Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

First of all, I would like to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for their comprehensive examination of this bill. The process was fast, but it ensured that the changes proposed to the winter energy payment legislation accurately addressed the issues identified, while making sure people do not miss out on this vital support this year. I’d also like to thank the submitters who took the time to provide their views on this bill.

The bill amends the Social Security Act 2018 to align the legislation with the original policy intent. I want to make it very clear that no new policy is being introduced as a result of the proposed amendments. The technical amendments in the bill ensure that the people who were intended to be eligible for a winter energy payment receive these payments lawfully in the future.

The winter energy payment provides extra financial assistance in the winter months to everyone who is on a main benefit, superannuation, or veterans pension. As a form of financial assistance, the winter energy payment has the largest eligible population within the benefit system. The payment is in recognition of the increasing cost of living that often leads to those on fixed and low income struggling to heat their homes in the winter.

The importance of warm, dry, healthy homes over winter cannot be overstated. As mentioned before in this House, the winter energy payment has had a positive impact on the lives of many New Zealanders. We’ve received a range of correspondence from individuals expressing their genuine gratitude for the difference this payment will make or has made. One woman wrote, “Thank you very much for the winter energy payment. My son has autism and lives at home and gets supported living payment. I really appreciate that the Government cares about the least-privileged members of our community. Families affected by autism are often struggling, so the extra help is great.”

The winter energy payment was introduced as part of the Government’s Families Package in December 2017. This package has provided additional financial support towards accommodation, heating, and the costs of raising children from low and middle income families. The amendments will ensure that people in the following two specific scenarios continue to receive the winter energy payment in a lawful way in the future: people receiving Government funding for long-term residential care or residential care services but who are not eligible for residential care subsidy or residential support subsidy and people who are absent from New Zealand for longer than four weeks at any one time during the winter period. Clauses 4 and 5 of the bill ensure people in these specific scenarios are eligible to receive winter energy payments. After their consideration of this bill at the Social Services and Community Committee, the committee recommend by majority that the bill be passed with a minor clarification to one of the sections amended by the bill.

During the select committee process it was identified that the proposed wording in clause 4 of the bill for the amended section 72(d) needed a bit more refining. This was to ensure that only people who receive residential support subsidy are not eligible for the winter energy payments under that section. The agreed policy intent regarding people receiving residential care support was that people receiving residential support subsidy and residential care subsidy would not be eligible for winter energy payments. The previous wording in this amended section unintentionally captured people who are in residential care due to a long-term chronic health condition and do not contribute to the cost of their care and people who are in residential care due to an intellectual, neurological, physical, psychiatric, or sensory disability including, without limitation, an autistic spectrum disorder or a long-term chronic health condition and redirect their own benefit under a private arrangement with the provider.

There was also another issue raised during select committee which was raised earlier in the House by Louise Upston and now’s the opportunity for me to provide a more fulsome response to that particular issue. There is a small group of people—around 460 according to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)—who are in residential care and receive Government funding for this care: for example, if they have been the victims of crime and are also receiving a main benefit, superannuation, or veterans pension. MSD has no information about the funding they receive for their care, as MSD is not involved in undertaking financial means assessments for this group as it’s not required, and it continues to pay these people the full rate of their benefit. In order for MSD to identify the small group and change their payments, new systems would be required to share information between the Ministry of Health and MSD. MSD is determined that the most cost-effective, lawful, and practical option is to continue to pay this group the winter energy payment.

The amendments in this bill are technical and are in line with the original policy intent for the winter energy payment. The bill does not introduce any new policy. As I said before, the committee recommend by a majority that the necessary amendments are made to ensure these people are not unintentionally captured by clause 4 of the bill. I’d like to thank the committee again for their quick examination of this bill, which has ensured that the amendments accurately address the issues identified.

This select committee’s work has helped ensure we are on track to continue to provide the winter energy payment this year to everyone who is entitled to it. The winter energy payment provides financial assistance to beneficiaries, likely to be on the lowest incomes, and to older people, who are more often susceptible to ill health in winter.

We want to ensure that the winter energy payment continues to positively impact the lives of New Zealanders by helping eligible people and families to heat their homes over the winter months. This bill helps to achieve this. I know there has been some criticism of the fact that there was a drafting error and we’re back here in the House. It does happen occasionally. It’s happened under previous Governments. As the Minister, of course, I know that that’s not ideal, and I’m not particularly happy with it, but we have captured it in time, before the winter energy payment is paid out again in May. As I said, it’s good that the mistake was discovered and can be corrected within 16 months, as opposed to examples where we’ve had to wait 17 years before a mistake was discovered and corrected. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I do want to say that it was good to hear, earlier in this House, the Minister for Social Development taking responsibility for this unlawful spending, as we didn’t hear that in the first reading speech only a matter of a couple of months ago.

The Minister has just said that it was captured in time, but I want to just put on record, because it is really important that New Zealanders understand this, that the payments made to over 25,000 people were unlawful. They were not authorised by the Parliament and they were picked up—actually, there’s a bit of a time delay. The Minister was made aware of the issue months before, in June 2018, and then the Office of the Auditor-General raised it again in October as an issue of unauthorised spending, or unlawful spending. Over 25,000 people had payments that were not allowed for in the New Zealand Parliament’s law that was passed.

This is a significant issue. I know the Minister wants the House to just kind of brush over it lightly, but it is a significant issue to spend taxpayers’ money that this Parliament has not authorised. That’s what makes it unlawful. So it was great that the Minister took full responsibility for that. We didn’t actually get any assurance in this House, though, that it won’t happen again.

One of the reasons that the National Opposition members didn’t vote for this in the Social Services and Community Committee—it had a minority viewpoint in the select committee report and didn’t, of course, vote for it in the first reading, nor will we vote for it in the second reading—is because there is absolutely no guarantee that this piece of legislation, which is fixing an error in legislation that was rushed through the House—this fix piece of legislation has also been rushed. It has a shortened report back and insufficient parliamentary scrutiny.

We’ve had a Minister twice today sitting here telling us that she knows there is an issue, that there is a group of New Zealanders who taxpayers will fund their energy payments twice—doesn’t know the number. How is that acceptable? Taxpayers, I think, will be particularly concerned to know that there is a Minister who is quite happy to have rushed legislation fixing rushed legislation where the errors were originally made, and still having errors. That is just such poor practice. It’s hard to stress enough how bad this is, but this is a Minister who also dropped a 500-page Supplementary Order Paper in May, 24 hours before the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill, and failed to get the details right at that stage as well.

One of the issues that hasn’t been traversed—and the Minister didn’t mention it at all—is the fact that this is retrospective legislation. Now, members in this House quite rightly have been scathing in the past of retrospective legislation. So Chris Hipkins, in 2013 when it was the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill, said, “simply imposing this by way of a legislative override, effectively, of a whole lot of organisations—the Regulations Review Committee, the Ombudsman, and various others … to ride roughshod over those organisations through a legislative process is not the right way to do it. It is manifestly unjust. It is simply not right. Retrospective legislation is not right.”

So not only is this a piece of legislation that’s been rushed through the Parliament to fix a mistake because legislation was rushed through the Parliament without sufficient scrutiny, but now we have retrospective legislation, which, according to members on that side of the House—they have said, and I’ll repeat, “retrospective legislation is not right”. Here they go again—here they go again. It’s just not sufficient to say that this is a minor technical bill. It’s not. One of the results of this bill will mean that taxpayers will pay energy costs twice for a group of people who are in full-time residential care that is paid fully by taxpayers, and that group will get the winter energy payment as well.

Again, had there been sufficient time, had the Minister allowed sufficient time for this House to do its work, instead of sitting on her hands from when the issue was first raised in June 2018—if it was so minor and such a small technical change, why wasn’t the bill brought to the House? Why wasn’t the bill brought to the House in a timely manner so the Parliament could scrutinise it so that this particular issue with the taxpayers paying twice for energy payments could have been fixed? But no—no. We have a Minister who is determined to abuse the parliamentary process, to jam legislation through this House without sufficient scrutiny. Third time lucky—third time lucky. Unlucky, actually—poor performance is more what it’s about, and, you know, quite rightly, she takes full responsibility, which is as she should.

But this is legislation fixing something done under a rushed process without scrutiny. The fix is also a rush. It’s not fixing the problem, as the Minister herself has admitted, and, to cap it all off, it is retrospective legislation, which is a retrograde move for this House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. The hypocrisy—the hypocrisy of a contribution like that, blaming this Government for bad legislation in this House. I recall, this being my fifth year in this House—in fact, yours too, Mr Assistant Speaker—the amount of times while in Opposition we sat through the process of exactly what that member’s moaning about—exactly what that member is complaining about. What we see today is a Minister and a Government that’s actually taking responsibility, making sure we have the right pathway forward, and—guess what?—at the end of the day, making sure that families far and wide in this country receive the support that they need to stay warm this winter. How hard is that to comprehend? How hard is that to comprehend, to make sure that families receive support this winter?

The Minister gave examples of families that in the past winter, actually, were so grateful for the support that they received from this Government to make sure that their house was warm, that their house was safe, so that their families didn’t spend more time in A & E, more time at the doctors, and more time trying to care for the sick. What is wrong with that side of the House—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Quite a lot.

—when they can’t see what we are doing here? There is a lot wrong—there is. I am proud that in this reading of the bill, the bill will amend the Social Security Act 2018 to ensure clients in two specific scenarios are able to be paid the winter energy payment as the policy intended. The Minister explained it very clearly. In fact, I’m reminded of question time today. It takes a little while to sink in on the other side that, actually, the line of questioning and their approach to these kinds of debate are just simply wrong. The explanation given by the Minister in her contribution today clearly sets the record straight, and I look forward to visiting my constituents in Tāmaki Makaurau when they pat us on the back for making sure that them—

💬 Matt Doocey: For overspending.

—and their families are warm this winter. The member interjecting from that side of the House should understand that the name of his electorate is “cold water”. I look forward to his constituents saying that this Government is doing a good job to warm their homes.

I’ve got a lot of respect for the previous speaker, the Hon Peeni Henare, because he’s full of passion when he speaks. But for all the passion in the world, this can’t hide the truth. So let’s talk about the truth, about why we are here today. We are here today not just because of the passion that’s been shared on the other side, but because of a mistake that has been made. Let’s talk about that mistake. It was the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill of last year, for which, by the way, all the work had already been done by a National Government, so all they had to do was pass that piece of legislation through.

First truth, first fact: a 500-page Supplementary Order Paper, not a problem, technical in its matter, but, actually, it was turning around to change some of those issues in the bill. But here’s the point and the reasons why we’re here: they declared that it was policy-neutral; it wasn’t. What are the reasons why it wasn’t policy-neutral? It was because in all of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill—there you go, it’s a bit of a mouthful—there was one little chestnut that they decided to put there; that was called the winter energy payment. That means it was not policy-neutral. Why? It was introduced by this Government as a little chestnut they could turn around there—yeah, you could burn that little chestnut somehow. It was to warm the cockles of the hearts of the people out there in voter land—to turn around and say to them, “Look, we care for you—we care for you—because we’ve got this little chestnut; it’s called the winter energy payment.”

So here’s the problem and the reason why we’re here: it’s called the “R, S, and B”—in the trade we call it the “rip, shite, and bust”. In other words, when you rush something without doing the work, what happens? You make a mistake. So here’s the mistake that they made: they hadn’t done the detail, and the reasons why we’re here today is because of that mistake. Make no excuses about it. The Minister has said a mistake has been made—a mistake has been made. Why? It was because you put the little chestnut in, you didn’t do your work, you didn’t do your homework, otherwise we wouldn’t be here today. That’s the reason why we’re here.

Let’s talk about this little chestnut. Let’s see if this is really a chestnut that’s going to truly warm the cockles of the hearts in voter land, of the people out there. That’s a little bit of truth that’s out here. So this little chestnut that’s out there, what they haven’t told you is this: it’s a payment that will erode over time. How will it erode over time? In other words, it won’t last over the longevity of the people that you want to care for. Why? You haven’t indexed that piece of payment. What does that mean to the people on the other side, who may not understand what it is? That means that, as time goes on with inflation, if you haven’t indexed it, the amount will erode over time. In other words, that little chestnut will disappear—that little chestnut will disappear.

What would have been the difference under our family tax package? We would have made a difference to the beneficiaries that are out there, the so-called people that we care for, those elderly people that are out there, those seniors, and those superannuitants. Why? We indexed it so that there was longevity of payments over a longer period of time. So this little chestnut, this hopeful little piece that you put out there, isn’t quite as good as you’re making it out to be. You can turn around and say that there’s cold water on this side, but let me tell you the truth. To the people out there, the truth is that with all the passion that you can talk about, this will not make a difference.

We don’t support this, not because we don’t think it’s important but because it isn’t clearly the change that will make a difference in the lives of the people that we’re caring about. We don’t believe it’s going to truly address the issue of those that are in sight. Here’s the thing: people are now seeing that the Minister—and not only is it a problem, but, you see, the problem that they’ve found on top of the problem is that there’s over 600 people that are going to be paid twice; 600 people that are going to be paid twice. That’s right. So not only did we not fix the first problem in select committee, because it was rushed, we’ve now got another problem that they still haven’t fixed. Another 600 people out there—which, by the way, they’ve said, “Right, don’t worry; they’re only a small number out of the one million that are out there.” But that’s not the point, is it? The point is we’ve had one problem and now we’ve found another one. This little chestnut is not what it’s made out to be.

We don’t support this. We don’t support this, because the intent that the Government has turned around and said—it won’t make a difference. It won’t truly warm the cockles of the hearts of the people that we’re talking about, the superannuitants. The winter energy payments will be paid twice to people who should have been paid only once, and here we have the so-called gift that they give to the elderly. We know this—and they haven’t thought about this detail. You’ll be scrambling around and your advisers will say, “Oh, is that true? Is that correct?” It is true, it is correct. It isn’t indexed, so guess what: it won’t last the distance of time to make the difference. But don’t worry; you’ll come back to the House and you’ll have another amendment bill on the amendment that you’ve already made.

We don’t support this bill. It isn’t what it was called to be: to make a difference in the lives of people. But, on this side, we know that we can. If you just learnt a lesson to hold on to the things that are important, we wouldn’t be back here in the House again. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and take a call on this amendment bill. I’d just like to begin my contribution by acknowledging the passion from the Hon Alfred Ngaro, the member who has just spoken. Unfortunately, that is misplaced passion. It’s passion about technicalities as opposed to passion about the people, and that is what this bill and the winter energy payment are all about. It is about warming our people—so we are passionate about people on this side of the House. The Government has made a fantastic move in terms of looking after the people of New Zealand who need to have our help and assistance.

The winter energy payment is really great for families, particularly those who have children, to warm up their homes. It is fantastic for those seniors in our community who need to ensure that during the winter months, they stay warm. It will help to ensure that those 1,600 people per year who have died living in cold houses—it will reduce that significantly. This is particularly targeted social assistance, and that is what we are passionate about: to warm up our people, because it’s all about governing with heart.

Now, the Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill amends the Social Security Act to ensure that all the clients are able to be lawfully paid the winter energy payment as the policy intended. Now, although nobody actually missed out on their payments during winter last year, there was that technical error in the bill, which meant a few intended recipients received their payments despite the legislation technically saying that they shouldn’t have. This amendment bill makes sure that these people, who were always intended to receive the payment, are fully covered by the legislation.

The key scenario, in which the drafting errors were relevant, related to residential care and residential support subsidies. The winter energy payment is not paid to those who receive these subsidies, as their heating’s already subsidised. The drafting error, however, meant that some people who were not eligible for these subsidies but who did receive some other limited funding for residential care were technically outside the winter energy payment legislation. So these people still received the winter energy payment as planned, but the legislation did not technically cover them, and thus they were paid unlawfully, but this technicality, through this amendment, will be fixed. It was a very small group of people: fewer than 4 percent of those who received the payment.

I’d just like to acknowledge the Social Services and Community Committee for the further refinements that they’ve provided through the select committee process—good work there—and also note too the Minister and her speech this afternoon. The original draft of this amendment bill was a little unclear. In clause 4, the clause which inserts the new section 72(2)(d), and in the bill’s original form, a very limited number of people were unintentionally excluded from the winter energy payment due to those rare scenarios that have been outlined already.

The winter energy payment is having a positive impact on New Zealanders. It did last year; it will this year as well, and into the future. This is a very small technical fix, and it should progress quickly now through the House. On that, I commend this to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. We’ve heard some very passionate contributions from this side of the House, and it’s no surprise to me that people have got their dander up over here about the constant mess that this Government seems to find itself in when producing legislation and pushing it through this House.

I’d like to start my contribution to the Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill today, in its second reading, by saying that simply imposing this by way of a legislative override—effectively, a whole lot of organisations: the Regulations Review Committee, the Ombudsman, and various others—and to ride roughshod over those organisations through a legislative process is not the right way to do it. “It is manifestly unjust. It is simply not right. Retrospective legislation is not right.”—that’s a direct quote from Chris Hipkins on 2 July 2013.

The irony of this bill is that it is being rushed through to legitimise unlawful payments made last year to 25,000 people; that’s $3.4 million worth of unauthorised payments. Rushing through this legislation process to fix mistakes made by rushing through legislation is a recipe for disaster, and it’s a recipe for even further errors. We’ve already heard that this process is still going to leave gaps in the legislation. I am, of course, referring to the 500-page Supplementary Order Paper that was dumped on the House only 24 hours out from the reading of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. No scrutiny by the select committee, no public process, so no submissions, and here were are; this is what happens when you bypass the system, think you know best, and make mistakes.

We already know that we have got people now who are not captured by this quick fix, and they are people in residential care, who are now double-dipping on this winter energy payment. So how is the Government going to fix that? Or are you simply going to turn your back on the fact that 600 people are going to get this?

I’m going to make mention of Peeni Henare’s comments before, when he defended this winter energy payment and asked the question of this side of the House: he wanted to know what was wrong with us over here. Well, I want to say that he thought we should be happy that those who need it were getting the winter energy payment. Well, the reason we’re not happy is that the $450 that a single person is going to get from this payment, or the $700 that couples with dependents are going to get from this payment, still falls short of the $1,000 tax relief that they would have got before they reversed the legislation that would have brought that in last year. That’s why we’re not happy; because, actually, the people of New Zealand are being short-changed.

The one thing that they have forgotten, too, is that they have created this as a universal payment; there is no means testing. So it doesn’t mean that the people who need it are necessarily getting it; everybody is getting it. And there comes my point, and I’m sure Greg O’Connor would be disappointed if I didn’t mention that it is called a “winter energy payment” when, in fact, it has nothing to do with energy; people can spend this money on anything they choose. This is a “winter payment”. It short-changes the people of New Zealand because they don’t get to keep more of the money that they earn, and they don’t have the choices they would have had, had they had $1,000 more in their pocket.

We are not supporting this bill on this side of the House, and I would urge the Government to take more respect when they are writing legislation and use the well-established process that we have through our select committees. I do not support this bill.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call in the second reading of the Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill, which is, as already stated by the Minister and previous speakers, a minor, technical fixing of a drafting error, as this legislation went through under urgency, from memory, to make sure that the thousands of New Zealanders who were struggling to heat their houses because they were living on inadequate fixed incomes were able to put the heater on last winter.

When we hear from the other side that this was an abuse of process, that it went through quickly, and the Government is now fixing its mistakes, I’ve got to say that my priority is those people being able to put on their heater. I remember, during the election campaign, talking to a particular woman on supported living who was in my street, who spoke to me about having $25 a week left after paying her rent. She was struggling to manage her health, wanting to get better, and was not able to put decent food on the table or turn on the heater. She was living in cold, damp conditions. We all pay for that reality, where thousands of New Zealanders have been stuck in poor health and in their homes unable to participate because of the decisions of previous Governments to keep them stuck with inadequate incomes.

That was the urgency behind this bill: to give them the money to turn that heater on, to have a chance to be well, and to start turning around the 1,600 excess deaths that happen every year in this country because of the inability of many New Zealanders to heat their houses—10 percent, I think it is, of the country who are living in energy poverty because of our policies. That was the urgency behind this legislation.

I, also, just do have to comment on some of the debates that I’ve heard from the other side of the House this afternoon. It really does feel to me as if some people must have had their memories wiped, because it is not uncommon; I have sat in this House multiple times to fix drafting errors. It’s just a human reality that mistakes happen in legislation, and that Government, certainly, was not immune to that human reality. It’s weird to me—and I may have participated in the past—it is very strange to sit and listen to the political rhetoric that ignores that reality, and to try and put it down to factors other than just that human reality and that sometimes mistakes are being made. I understand that we may be in this House considering legislation that’s fixing up errors that were made by that previous Government. So I really hope that when they’re considering any legislation like that, that the members on that side of the House rail against their previous Government in the same way that they are railing against this one, because that would provide some consistency.

I also want to point out that the concerns in the quoting of the Hon Chris Hipkins and making a point against the misuse of retrospective legislation are not appropriate in this case, because in this case the retrospectivity was to ensure that people had something extra. It wasn’t taking away people’s rights but actually ensuring that people had some more money. That’s actually not something where the concern around retrospectivity applies. We usually have a concern when it’s changing the law and holding people accountable to a law that wasn’t in place, and that we shouldn’t hold them to a measure that wasn’t clear. That doesn’t apply when we’re giving people extra money to turn on their heaters.

I also just want to point out, again, the points that have been made about the fact that this isn’t indexed. I don’t think anyone on this side of the House is saying that the winter energy payment is the solution to poverty in this country. It’s very clear from the recent statistics around the still heartbreaking rates of child poverty in this country that we have much more work to do. This sat alongside other initiatives in the Families Package, and we still have more work to do if we want everyone in this country to have the chance of reaching their potential in life, rather than being trapped in poverty.

But I do want to point out the inconsistency, particularly when up against the fact we heard that, under the last Government, when they increased a payment for sole parents of up to $25 a week, they very rarely acknowledged that it was “up to” $25 a week. Very few people actually got that full amount and that was not indexed. So it does seem very strange to me that this Opposition is holding this Government to a standard that they did not hold themselves to.

I really think that we just need to go back to the core purpose of this bill, which is about fixing a drafting error to ensure that two groups of people who managed to get the winter energy payment but, because of the drafting lack of clarity the legislation didn’t support them getting it, are able to get it, which was the intent of the policy. So with that said, it warms the cockles of my heart and I do think—we heard there was a criticism that, you know, this Government was doing this to warm the cockles of people’s hearts.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: And their feet.

Well, shame on us—and their feet. I know, shame on us that we would want to bring a bit of joy and warmth into people’s lives! It’s something, personally, I’m quite happy to stand alongside.

I’m happy to take this call on the Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill. It’s been so interesting listening to the debate in the House today. Clearly, the Government is feeling quite embarrassed about what’s occurred, given the lovely words that have been fired across to us: we’re heartless over here, cold-hearted—we don’t care on this side of the House. Well, actually, we do care. We care about hard-working New Zealanders, hard-working taxpayers, in this country. We care about process and scrutiny on laws that affect all New Zealanders, and so we need to take the time that’s needed to get those laws right the first time.

So the intent of the bill is to recognise the cost of heating homes during winter. On the face of it, I don’t have a problem with it, if it was targeted to those who need it. There was no means testing applied to this payment and, not only that, but people who shouldn’t have received it got it, to the tune of $3.45 million. The devil is in the detail, and the devil is dancing gleefully over this $3.45 million.

So in the Government’s haste to remedy this $3.45 million mistake, we are now faced with amendments to fix the $3.45 million mistake, and, as a member of the Social Services and Community Committee, it’s fair to say that I have not been reassured that those issues of fairness and equity have been addressed, because the time taken to scrutinise was very insufficient. The bill is still not right, as those who are fully funded by the Government—those in full-time residential care, essentially—are having their power paid for twice. So I’m concerned that the changes further perpetuate the inequity and risk legal challenge from those who are excluded.

As I said, we didn’t get a chance to scrutinise, and there was a very shortened submission time. But I would just like to note a comment from one of the submitters, Josiah Tualamali’i, who wrote—and I just quote from his submission—“submissions have been open for 5 days of feedback which fell over a weekend … Seeing that hearings will be held the day following the closing of submissions also concerns me. These choices undermine the fantastic work being done to restore trust and increase engagement with Parliament. … One of the things I care deeply about is people trusting decision making institutions and [I’m] feeling like they can be genuinely heard—this undermines that work.”

I agree with Mr Josiah on that note absolutely. On that note, I do not support this bill.

This is a split call—five minutes.

It is an absolute privilege to contribute to the Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill second reading. I was at Māngere, where lots of people gave me their feedback on the winter energy payment, and one of them said, “Tell the Prime Minister: my dad said ‘Thank you. We can now turn the heater on.’”

I just want to remind the House that two types of New Zealanders benefit from this, as quoted by the Minister: people receiving Government funding, long-term residential care or residential care services but who are not eligible for the residential care subsidy or residential support subsidy; New Zealanders who are absent from New Zealand for longer than four weeks at any one time during the winter period.

It warms my heart that the winter energy payment touches almost one million New Zealanders—one million New Zealanders. And I want to acknowledge the—I don’t know what you call it—contribution on the other side when they talked about a short duration. But, actually, I want to thank the nine submitters, who in the past week wrote to us and voiced their opinions. So I want to thank Oliver Krollmann, Gary Wills, David Mannion, Simione Faagutu, Josiah Tualamali’i, Wendy Burgess, Rob Dowler, David Mannion, and George Sabonadiere. Thank you for taking the time to give us your opinion.

There is no need for us to continue. Winter is knocking at our door. We must pass this bill as swiftly as we can. Now, I want to end my contribution today by saying that I commend this bill to the House. Malo.

I call Nuk Korako—five minutes.

E mihi atu ki a koe e Te Mana Whakawā, huri noa i te Whare nei, ā, tēnā tātou.

[I greet you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and all in this House; greetings to all.]

I’m sort of sitting here and listening, and thank you to that last speaker who was very, very passionate. There’s been a lot of passion on both sides of the House—

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: Say her name.

—as we know. That outburst there actually reflects in some ways what’s coming from that side of the House—using the BS word and all that sort of thing—but what we have to understand here is that we actually have our job to do in the Opposition.

So just to highlight the reasons why we can’t support this bill, it is quite clear in the fact that, first of all, it’s not indexed. So what that does is it doesn’t give it the longevity that is needed for this particular bill. I think the other part of it is that there are parts of the community that it does not actually reach. As the spokesperson for Māori development, there has been a lot of feedback about this bill, particularly saying that the bill does not serve our kaumātua who live in extended whānau situations or circumstances with their adult children. So our kaumātua are, in effect, penalised for relying on whānau and being grandparents in the home of their mokopuna. So that is something that I think needs to be highlighted, and that’s what I’m doing here. The other part of it is that, sure, we can get through the poor drafting—you know, the fact that there’s no means testing. That is a very, very difficult one as well, because it actually allows some to receive it who don’t really qualify for it. And so we’ve got this situation of a $4.5 million mistake. So just to highlight, sort of, that part of it as well.

But I think the other part is that we did have, when we were in Government, the policy, particularly around our tax relief package, which would have provided a better financial return to our superannuitants, to our kaumātua particularly. So, hopefully, that little short rendition of why we don’t support this bill will go some way to actually trying to bring back some sort of decorum around this particular debate. Nō reira, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Kia ora.

It was very serendipitous that this morning, when I woke and my feet hit the floorboards, it was quite a chilly morning. I think, again, it is very serendipitous that we are discussing this very important bill and piece of legislation—

💬 Hon Louise Upston: How old are you? Are you 65?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): My age doesn’t matter.

—on this very day, because, as I say—actually, not everyone can rely on the constant scolding from the member from Taupō to keep themselves warm. Many is the time I’ve felt I’ve been scolded here—hold my hands up. It reminds me of being at the Westpac Stadium when those great big burners go off and we get a nice flash of heat. But, of course, back on to the bill. Not everyone can rely on that constant scolding to stay warm.

There are those who actually need it. Quite seriously, 1,600 people die each year from living in cold houses—1,600 people. So this is actually quite a serious issue. And the fact is that all the speeches we’ve heard from opposite have been very nit-picky little pieces about what we’ve got wrong. Actually, look at the big picture. Look at the fact that each of you—I mean, let’s just have some sums on this. There are 71 electorates in New Zealand. That means that 22.5 people will die in each of our electorates this year.

Putting some numbers on this, that’s actually quite serious, and so anything we can do to alleviate that is extremely important. Arthur Grimes, who I think is well known—I think he’s the ex-chairman of the Reserve Bank. I’m just quoting a Listener article he was quoted in here. He was, as I say, the senior chairman. Admittedly, he was talking about insulation, but he makes some very good points talking about subsidies, particularly insulation subsidies, especially for homeowners aged 60 or older, who are at the greatest risk of developing circulatory problems. He said, “This is where you get the biggest bang for your buck when it comes to insulation. They might not have heart disease now, but they may get it later, and I would say that as a group they should be targeted.” That just puts some perspective around the difference that having some money to pay your bills can make.

I know one of the previous speakers talked about money from this going into their wine cellars. Well, not everybody has one of those wine cellars. There are people who will actually need this and it will make a serious difference to their lives. For those who are listening at home, this debate, really—there’s been some accusations that, somehow, some people that weren’t entitled to this were getting something. No, that’s not what the debate is about. The people that were always intended to get this payment did get it last year, and now all this bill is doing is ensuring that those people are getting that payment again this year, which they obviously need, and it will hopefully prevent some of those 1,600 deaths that will occur, or perhaps would have occurred but for this payment. So I very much commend this bill to the House.

It’s always good luck, I think, to have one O’Connor follow another. I can’t support this bill, even as we reach the second reading. It’s fundamentally for two reasons: one is process, and one is principle. Look, the process around this bill has been appalling. At the end of the day, if you look at it, millions of dollars have been incorrectly spent, and it’s good to see the Office of the Auditor-General identify that. This bill is rectifying that mistake, and, I suppose, at one level you could argue that that is positive. However, this side of the House has been consistent, right from the start, in insisting that the Government do proper process around the winter energy payment and any changes, actually, to do with social services.

I’ve waxed lyrical on this a few times, but, fundamentally, we see in the social services space the Government is bringing in legislative—be it this around winter energy payments, or the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill, and, of a couple of days ago, one around Oranga Tamariki—changes which have been rushed through the Parliament, with the inevitable problems. Those of us on the Social Services and Community Committee did question officials if they were 100 percent sure that no more mistakes would be found. They’ve told us that; we take them at their word, but I have a sneaking suspicion we’ll be returning to this House at some point in this Parliament to fix up another part of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill.

The other reason I can’t support this is not because I don’t want our older citizens to be warm, but—and I’ve used the phrase before, and it’s not to be taken literally—you don’t bribe people with their own money. The winter energy payment is fundamentally about taking a whole lot of money off those elderly people through a tax system, packaging it up in something called the energy payment, and handing it back to them. It’s a highly inefficient way of dealing with things, in fact, if you view it as an analogy of heat, it’s a way that you actually lose an enormous amount of heat through the kinetic process. So I can’t support the bill in process or in principle, and so I do not commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to make a short contribution on the Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill. Despite the fact that members opposite have worked incredibly hard this afternoon to dramatise and sensationalise this piece of legislation, it’s actually a really simple, straightforward bill which amends the Social Security Act 2018 to align with the policy intent in two specific scenarios. Those are, firstly, those who are receiving funding for long-term residential care or residential care services who are not eligible for the residential care or support subsidies. The second group of people who will continue to receive the winter energy payment as a result of this amendment bill passing are those who travel overseas for over four weeks during the winter period, and this will allow them to receive the winter energy payment for the first 28 days of their absence. That’s, basically, what this bill does.

It amends drafting errors to ensure that those who are eligible to receive the winter energy payment and who received it last year will continue to receive it this year. That’s what it does. So the Opposition, who have given us a whole series of pretty mean-spirited speeches today—by not voting for this amendment bill, in effect, what they are saying is that they don’t think that people who fall into these two categories should continue to receive the winter energy payment this year.

At the Social Services and Community Committee, we received submissions, and my colleague Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki has mentioned the names of those who submitted to the select committee. Many of them wrote to us saying that they found the winter energy payment incredibly useful. It has helped them to keep warm in their rental homes, and that’s also the message that all of us on this side of the House have received time and again from people.

Members opposite—specifically, the member Agnes Loheni—said “We do care”, and then she went on to say, “We care about proper process.” What that says to me, on this side of the House, is that members opposite care about process over the well-being and the welfare of people, and that they would, out of spite, block a piece of legislation that keeps people warm. That, coupled with the fact that the Leader of the Opposition just earlier this week refused to rule out cutting the minimum wage, tells me that saying “We care.” is just words. I commend this bill to the House.

The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Social Services and Community Committee by majority be agreed to.