise to the mid - 30 degrees Celsius or the high 30s on day after day after day, and I’m sure I’ve got colleagues on my side who represent different parts of New Zealand who will also wish to comment on this amendment that I have introduced and on the benefits and the improvements I hope to make to this payment by way of it.

So let’s think about somebody on national super in Alexandra. It’s a fiercely hot summer afternoon in early February and it will probably continue that way, with high temperatures all the way through till around April and to when winter comes, and then suddenly it’s cold. If you think about a frail elderly person in a small council flat or in a small home, it gets so hot, and just as the cold has a bad impact on older folks’ health, so does the heat. So why, then—and I’d really like an answer here from the Minister, on behalf of his Government—does this winter energy payment relate only to winter? What is it about being cold that is so much more detrimental to health than overheating?

I can assure the Minister in places like Alexandra, in places like Northland, and in places like Gisborne—all around New Zealand—older folk and people on benefits suffer in the heat as much as they do in the cold. I don’t accept that winter power bills are any greater than summer power bills in those parts of New Zealand, because I know for a fact that when the weather does climb above 35 degrees, the heat pumps go on and the fans go on. They are burning day and night and day and night, and the power bills go through the roof.

So that is my suggestion. That is my suggestion to the committee. I know that there are many, many of my colleagues who have read this amendment and will take the opportunity to express their concerns around their part of New Zealand, and I know the committee needs to hear these concerns. I don’t think a winter energy payment is good enough. I think it needs to be taken out and replaced with an energy pay-out that satisfies the needs of those people whom it seeks to assist, and I’d like to see that happen by way of my amendment.

I call the honourable—oh, I’m so sorry. I’ll call the Hon Stuart Nash.

Thank you very much.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I didn’t hear you there.

That’s OK; I should’ve shouted louder. There are a couple of points I’d like to make for the honourable member who just stood up, Jacqui—oh, she’s obviously not interested in hearing the answers. But that’s OK; I’ll let the committee know.

💬 Hon Alfred Ngaro: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It is part of the Standing Orders that we’re not to refer to a member who’s left the Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That’s entirely correct. I remind the Minister of that.

My apologies—my apologies. Now, what the honourable member talked about is actually inconsistent with the purpose of this, which is to help people pay their winter power bill. Now, I do accept there are places in summer where it gets incredibly hot, and I do accept that perhaps the heat pump will go on and cool air will come out and this sort of carry on, and that may increase the cost of the power bill. I accept that, apart from the fact that there is nowhere in New Zealand that has an average summer temperature over 35—but that’s beside the point.

But one thing I do know is that, for the average power bill in winter, about 30 to 40 percent of that is around heating hot water. The cost of heating hot water in winter can be substantially greater than it is in summer. So I don’t think you’ll find, in the vast majority of houses, that the power bill in summer, even on a hot day, is as consistently high as it is in the middle of winter. The member is right—I do want to reiterate this—that, as it says in the bill, it starts from 1 May and it goes for 22 weeks.

The Hon Louise Upston made a couple of points, and I would like to just answer those questions. This is about helping people who need help to pay their power bill—helping superannuitants and people on the main benefit and veterans pension to pay their power bill. There are no exceptions. The member mentioned someone who is overseas. Well, if you are overseas, then there is no need for help to pay the power bill.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Well, why didn’t you target it, then? Why didn’t you target it?

Member, we did target it; that’s why we’ve said that you have got to be in the country to accept it. If you’re overseas for 28 days or longer, you don’t actually get it. That is what targeting is.

The other thing is that I think that the members miss the point. The point of the winter energy payment is to help people who live in New Zealand to pay their power bill. If they are overseas, they are not having a power bill. I must say, though, that if it’s a couple and one heads overseas and the other remains at home, they will continue to get the winter energy payment.

And as for Mr Joyce, I just want to remind Mr Joyce that these days there are these amazing things called computers. We don’t actually operate on ledgers. We don’t have people at the Ministry of Social Development sitting there with a paper ledger that records on paper who’s there and who isn’t there. We have systems that actually record when people leave and when they return. You will not see someone who comes along with a clipboard and assesses your tan to make sure that you haven’t been away for longer than 28 days. In fact, if you are away for 29 days or 30 days or 31 days, the intention is that, as soon as you get home, you can turn on your computer, you can go online, and you can re-enrol. It will be a very, very simple process for re-enrolling.

This is very targeted. It targets people in winter, from 1 May, for 22 weeks, to help them pay their power bill. What is more targeted than that?

Thank you, Madam Chair Williams. To the Minister who’s just resumed his seat, Stuart Nash, I would make a couple of points. In response to the Hon Jacqui Dean’s points around the fact that heat in the summer is as debilitating to seniors as cold is in the winter, he countered with the idea that it costs more to heat your water in the winter to have your showers. Might I point out that superannuitants are not fond of being malodorous. Through the summer months, they will also want to keep clean. They will also need to have their water heated, unless you’re suggesting that people over the age of 65 deserve only cold showers—that that is all they deserve?

I think that there are a number of issues that have been raised by this Minister that are a little bit frivolous. To his point around the idea that superannuitants just come back and go online: as the Minister for Seniors for the past three years, I can tell you that many seniors are very resistant to the idea of going online and doing that sort of thing. The Minister needs to propose—and I’d be very interested in his response—what other mechanisms would exist for the expedient and convenient and accessible means of superannuitants communicating with the Government about the way that they choose to travel and the way that they choose to spend this untargeted, poorly named payment.

The idea that it is winter and it is energy has already been dispelled by some of my colleagues, and the “Johnny Clipboard” notion of people coming around to check on superannuitants who might tend to go away to get warm over the winter is also something that he hasn’t countered—to my satisfaction, at least.

I could talk about Ophir, which has recorded the highest temperatures and the lowest temperatures in New Zealand during a single year. These people have very particular difficulties, and I know a lot of older people who live there who would feel that the Minister has—and, in fact, the Government has—been unfair to them with this package.

I’d also like to talk, though, about some of the inequities in this, not just the summer/winter thing but also about the people who do not live in their own homes. I wonder why there is not proposed within this the notion that long-term residential care—people who live in hospitals or rest homes—might be eligible for this. I guess the question is: do people who live in residential care not get cold in winter? Is that what we’re expected to believe here?

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: They don’t pay the power bill.

Oh, there’s a chihuahua in the background again. It doesn’t recognise that the noise in the plumbing, that high-pitched squeak, is inaudible in terms of its intelligibility. Mind you, is it an intelligent comment anyway? Hard to tell, but the incessant squeaker will be ignored by me as by all other members, yet it does tend to persist.

Eligibility for this payment, under new section 61FG, is really something that I would like the Minister to respond to. I think people receiving long-term residential care in either a hospital or a rest home—and these are people who are paid under the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000—ought to be eligible, because they feel just the way we all feel, whether they’re in their own homes—

💬 Hon David Bennett: They’re paying power bills.

Yes, indeed. The Hon David Bennett has pointed out that they are paying power bills through the expenses that they pay for their residential amounts. Why should they not get what others are getting? This is unfair. This is dividing up superannuitants into the ones who live in their own homes, who get an advantage, and those who will be disadvantaged because they live in residential facilities.

In case the Minister is unaware—and I’m sure the Minister for Seniors is, because she’s unaware of many things to do with her newly gained portfolio—let me reassure these members who are woefully out of the picture when it comes through.

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: Even the SPCA would put this one down.

That’s a shocking comment that my colleague made. Shall I repeat it? No, I’d better not.

I think, in terms of the way that superannuitants like to think, they are not beneficiaries; they are people who get entitlements. They are entitled to get what they get, whether they live in their own homes, residential facilities, or hospitals, because they are all equal in the fact that they’ve paid their taxes. They are people who have given us the values that underpin this great country of ours, and for the Minister for Seniors to demean them, for this Minister to try and insist that, really, they don’t have the same equality, depending on where they live, is, I think, a real equity issue. There is no equality in this.

It’s a “terms and conditions” sort of a winter energy payment, really, isn’t it? That’s what one of our colleagues was talking about this morning. Read the fine print, superannuitants, because it’s very different according to where you live and what this Government, in a very arbitrary fashion, is going to be deeming you to be deserving of. They don’t know very much at all. They need to learn fast. I will talk about an amendment later that also talks about equity.

Madam Chairperson Williams, I am most humbled and grateful that you’ve taken my call. Before I start, I do want to rebut the comment from the Minister in the chair, Stuart Nash, who made the absurd statement that energy prices in the summer can sometimes be higher than in winter.

Well, I actually have some information here. It’s interesting; if you just look—I’ll just take Auckland, because I’m from Auckland, of course. January energy prices that reflect both price and usage: 138c; but if we go through to June: 207c, 231c. There is huge variation between summer and winter.

I think this part of the bill, around the winter energy payment, should be called the “Dodo Bill”—the “Dodo Bill”, because this is about protecting people from extinction. When I say that, I mean the members from New Zealand First. We all know that this thing wrapped up in something called a “winter energy payment” is just to make up the difference in the tax calculations in the package to ensure that New Zealand First members can say to their constituents—the people that did vote for them—“We got something for you in this package.” I will remind the committee that under National they would have got more, if they’d voted for us—much more than this whole fallacy called the “winter energy payment”.

I put forward an amendment, and it is, of course, about the winter energy payment. It is about inserting a change to adopt the quarterly survey of domestic energy prices prepared by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). What that tells you, if you go and look at this—published by one of our renowned Government departments—

💬 Hon Member: The library.

No, no, from MBIE—from MBIE, quarterly. That shows that you can calculate the energy price in different regions, and they do vary. I have the price in Pukekohe—right in the heart of my wonderful electorate—just the recent price, and this is retail and it does break it down by lines companies and also the energy costs. Of course, I’m going to quote you the retail price: about 29.6. If we go up to Kerikeri, it was 30, actually. If we go down to Balclutha, it’s 40. So what my amendment says is that if you’re going to have a winter energy payment, why don’t you reflect the actual price? Of course, the Hon Jacqui Dean talked about usage and about temperature variation across regions, so you can actually determine what the real price is for people when they incur it in their homes.

What I just think about this whole winter energy package is that it is part of three new pieces of tax benefit introduced into this Families Package bill, and I don’t know why you need to do it. You know, we’ve got the Best Start—which is a brand new initiative that could have easily been catered for under some of the other elements of the tax bill—we’ve got the introduction of this winter energy package, and we’ve got the reintroduction of the independent earner tax credit.

I just think that by introducing this raft of these new taxes, all we’re doing is building complexity into what is otherwise a relatively simple tax system, and that’s what our changes were about. The current legislated changes were about making the tax system much more simple. So if you don’t, what you do is you end up making hard-working New Zealanders unable to understand the entitlements that they are actually due, and therefore they don’t claim them.

Also, it increases the cost of compliance. Of course, I have heard the Minister of Finance talking endlessly at the Finance and Expenditure Committee meetings about the need to reduce compliance, and, of course, here we are, we’ve got three new ones making it much more difficult and much more complex. Of course, it leads to the likelihood of errors and, of course, increased fraud.

So that’s why I think this winter energy payment is wrong. It’s wrong in principle. It is just a tax that’s been put in there to be a sop for New Zealand First.

Madam Chairperson Williams, thank you very much for giving me the call. It’s been great exercise this afternoon for the last 40 minutes—up and down, wanting to seek a call. This is a very important bill, and what the committee has heard this afternoon from the Opposition is that if we’d had some time in select committee, we certainly could have ironed this bill out. But on the, what is it, seventh week, this Government has chosen to put the House into urgency, which just goes to show—we’re almost on Christmas Eve and they’re already showing signs of arrogance, just in the early stage of their tenure, and I’m really disappointed about that. Certainly, there’s a lot of expertise on this side of the House that we’ve heard, particularly to do with Part 2, around the winter energy payment.

There’s been a lot of discussion this afternoon about trying to define what “winter” actually means. Well, in my view, this isn’t a winter payment to do with energy use, because everyone gets it. It’s not targeted, and we just heard from Andrew Bayly about the different energy charges up and down the country. I have the largest number of over-65s, on a proportionality basis, in my electorate of Ōtaki—number one—so I have the highest number of superannuitants in my patch. I have a huge variance. I’ve got pockets of deprivation in Levin and Foxton and Ōtaki, and then I’ve got high - net worth individuals and couples down in Paraparaumu and in Waikanae, and a huge variance in between. But this winter energy payment is not targeted.

We have an amendment on this side of the House talking about if you really wanted to get specific about the elderly in need and about deprived communities, why wouldn’t you target this to the community services card? I can’t believe it. Then we’ve had a debate about wealthy superannuitants who are going to leave, and, indeed, they could take their 700 bucks and head over to Brisbane in the winter and come back again. You could have wealthy superannuitants that could go to Brisbane, come back within the month period, and go back again. That’s the ludicrous aspect of this bill that hasn’t been thought out. Why has this bill—and, in particular, this part—not gone to a select committee? It could have gone to a truncated select committee for a week or a few days, and we could have helped iron this stuff out. But the arrogance of the Government is already playing out in the first six or seven weeks.

What’s also interesting is how National were proposing to change the tax thresholds, which would ultimately mean that superannuitants would be better off, particularly in the first winter that we’re going into in 2018. Superannuitants, under this bill, under the Labour-led coalition, will be worse off than what they would have been under a National Government. In fact, when you do the numbers—like Nick Smith and Steven Joyce have talked about this afternoon—it’s robbing superannuitants of $150 million.

Now, I bet that Stuart Nash won’t be calling a public meeting of the Napier Grey Power before Christmas or anytime soon. I challenge the Minister to stand up and answer those detailed questions about why this isn’t targeted around the community services card. Why are the Labour-led coalition going to vote down Andrew Bayly’s amendment that is going to refine it down to pricing of different lines companies up and down the country? That’s where you get the real detail.

Have the Greens thought about, or have there been any costings done on, what impact this bill could have on climate change targets? Indeed, you could find that coal—more coal—goes on the fire. That’s going to make it challenging for the Prime Minister and James Shaw to make New Zealand—what is it?—carbon-free by 2050.

I really want to hear from Stuart Nash now about those very detailed questions, because he’s been good. He’s been standing up and answering them.

Thank you, Madam Chair Williams. I just want to offer a bouquet to Minister Stuart Nash, who I think has been very helpful in this debate. We’ve asked questions, and on two occasions he’s risen to answer those questions. There are now quite a number more questions being asked. Can I just say to the committee of the whole House that if we get Ministers that engage constructively, then we find that these sessions are of value for everybody listening to them, so I certainly hope he will take a call.

I want to take this opportunity to apologise to the Minister for embarrassing him when I asked him the mean monthly temperature through the winter in August in his own electorate and he had no idea. He suggested it was 15 degrees Celsius. I’m here to inform him that it does reach 15 degrees Celsius, during April, but, of course, the winter energy payment won’t be available then.

I want him to then consider the point I raised and the question that he hasn’t answered, which is very, very important to me: how many superannuitants have they worked out will be ineligible for the winter energy payment and how many superannuitants are they budgeting will voluntarily opt out? I want those figures expressed to the committee, because I don’t think there will be many that will opt out. At the moment, superannuitants could opt out of receiving superannuation, and I’m sure the number involved in opting out to receive superannuation is very, very small indeed, if any, because most superannuitants I know don’t see it as a benefit, despite the Minister and the Government describing it as a benefit. They actually see it as an entitlement after having worked for 40-plus years and paying due taxes through that time.

So I certainly hope the Minister will take the opportunity of talking to his officials and finding out those figures, which are important. How many superannuitants are eligible to receive the winter energy payment, and how many have they budgeted will voluntarily opt out using new section 61FH, which the Minister referred me to earlier.

The second thing I want to tease out—and I hope the Minister will help us with this—is the information-sharing agreement, which I understood he said was between the Customs Service and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), but other speakers have referred to it being an information-sharing system between customs and IRD, and maybe it’s all three, but I think that needs to be clarified.

Then I want the Minister to prove to me that that system of information sharing is effective, because I suspect that last year there were many superannuitants who left New Zealand for more than 28 days and were unsure of their obligations and returned none the wiser that they should have actually reported to MSD that they were away for greater than 28 days. But if the system’s working as well as the Minister assures the committee that it is, then he’s going to be able to tell me exactly how many superannuitants they caught in the last year—in fact, he can do his homework, let’s have it for the last three years—exactly the number of people they caught who left New Zealand, stayed overseas for a winter holiday greater than 28 days, and were caught within the system and had their superannuation correspondingly adjusted.

If the Minister can’t assure us that that occurs with superannuation, then he is foolish to believe for one minute that they’re going to use the same system to then catch superannuitants who then leave New Zealand during the winter for a well-deserved break in Denarau Island in Fiji, enjoying themselves in the sun and dodging that winter of Christchurch, which I know only too well. If they’re not catching them now, they won’t catch those people who are then, according to the legislation, not entitled to the winter energy payment.

Then the final question I have for the Minister is: if we take the situation of a superannuitant scientist, still gainfully employed, say by someone like the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, who goes to Antarctica, to Scott Base, throughout the winter—in other words, will be away to winter over for well over 28 days—will that person be eligible for the winter energy payment? It’s a simple question. They are out of New Zealand for a long period of time. They’re going all the way down to Antarctica—

💬 Hon David Bennett: Representing the country.

—working for the country—will that person be eligible for the winter energy payment, because, by hell, that person’s going to need it.

Thank you very much. The Rt Hon member David Carter asks some very pertinent questions, and I hope I answer all of them.

First of all, the information-sharing agreement is with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). What happens currently is it will be automatically triggered. So if a superannuitant is heading overseas, they won’t have to automatically notify MSD—it would be good if they did, but they don’t have to. It will be picked up. But this isn’t a new system. So if a superannuitant heads overseas at the moment and they’re receiving any other form of supplementary benefit, then that also cuts off after a 28-day absence. So this isn’t new. This is already in place. Also we do know that if a superannuitant is overseas for 30 weeks or more, they actually lose their entitlement to the pension. We are not creating a precedent here about being away for a certain amount of time.

The second thing is, if they head to Scott Base for 28 days—the purpose of this bill, just to clarify once again, is to help people pay their own power bills. If they head down to Scott Base, then they won’t be paying their own power bill, so they won’t need to pay their power bill. Therefore, they won’t be eligible for that winter warm-up payment. Now, I think that’s all the questions that the right honourable member asked.

There are a couple of others. Andrew Bayly actually nailed it. He actually nailed it when he produced the data that showed that over winter power bills are almost double than they are over summer, and that is the exact point we are making. In winter, power bills are significantly more than over summer, and Mr Bayly has the information. Thank you very much, Mr Bayly. It’s exactly what I wanted to see. So we do know that power bills are higher in winter. That is why we have said, “From 1 May for 22 weeks, we recognise this and we’re gonna help you out.” The other thing I must say is that this is actually not a tax. We’re not going to take money from you. It is actually a benefit. We’re going to give money to you. So when Mr Bayly characterises this as a tax, he’s actually got it wrong. What we are going to do is we’re going to give you $450 if you’re a single person paying your power bill. We’re going to give you $700 if you’re a single person with one or more dependants, or are in a relationship. We’re not going to tax you; we’re going to give it back to you. It’s fantastic, isn’t it. We’re going to help you pay your power bill.

The Hon Maggie Barry brought up a couple of points that I’d like to answer as well. The honourable member said that it differentiates where you live in the country. It actually doesn’t. This is the thing. It is really, really simple. It doesn’t matter if you live in Cape Reinga or Bluff. It is very simple. You will get the same amount of money. The other thing is, the honourable member mentioned what other channels a superannuitant would have to enrol in if they come back from overseas. I mentioned that they can go online, and the honourable member is right. We acknowledge that there are superannuitants who may have travelled overseas who don’t like to do things online or to use the internet. So there are multiple channels. You can actually go into an MSD office. We are going to make this easy. The other thing that we’re going to do is—and I think it exists already—we are providing a whole lot of information. Certainly when the bill passes, we’re providing a whole lot of information to let people know their obligations.

The Hon Nathan Guy mentioned a couple of points that I would like to talk about. The Hon Nathan Guy mentioned that there is a loophole in this bill. Nathan Guy said that you could fly over to the Gold Coast and then after 27 days you could fly back, collect your payment, and then fly back again. And you could do that after another 27 days. Technically, I suppose you could—I suppose you could. But I suspect that people aren’t going to be paying $700 in airfares to come back for a week and then go back to collect $31—they might, but I very much doubt that that is what they are going to do.

I just want to reiterate the point that we have made over and over again—and that Mr Bayly so eloquently made—that we understand that power bills are more in winter than they are in summer.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Oh, wow!

We understand that—and I know, the Hon Amy Adams, it is not a revelation, is it. It’s not a revelation. But what we also know is that in the middle of winter, people struggle to pay their power bills. This is to at least help them pay their power bills over winter.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson Williams. I want to just look at some other aspects in this particular bill. I think, for those who have been watching the debate from home or listening on the radio, I just want to go back to the objectives of the legislation around providing targeted social assistance to improve incomes for low- and middle-income families, reducing child poverty, and ensuring that children get the best start in life.

I’ve got a couple more amendments that I would like to discuss in this part of the debate. I may not get through the details of both of them, but I will give it my best shot. I would really like the Minister in the chair, Stuart Nash, to be able to answer some of the questions that I have got, because I think they’re really important in terms of just how the Government is going to actually deliver on the objectives of the legislation. So I know the debate has focused quite a lot in this recent time around the winter energy payment. I want to go broader than that, because a significant amount of this legislation is about supporting people on benefit. It’s about supporting children from low-income families and about lifting the opportunities for them.

The first amendment that I would like to talk about is a proposed change to the Social Security Act 1964, both in terms of the principles and also in terms of the interpretation. One of the things that was clear in our time in office was that one of the significant contributing factors to children living in poverty and hardship was coming from a benefit-dependent home. So I am proposing to assist the Government in that the interpretation should include a definition of the risk of long-term welfare dependency in relation to a person, meaning the risk that the person will for an indefinite period not be able to obtain full-time employment, and, secondly, will be likely to remain wholly or largely dependent for the person’s financial support on all or part of the main benefit under the Act.

I’m very specific about this, Madam Chair, and I want to applaud the Government. A big part of this package is supporting children in benefit-dependent homes. So I do think that it’s really important, in terms of adding this interpretation, so that the Government has a focus on the children of long-term beneficiaries. And the second part of it is amending the principles to include the ability to assist them in getting better outcomes than currently, the best possible outcome for people at risk of long-term welfare dependency—that there is the ability for the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to identify appropriate assistance, support, and services, under this Act for those people. So that speaks to the very heart of social investment.

I know that the Prime Minister in particular has come out and talked about the fact that child poverty is her number one priority. Well, I offer the Prime Minister the nine years of experience of the previous Government in social investment and the work that has gone into understanding real people with real needs and how to provide assistance. And I would really encourage the Minister in the chair, the Hon Stuart Nash, or, for other members on the other side, and in particular the Minister for Children, I’m sure will have an interest in this—that is being able to provide greater ability to support those on benefit, using social investment. Yes, specifically this talks about a winter energy payment, but for those on benefit, actually, MSD may identify additional ways to serve that family and to serve those children.

I would really hope that the members opposite take up this opportunity, if they are seriously committed to reducing the amount of children living in poverty in New Zealand, to address this particular issue with this amendment that I have put, in my name, in this committee stage. It is important that it is debated. It is at the heart of what this Government says is a priority, and, in fact, the Prime Minister on every occasion talks about it being her priority. I say: this is the access. Social investment is the access to changing the lives of the very—[Bell rung] Madam Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I call the Hon Amy Adams.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. I will call the Hon Louise Upston again.

Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the things that’s become a little concerning in the legislation and, in particular, in the regulatory impact statement is that the number of children that will be lifted out of poverty under this package isn’t the 88,000 that has been talked about in the media but only an additional 12,000. So, as I said, I’m hoping that members on the other side will give the committee the opportunity to have the factual information. Is it 88,000? Is it 12,000? Is it the 49,000 that would already benefit from the previous Government’s legislated Budget package?

So I do then want to talk to another amendment that I have tabled in the committee that would add new subsections into the Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill. The first one is: to reduce child poverty and ensure children get the best start in life, the Government will set measurable targets to improve outcomes for low- and middle-income families with children. Again, this piece of legislation, at the very heart of it, is about improving the lives of young New Zealanders. I’m sure that New Zealanders up and down this country will want to know how the Government is measuring its progress—how the Government is tracking—and, as I said, I’ll put to one side for a moment the complete confusion around the numbers, about whether it’s 12,000 additional, whether it’s our 49,000, or whether it is 88,000 some time out in the future. But I want to focus on the fact that this incredibly important objective, set by the current Government, should actually come with some targets, it should come with some measures, and it should come with the ability of New Zealanders to actually see whether these measures and whether this piece of legislation is working.

So the second subsection that I would propose to the committee for its inclusion in this legislation is: “To reduce child poverty the Government must set a target and measure progress on reducing the number of children living in households earning less than 50 percent of the median wage by 88,000, by July 2021.” That is about the Prime Minister and the Labour-led Government basically walking the talk and saying, “Here is how we will prove to New Zealand, here is how we will openly and transparently show that we are making progress towards this critically important area for New Zealand.”, for the very children that supposedly are at the heart of this Prime Minister’s view. We can add this today. I think this would put us off to a really strong start in being able to, with the Christmas present that the Labour-led Government is giving New Zealanders—I want them to add that they will set a target and they will measure progress on reducing the number of children living in households earning less than 50 percent. And I encourage the Minister in the chair to answer a question in terms of why that’s not already in the legislation, because it is absolutely critical. It’s important in terms of backing up the Government’s words around openness and transparency, and with their number one priority.

Also I’d like the Minister in the chair, or members opposite, to address the issues that I’ve raised around social investment and the progress that we’ve seen with 61,000 fewer children living in benefit-dependent homes in the nine years we were in office. I’d like to see that side of the Chamber—you know, one member would be fine, three would be great. Whether it’s the Minister for Children or the Minister in the chair addressing these very important issues that are about absolutely supporting those on benefits, supporting those and targeting—the words in the bill are around targeting social assistance, and the risk framework enables the Government to do that, and to improve incomes for low- and middle-income families with children, but critically, if nothing else, to reduce child poverty.

When the National-led Government was in office we made progress on this. It’s incredibly difficult, I accept that, but I think—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Chairperson Williams. This is the first opportunity I’ve had to take a call in Part 2 of this very important piece of legislation that we’re debating today—important, because it is important that New Zealanders understand exactly the impact of this on them. We’ve had a number of opportunities to discuss the tax changes in Part 1. The parts that I want to reflect on in this contribution—well, the first of the contributions I will have on this part—are firstly relating to the winter energy payment. Then I also want to touch on the accommodation supplement, because it is an issue that is a critically important and substantial part of this package. It’s a part of this package actually that the National-led Government, when we were in office, announced and funded during the 2017 Budget. And I want to acknowledge the Hon Steven Joyce, because in fact it was his Budget that put in place the substantial increases to the accommodation supplement.

It’s not just the increase in rates in the accommodation supplement; it is the re-drafting of the areas of the accommodation supplement, which will see hundreds and hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders getting real tangible assistance with their housing costs. I can see why the new Government wants to include it as part of their package, as if it was theirs, but it is important to put on record and to make sure that this committee and the public understand that those accommodation supplement changes are the work of the National Government and were funded under the National Government’s Budget, and, interestingly enough, were opposed by the then Labour Opposition.

I remember listening to the Budget speeches, and those very accommodation supplement changes that are now in Part 2 of this legislation were roundly criticised, abused, and opposed by the Labour Opposition. None the less, they’re now in Government and, of course, their words in Opposition don’t mean a lot, and now we are pleased that they are adopting our changes because they are important changes.

The one question I have for the Minister in the chair, which I think he should address for the record, relates to Subpart 3, and particularly clause 72—that is, the deeming of the operational date for these changes is 26 June 2017. Now, it’s quite unusual, of course, for legislation to act retrospectively, and to pick a date in the past at which these changes will apply. I think it is important as a matter of record that the Minister in the chair, Stuart Nash, explain the rationale behind clause 72, where the appropriate date for the changing in the areas is somewhat randomly 26 June 2017. So I do look forward to the Minister explaining that change.

I want to come back to the winter energy payment, and I want to speak particularly in support of the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my colleague the Hon Louise Upston, which is on the Table. It relates to what I think is a very, very unfair exclusion from the winter heating payment for some superannuitants. Now, we need to remember that this winter heating payment is what superannuitants get instead of their core indexed weekly super payments going up. So it’s critical. Every single superannuitant would have got that core indexed, repeatable increase in their super, but a big chunk of those superannuitants will miss out on anything, because the way this legislation is drafted says that if a superannuitant is in long-term rest home care, in part funded by the Government, they miss out.

The point I want to make, and the reason I think the Hon Louise Upston’s Supplementary Order Paper should be supported, is that any fees a superannuitant is contributing towards long-term rest home care includes the cost of their energy. You don’t get rest home fees that don’t include energy. And there are a lot of superannuitants. You know, of the 750,000 superannuitants, a large number certainly spend part of their time in long-term rest home care. They won’t get the substantial increase in their super payment, which the National Government had legislated for them to have. They won’t get the indexed, increasing payment that they would have had, and now they won’t get this winter energy payment even though they still have to pay and contribute towards their energy costs. I think that’s outrageous. It’s unfair, and we haven’t heard an explanation for it.

In this call, I want to just respond to the Minister about when he answered David Carter’s question. David Carter had asked what would happen if a scientist went to Scott Base. The Minister responded that of course that scientist would miss out, because he’s left New Zealand. Of course, Scott Base is in New Zealand. He won’t miss out, the Minister might like to know.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to take a call on this amendment, which is a good one by the Hon Alfred Ngaro, to clause 61FE—only because none of my colleagues have chosen to support the amendment, but it’s a great amendment.

I want to acknowledge the Minister, who is here and was taking questions. I felt that he had actually responded to a number of those questions. In fact, if I could move a motion that he’d become the new Minister of Finance I would, but I can’t. He was very forthright in giving information to us. But in response to some of his comments in regard to the amendment I put forward—what I’ve put in the amendment was to give flexibility. But, more importantly, if you want to be practical and want to be smart, then what you want to do is not just put resources and funding and payment to the power bill. You want to reduce the power bill, and if you want to do that, the best way to do that is to reduce the cost that’s incurred.

Now, the Minister actually talked about hot-water cylinders. I’ve got some experience of that, having installed a number of them. The average hot-water cylinder is 180 litres and, inside of that, the cost to the average household—in the average running costs and the energy costs—is approximately around about 40 percent of the cost. There is also the heating source, which adds another 40 percent, so 80 percent of the energy costs in any one household is both the heating source and the hot-water cylinder as well—hence the reason why I think that my amendments that I’ve included here are very pragmatic and practical.

Let’s just go round to some of those costs and what they could look like. The average cost, in regard to the winter period and over that month—the average cost in the heating cost and the energy cost—is around about $200 a week. That’s roughly around about the average. Now, if we look at what the savings could be if you’ve got a hot-water cylinder that’s approved—say, like a Rheem 180 litre hot-water cylinder, and it’s energy-saving—we’re talking about a saving over one year of $720. Think about the cost of that. If you receive the benefit of the amendment, which means you get a bulk amount of payment, you can actually have savings that will go on not just for that year but throughout the years following as well—those out-years—hence the reasons why I think that what I’m proposing here is very pragmatic and is very practical as well. So what I want to do is add something extra to that. It’s pragmatic and it’s practical as well, in that regard.

One of the other things we also have been talking about with this is around insulation. As you’ll know, there’s been plenty of conversation around it in the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2), and I want to reiterate the importance of ensuring that homes and houses are insulated. The savings that we’re talking about are at least 35 to 40 percent for a home that is well insulated. In the House previously, in the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill, there was a huge amount of debate—it was about the importance of that. When we think about the technical aspect of insulation, they call it the R rating—in other words, that’s the thermal rating of insulation. The 1978 regulations that were there were at 1.9—that’s what the rating was then. In 2008, it’s 2.9. But again, I reiterate; here’s where the saving is: 35 percent heating savings will be had by a home that’s been insulated, and I think that’s incredibly important.

But the reason why I started off by acknowledging the Minister, the Hon Stuart Nash, is the fact that in one of his responses he actually said that the new Budget that’d be coming up would be talking about the healthy homes package, and in that package they would be talking potentially about a package of support that would go towards insulation. So I look forward to hearing more of that, and it’s great to hear the Minister sort of giving us a little bit of a sneak preview—just a little sneak preview—of what that Budget may look like.

However, here’s the point of difference, where I think that this amendment will be more pragmatic: if you think about when this will come into force, and we think about when Budget 2018 will come into force, we’re talking about a space of at least a year. Now, if you’re saying you want to make a difference in your 100 days as a Government, then I think that what I’m proposing is pragmatic. It means that over a long period of time we’re going to reduce the costs in regard to energy savings that could be had.

When we’ve looked through that and looked at what those who are currently the energy savers and energy-smart practitioners—if you have good insulation, if you have a hot-water cylinder that’s been able to ensure greater efficiency, if you’ve got a heating source, then you are looking at a 75 percent saving in your heating costs. Why would you not see this as pragmatic? Why would you not see this as practical? I think what I’m offering is new evidence to further prove the point that this amendment is a good amendment. I encourage the Government to take it on board.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to acknowledge my colleague Alfred Ngaro’s contribution, because on this side of the Chamber we’re doing our best to make this, I have to say, interesting winter energy payment that’s currently not for energy and not for winter into something a bit more useful to people; that includes trying to fill the gap that has appeared in next year’s numbers compared to what superannuitants would have got under the previous Government.

I am informed that we’ll be debating amendments to the schedules with this part, so I want to note a Supplementary Order Paper that I would like the Minister to consider. We’ve noted that the winter energy payment doesn’t start till 1 July next year. Obviously, things are a bit tight down at Treasury, because actually that means that superannuitants will miss out on what they would have got next year from the previous Government to the order of a couple of hundred dollars. We’re going to talk about that a lot, obviously, in weeks to come, unless it gets repaired today or even over this weekend. I offer helpfully to the Minister an amendment that fixes this up for him.

This particular amendment, which we’ll get the opportunity to vote on in due course, is to bring forward the start next year to 1 May 2018. I think that would be in the spirit of glasnost that has descended upon the Chamber this afternoon, and in the spirit of Christmas. I mean, I might be calling Grant the “Grant that stole Christmas” but this would actually rehabilitate some of his reputation in my eyes, and in others’, I am sure, including superannuitants; which still leaves out everybody who loses their tax, but there’s a group of superannuitants who would feel better about it. So I think it’s worthy of consideration; I’d appreciate the Minister’s view on that. I’d also appreciate knowing why it isn’t 1 July, because if it’s not a fiscal constraint, then why doesn’t it just go the same time as it is going to go in subsequent years?

Or there is another alternative, and I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and, again, in the spirit of helpfulness to the Government, we know that this winter energy payment is one of those bit of a dog of an idea that somebody thought up in a hurry and it’s got progressively more difficult as you look into it.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: And more expensive.

And more expensive, and we’ve now got the ridiculous situation where we’re going to have the Customs Service and IRD checking whether superannuitants are in the country or not, matching them on a database, and sending them—I don’t know—“Johnny Clipboard”, we talked about before, to go and check whether there were any redeeming features that allowed them to hang on to their winter energy payment.

I think there is a much more simple way; there’s a much more simple way to actually try to panel-beat this winter energy payment into shape, and I congratulate my colleagues on the work they’ve done to try and panel-beat it into shape, and those, of course, remain very valid options that are on the table. But I would also like to offer the Minister another option, which I would say is even simpler, and that is to quietly lose the winter energy payment and, instead, actually increase superannuation on 1 April next year by the amount that they were going to give in the winter energy payment. That would solve all the hassles with it, in terms of superannuitants. And I actually think that would be a very straightforward, clean, and tidy way to approach it. In other words, do what was intended all along and give the superannuitants the increase that they were expecting, and then they can decide how to spend it. Because, I mean, that would be cool. They could spend it on their winter vegetables, which, as we know, get more expensive in winter, or on other things that they might want to spend it on, even though we know they don’t have to spend it on winter energy. It’s just the name of the thing; it’s not what you actually have to do with it.

So I recommend this to the Government. The idea is free, gratis, and for nothing, and what it will provide is a much simpler solution that actually delivers for superannuitants. The other very important thing is that it fixes up the problem that the winter energy payment is not indexed and it actually decreases in value every year, whereas the original superannuation increase continues to increase. If you put it in the superannuation, it gets increased and indexed every year, and the superannuitants would be made whole by this. That’s my recommendation.

I move, That the question be now put.

If you may recall, in a previous call I urged members opposite to engage in this debate. I want to repeat that because while it is unusual when the House sits under urgency for the Opposition to dominate, particularly in the committee stage, it is very unusual, and I would suggest utterly unacceptable, for members opposite to remain utterly mute, as they have done now for 2¼ hours since debate on Part 2 began, and as they did all this morning. The really extraordinary thing is that they felt it was so important for most of the last five weeks to take long calls and filibuster on important measures like the subordinate legislation bill, the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill, and the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill. We had all of those measures and yet, when we come to Part 2 of this most important bill, in the view of the Government, they sit there absolutely mute. Members of the public are asking why that should be so.

Let’s now focus on the winter energy payment. That is a significant feature of Part 2 of this bill. While the winter energy payment may be well-intentioned and appreciated by many New Zealand superannuitants or people who are in receipt of a veterans pension—and I acknowledge that—nevertheless, the problem is that it will be so difficult to administer in a way that guarantees that the money will be spent for the purpose that the Government intends. If anyone doubts that, let me give you a bit of an analogy, because in my view it’s a bit like an employer telling a staff member that he or she may have an extra $5 a week in their pay packet, as long as they guarantee to go and spend that money on fresh fruit and vegetables.

Well, that sounds good in principle too. We all need the healthy vitamins and other things that come from fresh fruit and vegetables. But if the employee is heavily in debt or struggling to pay a mortgage, or facing crippling medical expenses, or any of those many other problems that beset many people, particularly those on lower incomes, it is highly unlikely that the employer’s condition will be honoured. In fact, frankly, you’d have to say there’s virtually no chance of that at all. So it is with the winter energy payment, and I’m asking the Minister of Finance, who’s grimacing at the moment, to explain why—

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: For obvious reasons.

Well, I’m asking the Minister to explain why that analogy isn’t correct, because it’s very hard to understand how you could possibly put on a condition like that and then enforce it.

So that I’m not just asking a question or criticising the measure—I want to stress that the Opposition are doing our level best today to put forward constructive suggestions that will improve this bill, and I’ve been very proud of the effort, the energy, and the thoughtful engagement that’s been going on on this side—I am today proposing a much more realistic and workable amendment to the bill. It will make a tangible difference to the many New Zealanders who clearly do struggle to keep themselves warm during the winter months. We all know many people in that category.

My amendment provides for those who are eligible for the winter energy payment to receive their entitlement in a lump sum to enable them to purchase a heat pump, or possibly more than one, depending on their needs and circumstances and obviously the type of heat pump they go for, or perhaps a season’s supply of firewood if they reside in a house or flat or some other dwelling where that is available to them and that is their preferred option, so that they may ensure that their heating needs are met from the outset of those colder winter months.

My amendment is a simple, practical, workable solution and one that would make a real difference to many older New Zealanders, who, in many cases, currently rely on costly, inefficient, and older heating appliances. A well-chosen heat pump will be cheaper to operate, safer if younger grandchildren happen to be visiting the grandparents in their home at that time, and much more environmentally friendly. So for a whole host of reasons—

💬 Simeon Brown: Keeps them cool as well.

Indeed they do, Mr Brown. Thank you for that suggestion. For a whole host of reasons, what I am proposing here is practical, workable, good for the environment, good for the safety of the children, and particularly good for the budget. As I say, there’s a host of reasons to encourage more and more New Zealanders to switch from their antiquated heating appliances.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’ve been listening very closely over the last, as Mr Macindoe helpfully informed the committee, 2¼ hours to the repetitive statements from the National Party members, failing completely to actually do what they say they’re going to do. But I thought I would respond to the questions that I have been asked here.

To reiterate—and this is in specific reference here to Steven Joyce’s amendment around removing the winter energy payment and increasing superannuation rates instead—that fails a pretty fundamental test of this piece of legislation. But perhaps it is not unsurprising that Mr Joyce has forgotten that the winter energy payment is also for people in receipt of a main benefit. It isn’t surprising to me that Mr Joyce may not actually care about those people, but that would fundamentally fail the purpose of the bill if that was to be undertaken, and so it won’t actually happen.

I’d also note that increasing superannuation rates directly is not what the National Government was going to be doing in its previous package; they were consequential increases as a result of the tax cuts that they put in place. So neither of those things is going to happen.

We also had a question put forward by Amy Adams around the accommodation supplement issues and the date of 26 June 2017. This is to confirm the Government Statistician boundaries used for the accommodation supplement. This is exactly as per the previous Government’s changes, and this was to avoid the need for an update on 1 January 2018, which, actually, would potentially have disadvantaged accommodation supplement recipients. So that answers Amy Adams’ question.

In terms of the amendment by Tim Macindoe to allow a lump-sum payment, it is very unclear how this would operate. We have had some criticism of the idea that people might be offshore—on the Gold Coast or somewhere—sunning themselves and still getting this payment. This would make that problem much worse. This would actually create that problem, because you would be giving them money and then not be able to find out when it would be. I’m also advised that there’d be huge administration costs created by this, given the large number of recipients. So we want to get this work done but do it in the most efficient way possible.

Going back some distance to a question that was asked earlier on, around the number of people who are eligible for New Zealand Superannuation but do not take it up, I can confirm the advice that that is 6 percent.

So, thus far in this debate on this reasonably narrow Part 2, on this winter energy payment, we’ve answered the questions that have been asked. I think we all understand, on this side of the Chamber, by the repeated commentary from those in the Opposition, that they would rather we didn’t do this—I think we understand that—and that they would rather we simply went back to the previous Government’s package. Amendments around that kind of approach, I want to flag, are unlikely to get the support of the Government.

Mr Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Part 2 of the Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill. This bill seems a bit like going into Briscoes: whenever you go into Briscoes, you get a special. I have been into Briscoes once and not had a special, but generally when you go into Briscoes, there’s something on special. Here you have a special winter and you have a non-special winter. So next year is a special winter, which is only three months long, and the following winter will be just a normal winter. But the first one’s a special one, where superannuitants are going to get paid only three months of the winter energy payment. That raises a question: why not from 1 May? I’d like to endorse the amendment in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce, which means that next year won’t be a special winter but will be a non-special winter, which will be a 22-week period starting on 1 May.

This is about ensuring that there is some certainty and some fairness for those who would have had, under National’s tax cuts, which were coming into place next year, $700 for a couple or $450 for a single person, which has been removed. And now, because of budgetary constraints, it seems to be that we are going to have to put in place a winter special period of energy payment to compensate for that.

I’d like a member from the New Zealand First Party to please explain. Please explain why you have agreed to this when you went out and campaigned—[Interruption] You voted—[Interruption] Again, I apologise. The New Zealand First Party voted, in this year’s Budget, for a tax cut that would have ensured that superannuitants would receive $700 a week due to the—[Interruption] They are now getting a cut. So why have they changed their minds? Why have they changed their minds?

I’d also like to speak in support of the Hon Tim Macindoe’s proposed amendment, which actually puts some certainty around where this money is going to go and targets it. It’s one thing just to say we’re going to have winter energy payment where the money’s just going to be given to people; it’s another thing to actually give money to help them with their heating—and help them in a way that is going to be efficient, effective, and actually make sure they are going to be warm. I’d like to endorse that, because we could, instead of paying superannuation, just have a winter food payment, a winter energy payment, a winter petrol payment, a winter water payment, a winter housing payment, a winter medication payment, a winter clothing payment, a winter travel payment, a winter rates payment, and we could then have a summer food payment, a summer energy payment, a summer petrol payment, and we could divide up all the money that is divided, but on this of the House—

💬 Hon Alfred Ngaro: An autumn payment.

A water payment, that’s right.

💬 Hon Alfred Ngaro: Autumn payment.

Autumn payment—that’s right. We need a spring payment as well. But I’m not sure which ones would be more and which ones would be less, but you’d need to have an army of bureaucrats to be able to determine all of those questions.

On this side of the House, we actually think that people are able to decide how they should spend their money and make those choices for themselves. On the other side, they think that they can know best and that they need to then come up with bureaucratic ways around how to make this sound palatable to the public.

Just one other point, when I was thinking about—I think there was a conversation earlier—what would happen if someone went down to Antarctica for four weeks, well, what if someone went for a four-week cruise and the starting point was Auckland and the finishing point was Wellington, or cruising around the country.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: They start from Bluff.

Well, they might start from Bluff, they might start from Cape Reinga, but what I am saying, Mr Chairman, is that there are a number of flaws, a number of holes in this entire bill, and I think it’s part of the narrative that this Government is showing: that there are holes in this Government too.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mine won’t be a long call in Part 2, at this stage. There’s just a question I do want to put to the Minister, and I’ll simply put the question and leave it for him to answer. It is one—I’ve been listening to this debate all afternoon—that I really don’t think we’ve got clear, and that’s just understanding how the winter energy is paid.

The reason I ask the question is that we know that when a superannuitant or a beneficiary is out of the country for more than four weeks at a time, then they are not eligible for the period they’re out of the country. We’ve raised many concerns about that—the application and the equity and the like. But the question I wanted to put to the Minister is simply this. If the payment is not payable if they’re out of the country it implies to me that the payment is made retrospectively, once we know whether or not they’ve been in the country and for how long. The alternative, I imagine, is that the payment is made proactively and then there is a claw-back system, should they be out of the country—when they haven’t been here.

The simple question I want to have cleared up by the Minister is: will the payment be made proactively on a weekly basis, on an auto-enrolment basis, with some sort of checking and claw-back? If that’s the case, is it intended that there will be a penalty system in place for the use of money interest, or is it the case that the payment is made at the end of the winter and at the end of the eligible period, once the system can check how long someone’s been out of the country, in which case it’s not available for them to pay their energy bill? So it’s a very straight question. I haven’t been able to get that answered through this debate, and, as I promised, it will be a short call, simply to put that question to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson Rurawhe. I’ve been yo-yoing up and down for some time. I had a Big Mac for lunch and I’m beginning to regret that. I’d like to start by thanking the previous Minister in the chair, Mr Nash, who was very helpful with some of his answers. In fact, part of one of his answers answered something I was going to ask, but it didn’t quite go far enough so I’ve got some very specific questions. The reason I have these questions is I have worked in an electorate office for a number of years and one of the things we find is that a lot of the elderly people that come in are coming in because they don’t understand their entitlements, and they often get their benefit cut when they’ve been overseas for a certain amount of time and they didn’t understand. So I need to get this clear in my mind to make sure that we haven’t missed anything in here that perhaps needs to be tidied up.

One of the questions I’ve got is that I understand that if you are a single person receiving this winter energy payment, you get $450; if you’re a couple you get $700. My question is: the eligibility for this is that if you are a couple, only one of you receives that payment, but if that person then goes overseas, can they transfer it to their partner? Do they need to transfer it to their partner? If they go overseas—what I understand from Mr Nash is that if they’re overseas for a long period of time, their entitlement will be cut, but if they’ve left their partner at home and he’s not the person under whose name that entitlement is, will the entitlement be then cut, because he will still obviously have a power bill?

My second question is: if one of those people—for example, a grandmother—goes overseas to visit her grandchildren for a couple of months in the UK and she leaves behind her husband who doesn’t like travelling, for example, would the couple rate that they would have been paid of $700 now be reduced to the $450 rate? Because, obviously, there’s one person living in a house for that amount of time and they won’t be using as much power. It would make sense that it would be cut down, but I’d just like to get that clarified by the Minister.

My next question is around if that person doesn’t go overseas but they go into hospital. Now, we’ve already heard that that person wouldn’t be eligible if they’re in hospital, but, again, what if they leave behind a partner who’s living in the house? Do they receive the same entitlement as a couple or does that get reduced?

One of the things that I am very concerned about, however—as I say, a lot of the older people that come into my office are upset because their entitlement had been cut off and they didn’t realise they had to let the Ministry of Social Development know they were going overseas—is that if the person that leaves the country has the entitlement tagged to them, will their benefit or their entitlement be stopped, even though they’ve left someone behind? Those are the questions that I have for the Minister.

The second part of my call I want to dedicate to supporting the amendment raised by Tim Macindoe. We did have some answers from the Minister around whether or not this could be paid as a lump sum, but I don’t think it went far enough. I think that one of the things that needs to be considered here is that older people especially are relying on heating equipment that isn’t up to standard, and they’re wasting a lot of money on oil fin heaters, for example, that aren’t energy efficient and are not good for the environment. I would think that the Green Party, of anyone, would actually be saying, “Well, hang on a minute, don’t we want to be paying people a lump sum to upgrade their heaters so that we’re not wasting energy?” It doesn’t even have to be a heater. Has the Minister considered paying a lump sum so that people could in fact put in curtains to stop heat loss, double glazing to stop heat loss—in fact, upgrading their insulation to stop heat loss? All of these things go to saving energy.

So there are some very specific things in here that I’d like the Minister to answer. The last thing that I want to say is: has the Minister considered the temperatures in Auckland? Because, from my experience in May, it’s not a month when you turn up the heater. In fact, this year, for example—as it was in 2011—we have a La Nina weather pattern, where in fact we have an Indian summer. So throughout May—and I went back on Facebook and looked at pictures of myself in 2011, and found that, actually, we were still paddling in the water; we were still wearing light jackets in the evening. We weren’t cranking up our heaters. Has the Minister considered La Nina weather patterns when he’s looking at these—[Time expired]

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call—I might add, finally—on the Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill, Part Deux. I think there’s been much—[Interruption] Just to clarify, that’s the French of that, and not a more general expression of reaction to the bill. It seems to me that this bill contemplates the scenario for 2018 but is not very future-looking, not very forward-focused, at least in respect of the lack of indexing of the winter energy payment.

Now, I understand that discussion has been had in regard to a different part of the bill, on which obviously I will not dwell, but it seems to me that we could very readily, even from a drafting perspective, replicate some of the ideas behind that, but I do want to expand into some new territory about different ideas that I would respectfully offer to the Minister. I would welcome his comments on whether each of those, in his opinion, has merit, in the form of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) or otherwise. In fact, it would be in the form of an SOP if it were to be adopted as an amendment, so my suggestion at that point would be that I could quickly draft it up for him. I know that this is about energy saving, or at least it should be, as my colleague Erica Stanford has pointed out. So I would like to save some energy of the finance Minister by giving him some assistance with re-drafting along those lines.

So then, in relation to the possibility of indexing the amounts that are later recorded in the bill, possibilities would include indexing to the consumer price index all goods, commonly known affectionately as inflation, of course. In relation to that, though, I would point out that if such a suggestion were to be adopted by the Minister, he contemplates some sort of ratchet clause so that, rather than merely the movement in the consumer price index, it would be an increase, if any, in the consumer price index. It would be a perverse outcome indeed if the amount of the winter energy payment, as defined, were to be reduced over time by reason of deflation.

Other options include perhaps indexing the amount that would payable to a person or persons according to the increase in average energy costs. I know from my albeit brief time so far on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that the energy sector is very much one of moving feasts, as I suppose we could characterise it. So there are lots of different factors at play and it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that energy costs from year to year could increase substantially. It seems to me sensible at least to contemplate—and so I ask the Minister to do so—that the payment should increase accordingly if indeed its intention is to provide coverage for energy payments that will be incurred by persons who qualify for the bill.

Other options would include, of course, indexing to housing costs more generally. I think it’s accepted pretty widely that housing costs are a major component of household expenditure. To the extent that Part 2 of this bill is focused on addressing that, it seems to me that energy as a component of housing costs should, again, potentially increase if housing costs more generally were to increase.

Other options, of course, would be to link a percentage increase—again, an increase as opposed to a decrease, in the event that other levels of payments were to reduce. We could perhaps index it to the increase of the relevant benefit, which would see the person qualifying for the winter energy payment. So if, for example, they were on a standard superannuation type of arrangement, if that were to increase by a certain amount, as indeed the law and other statutes already provide for, then the winter energy payment could increase commensurately.

Finally, and again directing a suggestion, and by implication, a question to the Minister, it would also be possible to index an increase in this—again, I emphasise an increase, as opposed to going backwards—to the average wage. So the median wage or the mean wage—either way, of course, the relevant Minister of Employment doesn’t seem to know it, but that would be a useful thing for him to know and for you to base an increase on.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m pleased to take a call on this bill. Now, I’ve been listening to all the discussions in the debate in the Chamber today about those that are actually missing out on this winter payment—those that are in rest homes—but I want to talk about those who are actually living with their families, where the family is actually looking after their elderly parents. They will miss out on this winter payment. They will miss out because that’s not their home; it’s the home of their daughter or their son, and there are a number of families in New Zealand that look after their families at home. Don’t sit there Minister and go, “No, there isn’t.” There are a number of people that actually look after their families in their homes. So these people, their elderly parents, will miss out on the winter payment.

One of the questions that I want to ask the Minister is: will he consider letting those people have their winter payment so they can pass that on to their families to help pay for the increased electric power costs that it will take as part and parcel of their care? It is very similar to those in rest homes, but this is people who are living with their families in their homes and are consuming the additional power. If we’re going to give our superannuitants winter payments, let’s give it to all of them, regardless of where they live or who they live with. They have to have this. This is about equity, and this bill, especially this part, has no equity for those people in rest homes and those people who are living with their families in their homes, in their son’s or daughter’s home.

I want the Minister to say why these people don’t qualify. It’s there as an equity issue here. It needs to be answered. Sitting there saying, “Oh no, there’s not that many.”—there are people that actually come in under this category, and I’d love the Minister to actually say why he is turning his back on those superannuitants that need to have that winter payment added to their superannuation. It has been spoken about so many times in this House, about the inequality of this bill.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Who will think of the elderly?

That’s right—who is thinking about the elderly? Obviously not that side, not the Government, in this bill.

So, as I go to sit down, I do want the Minister to get up and answer: why is he cutting these superannuitants out? Why doesn’t he give them that winter payment?

💬 Brett Hudson: Mean-spirited.

Exactly—and it’s Christmastime. Come on, Government, give them their winter payment—something that they’ve worked hard for over the years. This is their right to that winter payment. Mr Chair, thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to take a first call—my first of maybe several on this part of the bill—and I’d like to focus on schedule 1. I think there is something here that the Government has overlooked that will disadvantage some members of New Zealand society.

Schedule 1 inserts new schedule 18A, and it sets the rates of payment but, in doing so, it classifies or categorises what sorts of living arrangements will qualify for what payment. I link that, also, back to the eligibility requirements under new section 61FG, inserted by clause 61. What it states there is, if you’re single and living alone with no dependants you get one rate; if you’re single and have dependants—one or more—you get another rate; and if you’re in one of many types of relationships that we’ll broadly describe, just for the general public, as something akin to marriage—so a relationship of closeness.

What it doesn’t seem to cover are those situations that we know all too well from student days—which, of course, are not part of the eligibility. But in these times, when we’ve heard members opposite when they were in Opposition scream loudly and long about house prices and housing crises, it is not just conceivable but should be expected that even today in New Zealand we will have individuals on benefits who will be sharing accommodation in the manner of a flat—a flatting arrangement. There’s nothing intimate, there’s nothing akin to marriage; they are simply sharing the same accommodation, sharing expenses, because it makes it more affordable—a little like the student flatting arrangement, but these people are perhaps on a main benefit. It is equally possible that it could apply to people aged 65 and older for the same reason. Because they’re on fixed incomes, they can share accommodation—at least two, maybe more—and that would help to keep the cost down per individual.

So my question to Minister Robertson in the chair, of course, is, how could they have possibly overlooked these people? Is it the case that they both get the same payment because they’re both single? It doesn’t seem to actually preclude that, because the eligibility only talks about one person where there’s a spousal or partner relationship with the other, so the bill, on that, is actually quite silent. It’s possible that they could both get the full single amount. Or it could be possible that only one of them gets it, in which case the question to the Minister is: how is it determined who gets the payment? Hopefully, it’s not pistols at 20 paces; hopefully, there would be some reasonable, fair, and equitable measure. I could suggest to the Minister that it might actually be to share the payment between each of them, because it would also be wrong, from the taxpayer’s perspective, for each of them to get the full single rate. Obviously, that would be paying much more than we would reasonably anticipate the winter energy payments to be.

That, I think, is a very relevant thing to concern ourselves with. We certainly don’t want them, in their housing arrangement, to miss out if this bill passes. We want to make sure that the housing arrangement still gets the value of the energy payment, but the question is—the bill as it’s written doesn’t seem to foresee such a situation, so it doesn’t actually seem to have provisions that are specifically tailored to addressing that. Actually, I want the Minister to perhaps admit that perhaps it’s something they overlooked, and if they didn’t overlook it, why didn’t they make it clearer?

They are expecting Parliament, under urgency, to consider this without the sort of detailed scrutiny that you would get through a select committee process, with all of the opportunities to have people come in and give evidence—all the opportunities for members of Parliament, not just the Government, to question officials; all of those opportunities that allow the teasing out of the finer points of detail—which generally leads to better legislation, even if it’s legislation that’s not universally supported across the House.

So I really hope the Minister will rise and respond to that point. There is a hole here. We might call it a glaring hole, but it is obviously not clear enough, and he could elucidate and help us all to understand.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m very, very pleased to take a call on this Part 2. I’m wanting to focus on two amendments that hitherto I don’t believe have been discussed, and that’s around—

💬 Matt Doocey: Oh, new ones—the first time?

Yeah, first time—that’s why hitherto they haven’t been discussed, so it’s good. These are the amendments in the name of the Hon Jonathan Coleman, and it’s probably going to be no surprise to the Minister in the chair that I’m picking up, firstly, two things that are health-related and, secondly, how we can actually work with what’s already in the bill to make it just a little bit better.

In this particular case, the first amendment in the name of Jonathan Coleman is looking to insert a new clause after the current clause 71. So we’re suggesting this is new clause 71A. It reads, for those who probably haven’t read it: “Any person who is eligible to receive an accommodation supplement will be eligible”—

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member, but the tabled amendment that the member is speaking about will be ruled out of scope, so there is no debate on this part. So the member needs to move on.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It’s for your advice, if you don’t mind, in that “it’s going to be ruled out of scope” means that it’s currently in scope until it’s ruled out by voting?

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. It is my determination from the Chair that it will be ruled out of scope. Therefore, it cannot be debated on. The member can continue to debate on the rest of Part 2, but when the vote comes, that is when it will be formally taken out.

Thank you very much. I suspect the same is going to be true—so I better seek your guidance as I continue to debate then, Mr Chair. Looking at the other amendment that I have here from the Hon Jonathan Coleman, which is looking to insert two new clauses 79 and 80 at the end of Subpart 4. in this case, we are looking at how we look at income-related rents and, as the Chair is moving, it probably would be good—

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes.

—to ask the question that you will be formally ruling it out, but at the moment you are indicating that it shall be?

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes. If it was going to be accepted, then it would be part of a Part 4 debate. This is a Part 2 debate. So, no, there is no debate on that at this part.

Well, look, I’ll continue happily with the call, because we’re looking around accommodation supplements, as that, obviously, was going to look at the amendments that were going to develop some changes there. But we do have to look, first and foremost, I think, around areas for accommodation purposes. I know—having worked in the Ministry of Social Development many years ago—that in this bill, as well, there are different areas that have been put down, and I suppose one of the challenges I want to put then to the Minister is why those areas have been chosen, particularly in this day and age. He’s looking very concerned all of a sudden. It is one of these days and ages where, actually, we have a whole lot better use of data, particularly around geospatial technologies—which is another area of interest of mine. Why are we not actually looking to update those areas, as well?

We get a lot of focus these days on those four areas—we get a lot of focus particularly around Auckland. But having been—and am—an MP in Auckland, I can tell the Minister right now that the accommodation needs in the likes of my area of Tāmaki vary differently, from the likes of Ōrākei and St Heliers to right across the border into Glen Innes. Looking at that particular example in this legislation as proposed, it doesn’t matter if you are in something like St Heliers, one of the best—well, wealthiest, but not the best. It is one of the wealthiest areas in the country. You’re going to be able to receive the same effect of being in area 1, 2, 3, or 4 as someone who, just a few streets down, is living in Glen Innes, which is also one of the best suburbs in the country, but often has lower socio-economic groups.

So what I’m suggesting here is we’d like some guidance from the Minister on why an opportunity wasn’t taken to review the areas, and why not link it to the whole geospatial technology. We now can get quite specific by area, and there are two reasons for that—which I think need a little bit of elaboration, Mr Chair, but not too much. One is we have the technology around to be able to do this now—it’s not as if we have to sort of pull out our abaci and work on things. The second is: why would we not take these opportunities to be more specific, to be able to target New Zealanders more?

I suppose that’s been one of the wider debates that we’ve had here—one of the wider debates around specificity versus universality. I understand that this Government, across this bill, but particularly in Part 2, is trying to be relatively specific. I’m asking the question, ultimately: why didn’t the Minister choose to be even more specific in this regard around areas 1 to 4? I mean, eight is a great number—very lucky in some communities.

So I very much welcome as I conclude this call—and the Minister is looking enthusiastically to jump up. If he would like to address that, seeing he hasn’t been able to address—quite understandably, from the Chair—the two amendments that have been ruled out of scope.

I am very pleased to rise to respond to that filibuster from Simon O’Connor. The reason I know that that’s what it was is because he decided to devote his call to criticising a provision that the National Government passed in the Budget in May. That’s where the accommodation supplement provision comes from.

I think we have reached the point where the National Party’s desperation, in order to try to keep the debate going, with their repetitive calls, has finally jumped the shark. Mr O’Connor has begun criticising his own type. We have heard rumours about that, I might add, over here. But in this particular example, Mr O’Connor can just be satisfied that on this particular issue we have accepted the wisdom of the previous Government on that matter.

Can I say to Joanne Hayes that she’s wrong; she is completely wrong. The people in the circumstances that she raised, those who live with their family members, are still fully entitled to the winter energy payment. So they can go to Christmas, as Joanne Hayes said, absolutely happy that that problem she raised is not actually—

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: What about residential facilities, rest homes, hospitals?

That’s been answered before, Maggie Barry. That’s been answered before by my colleague Stuart Nash.

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: No, not to our satisfaction.

No, clearly. But the point here is that prolonging the debate by just asking questions that people already know the answers to isn’t actually a way of adding new material to the debate, and we come to Mr Hudson’s point. I think he also knows that indeed there’s no point in looking into a piece of legislation to try to find a different meaning than the words that are written on the page. So the words that are written on the page say that the entitlement is with the person. It stays with the person. Nothing changes in that. So there’s no hidden meaning in the language. It’s exactly as it’s written in there.

💬 Hon Member: What if there’s more than one person, both single?

No, it stays with each individual person. Now, there are already rules within the Ministry of Social Development system about whether or not people are in couples. Those rules apply just the same for this payment as they do for any other payment. So there’s no difference whatsoever in that matter.

Simeon Brown talked at some length about indexation. There’s no point in just coming up with different forms of indexation. That’s actually just the same argument, and that was dealt with by my colleague Stuart Nash—that that is not proposed for this. Just mentioning a different kind of indexation does not actually focus on this.

The other point, which the Hon Amy Adams raised with us, was about when the payments would be made. I think I might have misled her by saying I thought I’d responded to that; I responded to another point of hers. Again, it is paid with the normal instalments of benefits and New Zealand superannuation: for main benefits that is one week in arrears, and for superannuation that is fortnightly, based on the previous fortnight.

So it’s clear to me that the questions we’re getting now are simply ones where people are reading out parts of the bill, and not making a point. I don’t believe—

💬 Brett Hudson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It’s not for the Minister in the chair to determine the relevancy of statements made in the Chamber—or repetition. That is only for you to determine. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Points of order should be heard in silence, members. Thank you for the point of order. You cannot also stand up on a point of order just to interrupt someone that is making a debating point that you don’t like. I’ll invite the Minister to continue his speech.

💬 Chris Penk: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Is it a—

💬 Chris Penk: It’s a fresh point of order; merely that the Minister did helpfully give a response to the contribution that I’ve made, but he said—

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, that’s not a point of order. Sit down.

💬 Chris Penk: He misidentified me—

The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): E noho. Kia ora.

Erica Stanford will need to remind me. What was her one, again? Don’t stand up. Just tell me.

💬 Erica Stanford: I wanted to know, if you were to leave and go overseas, if you’d have to transfer your entitlement to your partner.

No. The answer is no. If you go overseas with the entitlement and you’re a couple, and it’s assessed as a couple, you don’t.

I move, That the question be now put.

Mr Chairperson Rurawhe, thank you so much. Thank you for the opportunity to have another contribution on this part. I’m particularly concerned with the winter energy payment and how it is going to play out in real time for those of whom it is intended. There are a couple of points that I wanted to raise in the committee that have not been canvassed before, I believe. I’ve been here for most of the debate.

The first one is around the sheer management of the payment. The payment, when it is fully rolled out, is going to be for the winter months only, for 22 weeks, and it’s going to be paid out over those 22 weeks. That’s fair enough, except that the billing period for those winter months comes a month after the electricity is actually used. That brings up budgeting issues for people on fixed incomes. I do know that in many parts of New Zealand, whilst winter is severe and a lot of electricity is used, it is also the case that in some parts of New Zealand, such as my part of New Zealand in the South and even further South where it gets even colder, a lot of energy is used in that time. But we also experience periods of great heat during the summer. I have brought an amendment to the committee with regard to that thought. My proposition in my amendment is to have the allowance for regional variation. I’ve made those points and I’m not going to be repetitious.

The point I want to make around that is that in terms of budgeting for those payments, would it not be of benefit to people to be able to spread those payments more evenly across the year, to take account of the high energy use at, say, Christmas, when the family comes? The nephews all want to have five showers a day and have the TV going all night and the fan going all night. Electricity for people on benefits and on national super isn’t always concentrated over the winter months. It can be spread over the year, in different circumstances. I would like to think that this Government would consider putting a little more flexibility into the system and the payment of that. It’s $20 a week for 22 weeks for single people living alone without children, and about $31, I believe, for people with children or for couples. So how much more easy would it be for people to budget if the payment of that benefit could be more flexibly applied so that people could budget better?

The other aspect of that is also around budgeting, and the reason I’m delving into the minutiae of this payment is because of my experience as a constituency MP and people coming into my office with problems and issues around budgeting, when they are on fixed incomes, and just how very tight their budgets can be. So many people on fixed incomes will make a payment to their electricity company that is equalised across the whole year. So they will pay something like $35 a month or whatever their payment is, and that takes account of the highs and lows. Now, that works for a lot of people because it provides for predictability. They know what they’re going to face with their fixed costs. They don’t get any nasty shocks, potentially, over the year, and then, perhaps at the end of the year, they might even enjoy a month where they don’t have a power bill because they’ve overpaid throughout the course of that year. That is going to be thrown into some disarray when this benefit is rolled out.

Now, I just wonder whether the Government, in their policy work, has considered the real impact of this benefit to those people for whom it is intended. And I’d like to know from the Minister of Finance, in the development on new Part 1KA, whether or not any policy work, or how much policy work, was done, and whether or not the application of this grant—and I accept I will probably lose the battle about having the regional variations. So let’s just turn to making the payment of it better suited for those it’s intended for.

So I would welcome the Minister of Finance to get up and address that question and perhaps point the committee and my constituents who are listening and who are affected by this—give them some comfort that this policy will be more finely tuned.

Kia ora, Madam Chair Tolley, finally; this is almost the best for last. Ha, ha! Kia ora, Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to be able to speak in the committee stage. It’s always interesting listening to this, which I have all day; I’ve been in and out of here. But I want to cover off—in this House the other day, the member Kiritapu Allan gave an impassioned speech, actually, about her kaumātua on the East Coast thanking her for this bill, that it would keep her home warm in the winter. She even actually went so far—and that was the enthusiasm of this wahine—to say that it was a $1,000 a week tax cut, as opposed to per annum; but that’s OK.

I’m standing to support all of the various amendments concerning the manner in which this winter energy payment is applied. I have a question for the Minister, because I’ve also had a telephone call, actually, from Wharekauri, but I’ll come to that very shortly.

Can the Minister explain why it’s so difficult to target the funding so it goes exactly where his colleague Kiritapu Allan says it’s most needed, and that is to the heating of the homes that actually really need it. The other part of it is that—and this is about kaumātua. I mean, it’s great to see the Māoris on the other side—the Māori caucus; kia ora to you—who actually have been not here a lot, and I haven’t heard any of them get up except Kiri Allantapu.

💬 Hon Peeni Henare: Kiri Allantapu?

Sorry—Kiritapu. Sorry. But, anyway, at the end of the day, when looking at this, what we should be looking at is that it’s actually about equity on where this money actually goes. And so my question, then, is that—isn’t it that a really important part of this is specifically about the kaumātua, about their energy bills? I’m just specifically coming down to that, because you’ve got the largest Māori caucus on the other side of the House, and yet we haven’t actually heard a lot from them. All we’ve actually heard is a media statement that was a cut and paste from the Hon Kelvin Davis, and then that’s about it. But what we need here—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Which bit of the bill is this? Which bit of the bill is this in?

—and that’s why I’m asking, OK? I’d really like to know, then, why can’t we have that kind of equity? Because I’ve had the call—because when we look at this sort of regional situation, what about the people who actually live on Wharekauri or the Chatham Islands? It’s three times to four times as much for their electricity bills compared to actually being here on the mainland. So that was one of the calls.

The other call was actually around Rakiura, which is down in Stewart Island. So these are Māori that are living in those ancestral communities, and this is where I would’ve expected the Labour Māori caucus, along with their coalition partners, to actually be asking those questions as to why haven’t we got, sort of, equity right across the board when we take into account those whānau that want to live in ancestral communities in everywhere else except right in the Te Wai Pounamu, Te Ika-a-Māui, and all of that. So that is my question to the Minister—and whether it was taken into account; I’m not sure.

But, I think, the other part of it, though, is that—just to finish off on the fact that there were all of these amendments. Even though we’re talking, actually, about all New Zealanders, I would’ve thought that the Māori caucus on that side of the House within the Government would’ve been championing a lot of these sorts of different things that actually do really affect our people. I mean, you’ve got the Minister of Defence over there. What about our mōrehu? What about those that are actually going to lose their entitlements and benefits when it actually comes—well, I mean, that’s what we had in our bill. But they’re going to lose that, actually. So there are the other parts with kaumātua right across the board.

So, on that note, my question—maybe the Minister can answer it—is: where is the equity? Was there any thought that has actually gone into Māori that live in ancestral communities?

I move, That the question be now put.

The Hon Louise Upston’s remaining tabled amendments inserting new clause 60A amending section 1B of the Social Security Act 1964 and further amendments to sections 1B and 3 of the Social Security Act 1964 are out of order as they are outside the scope of the bill. Again, the two defining elements of the bill are not taxation and benefits, and proposals for providing poverty reduction targets to improve outcomes for low-income families and reducing the number of children in low-income households and introducing new principles into the Social Security Act extend beyond the provision of benefits.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Shane Reti to clause 60(1) be agreed to:

replace clause 60(1) with:

in section 3(1), definition of benefit, after paragraph (b)(iii), insert:

(iiia) a winter energy payment consistent with the NIWA definition of winter:

I know it’s been a long day, but I just remind members that the voting is done in silence, and you can relive that tension during the voting by doing your Ayes or your Noes.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to clause 61 be agreed to:

delete new section 61FG(2)(c) and (d).

The Hon Jonathan Coleman’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 71A is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. That’s because the proposed amendment extends the eligibility for the community services card, which does not deal with income tax or benefit under the Social Security Act 1964. It does not include the community services card.

That brings us to the Hon Amy Adams’ tabled amendment inserting new clauses 79 to 82. This amendment was tabled as new Part 2A. However, the form of the bill is such that the clauses are more appropriately located as a subpart to Part 2.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to Part 2 be agreed to:

insert in Part 2 the following new clauses:

79 Principal Act

This Part amends the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987.

80 Section 7 amended (Meaning of primary carer)

In section 7(1)(b)(ii), replace “is the primary carer” with “is a primary carer”.

After section 7(3), insert:

(4) A person and their spouse or partner may both be primary carers simultaneously if—

(a) the person meets the criteria in subsection (1)(a) or (1)(c); and

(b) the person has transferred part of their entitlement to a parental leave payment to the spouse or partner under section 71E; and

(c) the person and their spouse or partner decide to take parental leave in concurrent or overlapping periods in accordance with section 9A.

81 New section 9A inserted (Primary carer leave may be taken consecutively or concurrently with primary carer leave taken by partner)

After section 9, insert:

9A Primary carer leave may be taken consecutively or concurrently with primary carer leave taken by partner

This section applies if—

(a) an employee takes a period of primary carer leave; and

(b) the employee, their partner or spouse, or any dependent child of either of the aforementioned people has a health condition or disability of any sort, including but not limited to mental health conditions, physical conditions, premature birth, illness, or injury; and

(c) the employee transfers part of their entitlement to a parental leave payment to their spouse or partner under section 71E.

The employee’s primary carer leave may be taken for a period that is consecutive, concurrent, or overlapping with the spouse or partner’s primary carer leave.

82 Section 71J amended (Duration of parental leave payment)

In section 71J(1)(b), after “1 continuous period per person”, insert “(which, in accordance with section 9A, may be consecutive, concurrent, or overlapping)”.

Joanne Hayes’ tabled amendment inserting new clauses 79 to 81—this amendment was tabled as a new Part 3. However, the form of the bill is such that the clauses are more appropriately located as a subpart to Part 2.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Joanne Hayes to Part 2 be agreed to:

after clause 78, insert:

79 Principal Act

This part amends the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 (the principal Act).

80 Purpose

The purpose of this part is to require Ministers, when negotiating Crown funding agreements on behalf of the Crown must negotiate the provision of subsidised dental care for pregnant individuals.

81 Section 10 amended (Crown funding agreements)

after section 10(2) insert:

(2A) When negotiating a Crown funding arrangement, the Minister must negotiate for the provision of subsidised dental care for individuals who are pregnant for a period lasting no longer than 12 calendar months after the end of their pregnancy.

Ian McKelvie’s tabled amendment inserting new clauses 79 to 81, increasing the age qualification for superannuation—this amendment was tabled as a new Part 3. However, the form of the bill is such that the clauses are more appropriately located as a subpart to Part 2.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Ian McKelvie to Part 2 be agreed to:

after clause 78, insert:

79 Principal Act

This part amends the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 (the principal Act).

80 Purpose

The purpose of this part is to tie the age of superannuation eligibility to the winter energy payment provisions of the Family Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill and to ensure the affordability of the provisions of that policy by raising the superannuation eligibility age to 67 no later than 20 years after the enactment of the Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill.

81 Section 7 amended (Age qualification for New Zealand superannuation)

after section 7(1), insert:

(7A) For the purposes of subsection (1), the age qualification for New Zealand superannuation shall rise to 67, no later than twenty calendar years after the enactment of sections 61FE to 61FJ of the Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill.

The Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment inserting new clauses 79 to 81 provides for a family HomeStart contribution to KiwiSaver account holders. This amendment was tabled as a new Part 3. However, the form of the bill is such that the clauses are more appropriately located as a subpart to Part 2.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 2 be agreed to:

after clause 78, insert:

79 Principal Act

This part amends the KiwiSaver Act 2006 (the principal Act).

80 Purpose

The purpose of this amendment is to introduce a Crown contribution paid directly into the KiwiSaver account of a person for the purpose of facilitating the purchase of a family home upon their application to withdraw a portion of their KiwiSaver under section 8 of the Act.

81 New Section 226A inserted (Family Home Start Contribution)

After section 226 insert:

266A Family Home Start Contribution

(1) The Crown must pay a contribution to the KiwiSaver scheme of which a person is a member upon application of the person if—

(a) the person has applied to make a withdrawal under section 8, the Crown must make a contribution to that person’s Kiwisaver account in accordance with the calculations in subsection (2):

(b) that person’s Kiwisaver provider has confirmed that they have received notice of withdrawal.

(2) The calculation of the payment the Crown must make to a person’s Kiwisaver account under subsection (1) is:

(a) For a couple who is purchasing a new home jointly the amount shall be $30,000:

(b) For a couple who is purchasing an existing home jointly the amount shall be $20,000:

(c) For a person who is purchasing a new home as a single buyer the amount shall be $15,000:

(d) For a person who is purchasing an existing home as a single buyer the amount shall be $10,000.

(3) The payment by the Crown must be made as soon as practicable after an application for withdrawal is made.