Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: I move, That the Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 1 April 2019 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Noting the report-back date, at what point does that become debatable—at the end?

💬 SPEAKER: There’s a separate motion. The member’s been here for a long time. He knows that there’s a separate motion for a referral after a bill has been read a first time, if it is.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Just being helpful to those who don’t know.

💬 SPEAKER: No. The member is being most unhelpful and is deliberately—

💬 Hon Member: He’s getting out before he goes. Ha, ha!

💬 SPEAKER: I’m pleased he is, because he might have been anyway. Now, we’re going to start the time again and we’re going to start the motion again. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider this bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 1 April 2019 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting—except during oral questions, of course—during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c).

This is not a very large bill but it contains important amendments. The bill ensures that the winter energy payment can be lawfully paid to all people who were intended to be eligible. In particular, the bill amends the Social Security Act 2018 to ensure clients in two specific scenarios are able to be paid the winter energy payment as intended. The winter energy payment was introduced as part of the Government’s Families Package, the legislation for which was delivered in December 2017 as part of our 100-day plan. The winter energy payment helps older New Zealanders and many of our poorest families to heat their homes during the winter months.

The Families Package is a transformational package providing targeted social assistance to improve incomes for low- and middle-income New Zealand families with children. It is part of this Government’s focus on reducing child poverty and ensuring children get the best start in life. As a result of the Families Package, it is projected that the number of children in poverty will be reduced by around 64,000 children once the package is fully implemented. Those 384,000 families with children will gain an average of $75 a week, and 652,000 families without dependent children will gain an average of $14 a week. As part of that package, the winter energy payment plays a significant role.

As a form of financial assistance, it has the largest eligible population within the benefit system. It is available to all those who receive a main benefit, New Zealand superannuation, or a veterans pension during the winter period. Single people without dependent children receive $450 over winter, and couples and people with dependent children receive $700. The payment is in recognition of the increasing cost of living that often leads to those on fixed and low incomes struggling to heat their homes throughout winter. The importance of warm, dry, healthy homes over winter cannot be overstated. Around 1,600 New Zealanders die each year due to living in cold homes and thousands more end up in hospital. This simply is not acceptable.

In 2018, approximately 774,000 people per month received the winter energy payment at a cost of $265 million. When you add in those with partners, this is close to one million New Zealanders benefiting from being warmer and safer as a result of this payment. In 2019, the winter energy payment will be paid from 1 May through to the end of September, and is expected to be paid to 807,000 recipients per month on average.

We have received positive feedback from New Zealanders far and wide following the introduction of the winter energy payment, reinforcing the importance of what the payment is intended to achieve. We have had reports of people being able to maintain a warm environment and thus avoiding trips to the doctor and A & E. People have told us that they can better manage their health conditions such as asthma. People have also said they are recovering from illnesses more quickly, helped by their warm, dry homes. The winter energy payment has had a positive impact on the lives of many New Zealanders. We want to make sure that this continues.

After the Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill 2017 was passed, the Ministry of Social Development identified minor errors in the winter energy payment legislation. The errors relate to two specific scenarios where the legislation does not align with the original policy intent. Those scenarios are (1) when people are absent from New Zealand for longer than four weeks at any one time during the winter period, and (2) when people receive Government funding for long-term residential care or residential care services but are not eligible for a residential care subsidy or a residential support subsidy. Although these scenarios represent a very small number of the overall population eligible for the winter energy payment, if the Ministry of Social Development cannot pay the winter energy payment as intended, clients in these groups would be adversely affected. We want to make sure that those intended to receive the winter energy payment can indeed do so.

In the first scenario, if an eligible individual is absent from New Zealand for more than four weeks, then currently under the legislation that individual is not entitled to receive the winter energy payment on any day during this period of absence. This does not align with the policy intent, which is to pay the winter energy payment for up to four weeks even where the individual is absent from New Zealand or longer than four weeks at one time. However, with other forms of supplementary assistance, such as the accommodation supplement, it is intended that clients can be absent from New Zealand for more than 28 days and still receive their supplementary assistance. Provided that they still remain eligible for a main benefit, they can receive their supplementary assistance for the first four weeks of that absence. This was also the intention for the winter energy payment.

The second scenario relates to some people being unintentionally excluded from being eligible to receive the winter energy payment. The winter energy payment is unique in that its eligibility is based on receipt of a main benefit: New Zealand Superannuation or the veterans pension. Everyone who receives these benefits automatically receives the winter energy payment. However, a person receiving a residential care subsidy or residential support subsidy is ineligible for the winter energy payment. This is consistent with other forms of supplementary assistance. These groups therefore are excluded from receiving the winter energy payment because the cost of their care, including heating costs, is already being met by the State.

However, under the Social Security Act 2018 currently, some other recipients of long-term residential care or residential care services are unintentionally caught by these exclusions despite also being recipients of a main benefit—New Zealand Superannuation or a veterans pension—because the payment is not directly administered by the Ministry of Social Development. One of these groups, for example, comprises people who do not qualify for a residential care subsidy, pay the maximum contributions towards the cost of their care, and receive a Government top-up.

To ensure that the winter energy payment can be paid in a way that is both practical and lawful, clause 4 of the bill tightens the wording for the groups that are not entitled to receive the winter energy payment due to receiving a residential care subsidy or residential support subsidy. These two errors need to be corrected to ensure the Government’s policy intent can be upheld and that all people intended to be eligible for the winter energy payment can be paid lawfully. Clauses 6 and 7 of the bill also validate the previous practice of the Ministry of Social Development during the 2018 winter period to pay the winter energy payment to people covered by the two scenarios. This ensures decisions made to the benefit of these clients are lawful.

The winter energy payment was a new payment introduced as part of the Families Package and provides financial assistance to beneficiaries likely to have the lowest incomes and to older people who are more often susceptible to ill health during the winter. The amendments in the bill are technical and are in line with the original policy intent for the winter energy payment. We want to ensure that the winter energy payment continues to positively impact the lives of New Zealanders by helping eligible people and families heat their homes over the winter months. This bill helps to achieve this and I commend this bill to the House.

I oppose the motion. I had written notes here actually that I was both delighted and dismayed about this bill. But now I actually am actually—if one can be “actually” and “actually” at the same time—outraged. This bill is an affront to the parliamentary democracy of this House. It’s an affront for two reasons: (1) it’s an amendment, an amendment to a bill—and I will expand on this further—that this side of the House warned the Government about, and now what we find is the Associate Minister for Social Development stands in the House and says that this amendment, this bill, is going to be rushed through the House so that even less than one month from now it must be reported back, and I’m going to take the next few minutes to outline why this side of the House is absolutely outraged.

This bill is fixing a problem—or actually two problems—which this side of the House in an earlier sitting of the Parliament noted, pointed out, cajoled; we spent hours, hours in this House pointing out that they, the Government, had it wrong around the 28 days. We pointed out there were issues around retirement villages and aged care. The Government, and the Minister in particular, ignored it—ignored it—and that sits on a further affront to this Parliament: that what started out as a social welfare rewrite bill, agreed to in principle by all parties in the House, was trumped at the last minute, literally the last minutes, with a 500-plus - page Supplementary Order Paper, fronted to this Parliament with an array of changes, including this winter energy payment, which took what was a bill agreed in principle to now something highly political, forced through—forced through—with no select committee oversight whatsoever. In other words, the Act we were amending had no—and particularly for people at home it had no—oversight whatsoever by this Parliament and select committee.

And this side of the House stood up time and time again and reminded the Minister, whose ears clearly were closed, that there were going to be problems—going to be problems. And lo and behold—lo and behold—possibly a little earlier than we thought, here we are wasting the Parliament’s time by putting through an amendment bill which could have been solved by going to select committee to allow the New Zealand public to come in, to allow those in retirement villages to say “Hey, there’s a problem here.”, to have the people of New Zealand come in and say “Hey, we might be overseas for more than 28 days. Can you actually look at the legislation?”

But, no, there was an arrogance on behalf of this Government that, first and foremost, thought they should politicise a rewrite bill that didn’t need to be. They were arrogant enough to dump 500-plus pages of amendments with no time—no time—for this Parliament to scrutinise, and to deny the right of New Zealanders to speak. And then here we are today, on a Thursday afternoon of all times, to then drop an amendment bill with two changes. And I wonder how many more mistakes this Government has made, so that we’re going to end up with another amendment on top of another amendment, because this is only two. We spent hours in this House pointing out a number of problems. So we will oppose this firmly, and as I said at the start, part of me was delighted; part of me dismayed—delighted because it’s a case of “We told you so.”—or “We told them so.”, being the Government. The National Party, probably with the experience of Government and actually experience, foresaw that there were going to be problems. So I am sort of delighted that we have a sort of gotcha moment here, but I’m dismayed because we don’t need to waste the Parliament’s time, and in fact what we don’t need to do is retrospective legislation.

And that’s the other side of this bill: it’s retrospective in a number of areas. And, oh my, for nine years in Government were we lectured to—lectured to—by the other side. In fact, Chris Hipkins, the Leader of the House, said “simply imposing this”—being legislation that is retrospective—“by way of a legislative override … It is manifestly unjust. It is simply not right. Retrospective legislation is not right.” Lectured to for years and now the Government is adding retrospective legislation so early on. But that’s not the worst part—that’s not the worst part. The Minister had the audacity to stand in the House 10 minutes ago and ask that this Parliament pass a shoddy piece of amending to a shoddy Supplementary Order Paper in under one month to, effectively, again deny the rights of New Zealanders to speak. That’s what’s happening here. It’s an absolute affront to the parliamentary process of this House, and it’s unfortunately becoming a little bit of a thing, if it’s not questions in the House which are sidestepped or denied to legislation which appears at the last moment, to legislation actually that has to be pulled back.

In fact, it was only two weeks ago, on another social welfare bill—there’s a bit of a theme developing in this ministry—that we had to have a bill return back to committee because there were errors. And lo and behold, yet again this side of the House had said—had warned helpfully—the Minister: “Check it out.” But we were told, “No, no. We know it all; we, this Labour - whatever other party Government, are going to just ram it through.” There’s a theme developing here right across the legislative process, and certainly within the Ministry of Social Development, that shoddy legislation has been brought to this House. It’s been rammed through with no scrutiny, and we would not have to waste the time of this House today to go through this amendment bill if the work had been done properly in the first place.

So we oppose this bill. We oppose it strongly in principle and, Mr Speaker, as a signal, we’ll be back towards the conclusion of this debate to argue strongly for the right of New Zealanders to have their rightful, normal period of time to speak about this bill, not to have it rammed through in order to hide the incompetence of this Government.

So let’s just get back to the facts, shall we? Let’s just calm things down. And while Mr O’Connor is perfectly happy, for his own benefit, to try and create some sort of drama about this, let’s just talk to what this amendment bill is about.

So, in the first hundred days of this Government, we put through a Families Package, and part of that was the winter energy payment. So this is an amendment bill to the winter energy payment. Let’s be clear: the winter energy payment and the intent of it have been implemented since that legislation passed. What Mr O’Connor is attempting to inflate and conflate and all sorts of other things—he’s talking about a Supplementary Order Paper on something that was slightly different from what was the Families Package, but that’s all right; Mr O’Connor is well within his rights to decide that he’s going to dramatise this. These are what are called “drafting errors”. Drafting errors are where the highly skilled New Zealand public servants, who do an awful lot of work, spend an awful lot of hours here at the service of their country, putting together pieces of legislation, made a couple of mistakes. That’s what happened. That’s why the report back day is 1 April.

Suddenly, Mr O’Connor is quite happy to say that they already knew it was wrong; so I’m not quite sure why they feel that they need a longer period of time to be more right than they were right before—according to Mr O’Connor. He also says that this is wasting the House’s time; so, therefore, I cannot understand why they would argue against the 1 April report back date if they believe it’s so important not to waste the House’s time. This is a simple drafting error. It’s two pieces of wording that were not 100 percent correct because the very hard-working public servants, who serve our nation for extreme hours, got a couple of bits wrong, and the winter energy payment—the intent of it—is being paid. Nobody has missed out. Let’s be clear: nobody has missed out. These payments are being made; hence why we want to make it retrospective. We want to make sure that the payments that have been made, quite rightly through the intent of the policy, due to a couple of wording issues, legally have received their payments. That’s what this piece of legislation is about. That’s why we want to pass it by 1 April.

Mr O’Connor says the National Party knew all along it was wrong. He should be celebrating that we can put this through quickly. They should be supporting it, they should be supporting the report-back date, and that’s all this is about. This is not dramatic. This is not a large and difficult issue. The Opposition can grandstand as much as they like, but New Zealand First will be supporting just these small amendments due to drafting errors around the winter energy payment. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, huri noa i Te Whare nei e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. I’d like to take a short call on the Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill first reading. Actually, that previous speaker, Tracey Martin, should be called “Teflon” because of the fact that it’s really easy, isn’t it, just to sort of push that aside. Particularly, if we come back to what Simon O’Connor actually said in his speech about this kind of legislation—travesty, legislation by stealth, time wasting, retrospective legislation, shoddy legislation, and denying New Zealanders the right to speak on this bill—when we think of all of that, that’s exactly what it is.

The bill actually looks like a couple of minor technical changes, but, when you look at it, it’s actually more of a case of cleaning up after the Government’s efforts last year. The previous speaker just tried to actually blame officials for their mistakes when this is actually about shoddy legislation.

I think the other part of it, though, is actually, when you look at the result of this, this comes around because the Minister dumped a 500-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) last May into this House, 24 hours out from the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. What we have here is that they failed to get the details right in regards to the winter energy payment. So it’s very, very clear on this side of the House that we oppose the SOP which introduced the winter energy payment into the Social Security Act and we continue to oppose this particular legislation also today. Nō reira e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan.

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: Two minutes of outrage.

Order! I called one member. One member had the call, and another member started talking. I think members of the Government need to sort out which of them is going to take the call, and that’s the person who should speak, not Mr Faafoi.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a short call as well on the Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill. Frankly, I’m not too sure what members opposite are going on about. They’re so impassioned that they speak for two minutes, as well! But, anyway, it is just a technical bill.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: It’s such an outrage!

I know—so much outrage! Anyway, it is a technical bill. Basically, all this amendment bill does is tweak the Social Security Act 2018 to ensure that those who fall into two specific categories are able to be paid the winter energy payment as the policy intended.

As we’ve heard before, by the Minister the Hon Tracey Martin as well, this is just a technical drafting error. What we’re doing here today is speaking at the first reading of this bill so that we can amend that and ensure that for everyone who deserves to be paid the winter energy payment—and in fact is being paid the winter energy payment—we can make sure that we do so appropriately and properly. So, anyway, that’s what this bill does. It’s a very straightforward bill.

It’s a technical bill, but, actually, at the heart of it lies people, and that’s the point that I want to make in today’s contribution: the people—about one million of them—who have been affected or whose lives have been improved by the Families Package that this Government passed at the end of 2017, which was a targeted payment. It was actually part of the Government’s 100-day plan. It provides targeted social assistance to improve the lives of people, to improve the incomes of families with children who earn low to middle incomes. Part of that package was the winter energy payment, and I know that many of us, like I have, have sat with people: people on a main benefit, people getting the NZ superannuation, those on a veterans pension, older New Zealanders who can’t afford to pay for heating, people whose living rooms I’ve sat in, whom I’ve spoken to, who have said to me that they put on jackets, that they put on sweaters and cardigans because they can’t afford to turn their heating on. Those are the people that we’re talking about today when we talk about this little, straightforward bill that will actually ensure that those who need to get this payment do get the payment that they deserve in a way that is lawful. That’s all that this bill does.

Now, clients can’t get the winter energy payment if they don’t get a main benefit, NZ super, or veterans pension; if they get an overseas pension; if they already get the State-sponsored residential care subsidy or the support subsidy; or if they live overseas. But there are two groups of people who should be getting this winter energy payment, based on the policy intent of it, who have been, and now we’re just tweaking the legislation to make sure that they do so in a way that is lawful.

I think the Minister the Hon Peeni Henare outlined the two groups of people who will be getting this payment, and that’s, basically, those who have been absent from New Zealand. If they’ve been away for longer than four weeks at any one time over the winter period, then they get the payment for the first four weeks, and that just aligns this particular subsidy with others like the accommodation supplement as well. The other group, of course, are those who receive Government funding for long-term residential care or residential care services but who aren’t eligible for the residential care subsidy or the support subsidy.

That’s really all that this bill does. I too don’t understand why members opposite feel the need to dramatise this so much. It’s not about an entire long Supplementary Order Paper or anything like that; it’s just a technical drafting error. This will put that right and make sure that we do right by everyone who is eligible to receive this benefit. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I stand to take a short call on the Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill. It’s quite entertaining listening to the Government side of the House trying to justify why they have brought this bill—this retrospective piece of legislation—back to the House when it could have all been sorted and they could have done the right process back in May of last year when the winter energy payment clause was in the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. If the Minister had actually done the work correctly and, as my colleague Simon O’Connor said in his contribution, had actually done the work and given the 500-plus page Supplementary Order Paper for that particular bill back then back to the select committee for oversight and also for public scrutiny as well, then we would not be sitting in this House going over this piece of legislation that really does—and I support what Simon O’Connor said—waste the House’s time.

Why should we be debating this when the Minister knows full well that her scrutiny of all the pieces of legislation that come through this House under her name must be correct. It must follow the same process. And we’re arguing process here, Mr Assistant Speaker. We are arguing the process that Government—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Don’t bring me into the debate, thank you.

OK. So what we’re doing is arguing about process—whether or not the Government did the right process—and this is a great example of them again not doing the right process. A short report-back time—why? Why can’t this bill have public scrutiny? Is it because they are trying to ram through this piece of legislation, like they did the previous legislation in May of last year? Is it too much to ask this Government to stop showing their arrogance by ramming these types of bills through? They’re very important bills, but they continue to ram these down the throats of New Zealanders, and that is actually an insult to the people of this country.

When the previous speaker, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, talked about how we are getting quite dramatic, well, that’s our job. Our job is to actually ensure that this Government keeps to parliamentary process. It’s there for a purpose. It’s not there to be scorned, to be laughed at, and to show that much arrogance about. That’s all we’re asking, but, no, this Government is not listening. It is not listening.

So I cannot support this bill. I, along with the rest of my colleagues, oppose it. We oppose this bill. Get a life and get the practice of parliamentary process correct, Government. Thank you.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I’ve got three words for the National Party: pot, kettle, black. I can’t believe the faux outrage we’re hearing from that side of the House tonight when there are countless examples where they did just this—ram through legislation. What for—what for? To take away Kiwis’ human rights when it comes to protest activity. What for? To take away Cantabrians’ rights to vote. What is this Government doing it for? To heat Kiwis’ houses. Here, National—in none of their contributions have they actually talked about the substance. This is a Government that wants to heat Kiwis’ houses, that doesn’t want to see Kiwis die every winter, and what you’ve heard today is a bunch of National MPs who would rather die on a particular hill of parliamentary hypocrisy than actually heat Kiwis’ houses.

We are here today to fix a minor technical drafting error around Kiwis who travel overseas for 28 days or pay for part of their own residential care contributions, and National is voting against those people getting the winter energy payment this year. That’s the question in front of the House today. Should those people, this winter, get the winter energy payment? And no, National spent all their time talking about parliamentary process and not talking about the people of New Zealand.

Now, we’ve seen this faux outrage around the fact it was passed in the 100-day plan of this Government. They say it wasn’t a good enough process. Now, they asked us: “What was the rush? Why was the Government rushing?” It, for me, just shows how incredibly out of touch National is when it comes to the real-life, on-the-ground situation of New Zealanders. What’s the rush? How about the 1,600 Kiwis that die every winter—which doesn’t happen in the bulk of other developed world countries—because of housing and higher power prices? Sixteen hundred deaths a winter—that’s the rush. What’s the rush? Maybe it’s the 41,000 Kiwi kids that are hospitalised every year in this country because of the poor state of our housing and the growth of energy poverty. What’s the rush? It’s the 100,000 Kiwi households which, as we saw in the independent report, are in energy poverty. These are households that are spending 10 percent of their weekly disposable income just to keep the lights on, just to keep the heater going. It shows how out of touch it is, because if you talk to regular people in this country, they’re actually facing the choice: this week, do I heat or do I eat?

Now, when people are living in multiple houses across New Zealand, they don’t understand the real, lived experiences of Kiwis. That was the rush. What this Government wanted to do was make a difference, and $265 million a year helping people over winter to heat their house, to avoid energy poverty, to spend money on the important things like their kids—well, that was the rush. Now, we haven’t heard any talk from National members about the actual impact of the winter energy payment scheme. Now, I’ve been around to Kiwis’ houses, right? And I’ve seen the black mould on the roofs. I’ve seen the literal wood you can rip off the mouldering walls. I’ve seen families living in the only room they can heat, the lounge—a whole family, a huge number of people crammed in one room. This is the reality and this is why the Government was doing it, and they were doing it in a rush because of the crisis facing this country.

Now, National is saying they’re voting against it because it’s retrospective. I called it “pot, kettle, black” because they did retrospective legislation a huge number of times, but the difference is that this is about helping people this winter. It’s autumn, right? The leaves are coming off the trees. We’re counting down to winter. We know that this winter, if we don’t act, more people are going to die than in the rest of the year. So my message to National and anyone voting is: why on earth should we vote against helping Kiwis this winter just because National thinks retrospective legislation isn’t right when someone else does it?

There’s the issue of urgency. Now, this bill needs to be reported back by 1 April. It’s no secret that the Green Party isn’t a fan of urgency. In this case though, there is an actual urgent rationale, which is to give money to people who need it this winter. I urge National to go to residential care facilities around this country and tell them that they voted against those people getting the winter energy payment this winter. I challenge them: do it. Go to those residential care facilities and say why you voted so people would be poorer and colder this winter. I challenge them to actually get people to come to the select committee and make a submission, and the Green Party made sure there was a select committee process—I challenge National: go find anyone in this country who’s going to come to a select committee and submit that no one should get $265 million of winter energy payment support. I bet you they won’t be able to get anyone to come, because it’s incredibly popular, as we heard from the Minister. Kiwis need the help and they’re getting the help from this Government.

Ultimately, that is the question for National as they consider their votes tonight. Are they really going to vote against Kiwis getting help this winter? Do they want them to stay cold? Do they want them to stay paying more than 10 percent of their income? That’s the real choice. So let’s actually talk about the people and the real lives, not just this, I think, petty politics and partisanship we’ve seen from this side.

Thanks very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. There’s been certainly plenty of passion attached to this debate this afternoon, and it’s no wonder. I recall the Hon Tracey Martin’s contribution first up, where she literally threw the officials under the bus because they had made a drafting error. A tiny tweak is required to fix a really small drafting error. Well, the reality is that it is the role of the select committee to scrutinise the wording, to scrutinise the bills that come before this House, to go through the wording, to question those officials, and to seek more information if that is what is required. But when you do not have the ability to scrutinise a bill because there is no select committee process, it’s the very reason that we are here today trying to fix up the mess that this Government has created. That is the job of the select committee, that is the democratic process, that is what has been robbed from the people of New Zealand, and that is why we are here in clean-up mode.

I have to say that when it comes to the committee stage, I’m going to suggest that we even change the title of this bill so that it is actually called the “Clean Up the Mess Bill” or the “We Told You So Bill”, because it was articulated more than once that we were going to end up in trouble in this House because the wording was so badly put together. So here we are.

I mention the contribution from Gareth Hughes here, who said, “Find me somebody that will not take $265 million in contributions for a winter energy payment.” The reality is this is a winter payment. It’s not necessarily for energy, and I can tell you that the people I have spoken to in the people’s houses I have been into are very grateful for this payment. In fact, one couple told me that they filled their wine cellar as a result of this payment last winter. Other people also took their summer holidays and loaded the credit card from this winter payment. It is not an energy payment, and had we proceeded with the tax reform that this Government put in place, they would have been even more better off than they were with the $31 a week that these guys want to give them.

We are going to vote against this bill and, for this House’s information, the committee was told yesterday that the submissions for this piece of legislation close on Tuesday. Thank you.

This is a split call. I call Greg O’Connor—five minutes.

They used it to fill the wine cellar—they used it to fill the wine cellar. If ever you wanted to hear how out of touch some of those privileged people across the aisle are, I refer you to that expression, “They used it to fill the wine cellar.” Excuse me, Mr Assistant Speaker, sometimes I just feel that it has landed on me.

Can I just bring the Opposition back to what we are talking about here. We’re not talking about wine cellars, we’re not talking about having black BMWs in the driveway; we are talking about 1,600 people who die each year from living in a cold house. If you look at the article by Ruth Nichol in the Listener in 2017, you’ll see it was 1,600 people. OK, the National Party has 40 electorate members—40 people have electorates. That means 40 people in each of those electorates will die this year if this bill doesn’t go through. Just think about that. Those of you who may have been brought up in State houses, those of you who—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Not on that side.

No, some were—some were—and you might note that when some of them talk about it, they immediately talk about how well they were treated and how good those things were—but shouldn’t we sell them? That’s what I hear.

But back to this bill. This is something that I think it’s actually quite good that we’re back here for, because it allows us on this side of the House to focus on what we’re doing and how important what we’re doing is, and I just hope that somewhere on the benches across there, someone will sit and think that the fact we’re back talking about this is actually a very good thing. I hope they will just think there is more to life than the year of your wine—that this is actually a life and death issue for many of the people who deal with it.

In fact, it’s a life and death issue for people who live on their own, and I just think that one of the best things that’s happened now is the fact we’re back talking about this—the 1,600 people who will die this year as a result of living in cold houses. Can I just leave you with that and ask you to compare that with the other side of the argument we’ve just heard—compare that with wine cellars. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Well, what a terrible contribution we just had from the other side of the House. This piece of legislation, the Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill, is a piece of legislation which is not necessary to be going through this Parliament if the Government had actually done their job the first time. I heard Tracey Martin talking about drafting errors. She was throwing the bureaucrats under the bus, throwing the officials under the bus, because they, as parliamentarians and as legislators in this House, failed to do their job the first time. That’s what this bill is about.

Ultimately, we as parliamentarians, we as legislators, take responsibility for the laws in this land. It is us who put our names to the legislation that we pass, and what the members on the other side did—what Tracey Martin, on the other side, did—was throw the bureaucrats and the officials under the bus for their hard work, and she should be taking responsibility for the decisions that they made.

So we will be opposing this piece of legislation. The Government should be doing its job properly and, furthermore, the tax cuts which National had legislated, and which were repealed, would have ensured that the same people who qualify for this now so-called winter energy payment, which is neither a winter payment nor an energy payment, would qualify for an increase in their superannuation—and that would also increase with the median wage as it goes up.

So this legislation is opposed by this side of the House. It is retrospective legislation. More importantly, there are better ways to ensure that we look after the incomes of those who are on superannuation, rather than trying to dream up other types of payments which aren’t specific and don’t actually meet the ends which members on the other side of the House are trying to achieve. We will oppose this legislation. Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you.

I was going to actually stand here and say, well, there’s not a lot to add to this debate, because we’ve got such a small piece of legislation and, again, as has been reiterated, it is actually just looking at the drafting errors and fixing those drafting errors.

💬 Chris Bishop: Yeah, that’s right. If you’d done your job properly, we wouldn’t be here.

You’re quite right there, Mr Bishop. I’m so pleased you can read the legislation and add to the debate as well. But I was so taken by the passion of my colleague here, Mr O’Connor, beside me, talking about wine cellars. I just have to add here as well about—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: He nearly lost his teeth.

I did think that too, Mr McAnulty. I thought that Mr O’Connor’s teeth were going to go flying at that stage, with that passion. I just feel that I need to add to that. You really reminded me of quite a number of things that can come into this debate here. It is a small piece of legislation, but the overall piece of legislation that this is adding to means so much to so many New Zealanders out there. To hear that people fill their wine cellars—how out of touch is that? That has to be the most out-of-touch comment that I have ever heard.

I have sat with a number of children—in fact, in 2016, 11 children—at their bedsides. They had been hospitalised because they had been in houses that weren’t fit for purpose. They had respiratory complaints. In fact, one of those particular 11 children that I sat with had rheumatic fever. That is not a situation that I ever want to repeat again.

We are in this House because we have the ability to do something about that, and that is not just this side; that is that side as well. We have the ability to change that and make people’s lives better. Some say, “Oh, we’re outraged because it’s being pushed through.”, but there is an urgency with the 1 May payout. We need to get this right. Let’s work together and make this right for all New Zealanders here. To sit there and be outraged that this is being pushed through means that that side are completely out of touch with what is happening. People are dying—people are dying—and I have had experience of that because of inappropriate housing. We can get this right for every single one of those people and make a difference.

Many people have come to me—we hear that they’ve come to fill wine cellars; I still think that is an unbelievable comment and a shocking comment—to say how much difference the energy payment has made in their lives. Seeing people coming into one room, a family of six coming into one room, for months over the wintertime is really heartbreaking. Seeing those families now actually in warm, dry housing because of a simple winter energy payment is really heartening. As a Government, as an actual Parliament, as this House, we have the ability to change people’s lives. Let’s work together on this. I commend this bill to the House.

It is about the people. I’ve heard that a number of times from members across the House. It is about the people—it is about the people. But the reason we are here today discussing this is because the Government overlooked those people. They overlooked the vulnerable, the elderly in our community. In their haste, in their rush, and in their arrogance to push this process through, they did not allow decent time to hear from the community, to hear from the people, and so this is what has happened. Let us think: if these are little, minor changes, what else has been overlooked? Has there been consideration of the fact that, for example, some New Zealanders live in extremely colder climates than, say, in the northern parts—for example, the Chatham Islands? Is there consideration of that or other things that may come up over time? Again, the rush, the haste, rushing the process—this is what happens: it punishes the very people that we are here to serve. It is particularly interesting to note that the proposed retrospectively applied amendments appear in this to be in conflict with their own previous Labour Party stance, and I refer to the Hon Chris Hipkins when he stated, “Retrospective legislation is not right.” The fact that our kaumātua who happen to be in care facilities were overlooked by this Government is a lack of attention to vital detail that is becoming all too common with this Government, I fear.

On the one hand, I can at least understand the Government’s attempt to rectify this oversight, but it doesn’t address the fundamental problem with this bill, and that is its lack of fair, due process with the community. I cannot support this amendment. Thank you.

It’s been an absolute delight to listen to the members opposite read their passionate speeches of outrage this afternoon about this piece of legislation, which, I concur with my colleague Gareth Hughes, is simply about making sure we keep people warm in their own homes. That’s what this piece of legislation is about: to make sure all the people that the Government intended to stay warm—so they don’t go cold, so they don’t have a horrible winter—can do that this winter. I would like to reinforce the challenge that Gareth Hughes put to the Opposition to hold public meetings, to hold street corner meetings, and to go out and put a pamphlet together to say “We voted to keep you cold this winter.”, because that’s what this is doing. All of you guys over there who have got your blue House boxes can put a pamphlet together and say “We want to keep you cold this winter.”, because that’s what you’re doing.

Your faux argument of outrage around the process doesn’t hold up, because I’ve heard some passionate speeches read by the Opposition this afternoon about how this side of this House should be perfect in its process, and, again reinforcing the message of my learned colleague Gareth Hughes, look in the mirror, because guess who was one of the worst offenders of having to come back to this House to clean up pieces of legislation in the last Parliament? Your leader. How many times did we come back—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Not my leader.

Oh, sorry, not the Assistant Speaker’s leader. The Leader of the Opposition was the worst offender of coming back to this House and cleaning things up. So it’s back on the record that the members opposite want perfection from this House. Maybe they should demand that of the person who is the leader of the National Party. As Minister of Energy and Resources, I think we came back to this House not once but twice to clean up not minor amendments but major pieces of legislation where he had stuffed it up. So, hey, look in the mirror, guys. This is a piece of legislation with two minor amendments to keep people warm. Your leader, who you should demand perfection of—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Please don’t bring the Speaker into the debate.

I’m sorry. I can imagine how you would be offended, Mr Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No—order! Order! Members need to take care not to bring the Speaker into the debate and then not to comment after that’s been pointed out.

If you’re going to demand perfection from this Government—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Again, don’t bring the Speaker into it.

Sorry—if the Opposition is going to demand perfection of this Government, then have a look at the person who will temporarily occupy that seat, because he came back to this House not once but twice. So just have a good look in the mirror there. I’m really looking forward to Simon Bridges maybe having another tour of the country, and all the billboards through regional New Zealand saying “National will keep you cold.”, because that’s exactly what is going on here. So put away your faux outrage, put away the process, because these amendments need to happen in order to make sure that the heaters can stay on this winter to keep old people warm.

Now, I’m looking around the House at the moment, and I’m just wondering who would be against that, and the record will show, when we take the vote on this bill, that every member of the National Party is against that. They’re about to stand up and talk about the process when this is actually about the people. The speaker who just took her seat, Agnes Loheni, is absolutely right, but she shouldn’t be beholden to the party lines that they’ve been reading out with such passion today. Get over it; keep people warm. I’m looking forward to the next debate when you’re going to talk about the process, but at the end of the day—and I think Nick Smith is probably going to lead us off. Nick Smith is quite happy with the people of Nelson who are over 65 staying warm. He’s a good local MP, and I’m looking forward to those public meetings and those pamphlets where he says that blue is best—not necessarily political, but keeping his constituents cold.

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: I move, That the Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 1 April 2019 and that the Social Services and Community Committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).

If this Parliament ever needed an example to show the shambles and the incompetence of this Government, it is in respect of the motion that that member, Peeni Henare, has just moved.

Let’s be clear about what the Government’s doing. Firstly, in the 2017 Budget, our Government provided for a tax cut for all New Zealanders. That would have provided an extra $778 for every superannuitant, and what the Government did was patch up and invent this winter energy payment so that they could repeal that tax cut. Just coincidentally, the amount of money that New Zealanders needed to be able to be warm in winter was $778.73—exactly what they would have got in the tax cut. Then, somehow, they come into the Parliament, as my colleague said, and claim the high ground.

Here’s where it gets worse. When they’ve had nine years in Opposition to sort their policy out, they fumble together this policy and they introduce a bill into the House to introduce the winter energy payment, except, after they’ve introduced the bill, after it’s gone to the select committee, it’s such a botched-up mess that they table in the Parliament a 500-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). Then the Minister—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought I would give the speaker enough time to make his point, but this is clearly, in my opinion, in breach of Standing Order 290(3), which states that “Any debate on the question for a motion under this Standing Order is restricted to the special powers or instruction set out in the motion.” I would argue that thus far, Mr Nick Smith’s speech—

“Dr” to you.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: —has been a commentary of the original bill. I apologise: Dr Nick Smith. It has been a commentary of the original bill, rather than speaking directly to the motion.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I think you’ll also find that that’s the sole decision of the Speaker. There is a little bit of latitude, but this is a narrow debate, as I’m sure the father of the House fully knows, and he will restrict his further comments to the motion.

Well, the extraordinary part is that the Government is saying today that the select committee should have to report back this bill by 1 April. Now, that’s three weeks away. The Standing Orders, as you well know—

💬 Greg O’Connor: From a man who won’t let the select committee do their work.

—require the normal period of six months—the normal period of six months, Mr O’Connor, and you want three weeks. There is a provision in the Standing Orders that says that if you really want to speed the process up, you can do it in four months. Is it four months that the Government wants the select committee to do its job in? No, it’s three weeks. Why should this Parliament trust this Government to get it right in three weeks when they’ve had two cracks at it and made an absolute hash of it? The only reason we’re having this debate is because, not once but twice, the Government has completely stuffed up the detail of the law on this winter energy payment.

Now, members opposite have said that this is all about making sure New Zealanders are warm. Well, I say: not quite. They’re saying this urgency is required because of that. Actually, I haven’t heard a Labour member acknowledge that there’s a new law coming into effect on 1 July this year that requires every rental property to be insulated—a bill that I put through this Parliament—or that our Government insulated 430,000 houses during our term in office. So let’s not, Mr Faafoi, have a game to pretend that the issue of warming up homes is not something which members on this side of the House take very seriously.

But here’s the important part: the provision for Parliament to consider at select committee this bill for only three weeks is for provisions that the Government wants to apply retrospectively. Now, I just heard—and you will remember, Mr Assistant Speaker—that we had this long argument from members opposite, just last week, that retrospective law was wrong and that retrospective law that tries to patch up things in the past should not be done. Well, why is it that one week members opposite say retrospective law is wrong; the next week, they come into the Parliament and say, “Not only is it so right; Parliament and the select committee should only have three weeks to consider the extensive retrospective provisions that are provided for in this bill.”?

So I say to members opposite: sorry, twice bitten now shy—“twice bitten” because this is the third attempt for the Minister to get this legislation right. They got it wrong the first time because they rushed it. They got it wrong a second time because they rushed it. Why on earth should Parliament, a third time, then say, “Well, let’s rush it again.”? We’ve got such a good track record. We botched it up the first time we rushed it, we botched it the second time we rushed it, and now members opposite say, “Oh, let’s rush it again, because this time—this time—we’ll get it right.” Members on this side of the House say, “You keep getting it wrong. You’re not learning the lesson. You need to take the time to get this legislation correct.”

Then I come to the issue of what sort of public submissions process can there be if the select committee has only got three weeks. I would like the next member to say what opportunity there is going to be for the public to have a say on this quite extensive bill—it’s got over 30 clauses. What possible opportunity can there be for the public to have a say if the select committee is going to have only three weeks to consider its content? For those people that are affected by the retrospective provisions, is it fair for Parliament to be saying, “Well, you’re not even going to get a chance to have a say.”? So we’ve gone from the Government saying, one week, that retrospective law is bad and that you shouldn’t do it, to next week saying that retrospective law is so good that we should power it through in three weeks and we shouldn’t even give the public a say. Do members opposite really treat the New Zealand public and this Parliament with such disdain that they will not give them an opportunity to even have a say on the bill that’s patching up their botch-ups?

Do you know what this is really about? This is really to try and minimise the embarrassment for the Government. New Zealanders know that they’re incompetent. New Zealanders know, whether it be KiwiBuild, whether it be the Provincial Growth Fund, that it’s just one botch-up after another, and so too with the winter energy payment. The reason members opposite want this bill to be considered by the select committee for only three weeks—not to have any public submissions at all, not to have time for very competent colleagues like Simon O’Connor and others on the select committee to really scrutinise this bill around—is because it will only show up the level of incompetence that is exhibited in this legislation by Labour having to have a third crack at trying to get its winter energy payment law straight. Parliament shouldn’t have a bar of this process. We should not be in the business of covering up mistakes that are made by Government Ministers.

This bill is in the name of Carmel Sepuloni. This is a Minister that only a couple of weeks ago had to do the extraordinary part of recommitting a bill. That was after it had been through its committee stage—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah, we’re not doing that bill; we’re looking at this bill.

We are, but this Minister has got form, Mr Assistant Speaker. This is a Minister that keeps botching up her laws

💬 Hon Clare Curran: How many botch-ups did you have?

She puts it through the committee stages—I’m happy to answer the question. I’ve been responsible for putting 50 bills through this Parliament—50 bills through this Parliament—and do you know how many of those bills I’ve had to recommit because I cocked up in the committee stages? Absolutely none. The Minister in charge of this bill, her very first bill, stuffs it up in the committee stages and has to recommit it, and that is an embarrassment. We should not be having a bar of this process that enables her to be able to continue to hide her embarrassment and her sloppy laws.

The last part that I want to deal with is the issue of arrogance. During the reading on this bill, did we ever hear from the Minister, “I’m sorry we got this wrong. I’m sorry that Parliament is having to waste its time, a third time, on trying to get the detail of this legislation correct.”? Was there ever an apology to the Social Services and Community Committee: “Hey, I’m sorry. We botched this up. You’re going to have to have a third bite at the cherry and trying to get this right.”? So I say to Government members: show a little humility for your stuff ups. Come down to this Parliament—and I see Clare Curran giving me the eyeballs. She should get to her feet and say, “Yes, we’re sorry. We’re sorry that we stuffed up this law. We’re sorry that there are thousands of New Zealanders that have missed out on their winter energy payment because we couldn’t get the basic detail right.”

Members on this side of the House would take a little bit of sympathy, would perhaps be a little bit more cooperative on fixing up the Labour Party’s mess, if it just admitted that it got it wrong, that it didn’t listen to National when it tabled a 500-page SOP in a mad rush, because then I might be satisfied that members opposite are learning from their mistakes. What we are seeing from this Government is not just one mistake after another but complete arrogance around the dealing with those mistakes and incompetence that just has them being repeated over and over again.

This Parliament should not—should not—constrain the hearing of this bill to only three weeks. We should reject this motion.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I stand in support of Nick Smith, the honourable member who’s just taken his seat, to speak against the motion of the Government’s attempt to rush this amendment bill through the House. I’m asking, actually, the Minister, if not to rescind the motion, to ask his side to vote it down. It would be just one more incompetent action on top of a whole lot that we’ve seen in recent hours and weeks. The reasons are very simple: the New Zealand public have a right to be heard. They wish to come to the select committee. It’s been pointed out somewhat, in an earlier contribution, that previous opportunities to speak on what is now an Act of Parliament were denied—an Act of Parliament through, particularly, a major change in Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). There was no opportunity for the New Zealand public to engage. We have now found ourselves in a situation where the errors within that and within that process have made themselves manifest, and we on this side are saying, “Fine. Let’s then have a proper conversation.”

In some ways we hear many, many times from the other side “to be on the right side of history”—whatever that actually means. But if you want to be on the right side of history, then you look at history and you don’t make the same mistakes. We tried, in previous discussions around what this bill is related to, to be helpful, and, believe it or not, we’re trying to be helpful again to the Government in saying, “Give this bill the time that it needs, proper time in select committee, and allow the public of New Zealand to have their say so that the Government doesn’t make the same incompetent mistakes again.”

The reason we have this amendment bill is we have these two errors—two known errors; there will be more. I put that prediction on the table right now. There’ll be more errors, but, of course, they’re not willing to face that. Take this to select committee, give it full time, allow the public to come in and comment on these two changes, and, I would also say, if we had the right and full amount of time, other errors would come forward, we’d be able to amend the amendment bill and process, but no—no—this Government doesn’t care. They don’t want to hear from the public. They are moving the motion in this House to rush it through.

We’ve heard from members in their earlier speeches of why we need to rush this through. One said it was about life and death issues. Well, if it’s about life and death, perhaps New Zealanders would like to have a bit of a say. They might just like to come in front of the select committee for more than a couple of hours and have their say. We had—unfortunately, it’s becoming a bit of a theme—a Minister stand up and blame officials. That’s the second time in as many sitting weeks a Minister has basically thrown water at their officials, blaming the officials for the problems. Well, I would like those officials to come before the select committee. I’d like a full amount of time to sit down with those officials and have a conversation not just about why their Minister threw them under a bus but to understand how did we end up with these drafting errors and how do we stop that from happening?

I also think we need a further and proper—actually, not even a further; I should correct myself. We’re asking here just for the normal amount of time—just the normal amount of time. Another member stood up and said, “Who will think of the children?”—classic progressive go-to. Well, I’d like to think about the children, because I suspect some of those children and their families might like to come to the select committee during a full process to be heard. It doesn’t seem to really resonate with the other side. They’re not terribly interested. Their heads are going down. So if they believe this is an officials’ problem; if they believe this is a life and death issue; if they believe this is about the children, then, well, let the public come. In fact, let the elderly come, because this is a winter energy payment. Let them come, and let the Government take some responsibility for its legislation.

A last couple of points on why we should not be truncating: this is not just shortening; this it shortening it to 1 April. To the public listening, of course, what’s 1 April? April Fool’s Day. Well, it’s symbolic. It’s symbolic—why? I mean, look, that’s just another incompetent mistake. If you are going to truncate it, make it 2 April. Don’t cause yourselves heartbreak, guys on the other side. April Fool’s Day: it’s not a joke. The bill is not a joke. The amendment is not a joke. The winter energy payment is not a joke. Looking after our families is not a joke. Do not treat this House as a joke, and that’s what’s happening here. Three sitting weeks—three sitting weeks—and within that there’s only three sitting days of the Social Services and Community Committee. I have to say, they’re a hard-working committee—all of them. It doesn’t matter if they’re Labour, National, or Greens; they work hard. There’s a huge workload—and three days. And they don’t even sit all day; they sit for a couple of hours. They are racing this through. It is the wrong thing to do. This party has fought the whole way through to work with the Government, to make what is now an Act of Parliament right. We warned them then that mistakes would come through. Here are the mistakes. Do not repeat history. Let the New Zealand public have their say. Give this a full select committee process.

Last point—last point: there’s all this talk that people will miss out on payments. Guys, read the bill. You’re already paying out all those winter energy payments. This amendment retrospectively makes it legal. In other words, people will still get their money; the money that you’re, effectively, bribing them with, with their own money, but that’s a separate point. So they’re already getting the money. You don’t need to rush this through. We must return this to a full select committee process.

Well, I do want to take a brief call on this and only because it’s a process that we shouldn’t be observing in this Parliament. I do also want to state right at the start that I do have a vested interest in this legislation, of course, being one of those poor people that shivered all last winter, ever grateful for the $750 that Mr Faafoi gave me. Thank you very much, Mr Faafoi. So I don’t want to hold it up again, but I guess that’s one of the arguments we had right at the start about sharp process. This legislation—in fact, we’ve heard our colleagues talk about it going to a select committee for three weeks. Well, it actually doesn’t get three weeks, because this committee now needs to receive this legislation after it’s been read today in the House, and then it needs to determine how long it will open for submissions, and I guarantee not much time can be given for that. So the opportunity for any person to have a fair input into this legislation and to try and get it right is considerably less than three weeks.

The Hon Peeni Henare, who had the unfortunate task of introducing this legislation—I noticed the Hon Carmel Sepuloni didn’t want to introduce it herself. Mr Henare is embarrassed to have to do this—I accept that, and I guess he could have done one worse process than what he’s attempted to do, and that’s to rush it through under urgency with no consultation at all. But to open it up to three weeks, which, effectively, becomes two weeks, for people to prepare submissions and then put them before the select committee is a farce.

We all remember when the legislation was introduced into the House, and then a 500-page Supplementary Order Paper was presented on the day the House was to debate the legislation. I remember the debates clearly. In fact, I think I spoke in one of them, saying to the House that mistakes will occur because of rushed process. I’m far from convinced that rushing this process now and trying to slam it through before 1 April will not again lead to further mistakes.

This Government needs to get its act together, it needs to consult properly, and the worst aspect of the debate we heard on the first reading today was the Hon Tracey Martin having the arrogance to come down to this House and say “It’s not the Government’s fault. It’s the officials that got it wrong.” That is not appropriate.

The Government mucked it up, the Minister mucked it up, and the National Opposition warned the Minister at the time it went through that it would be mucked up. I’ll go so far as to say today in this House that because the process has been rushed like it is, almost unconstitutionally—because it’s being rushed, I will guarantee we’re back again, amending this legislation, and ironing out further mistakes because a bumbling, incompetent Government is not doing the job properly.