Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill and I intend to move that the bill be reported back to the House by Tuesday, 3 December.

This bill aims to make the rates rebate application process more accessible to eligible ratepayers and to increase the efficiency of the application process. The current application approach for this scheme, set out by the Rates Rebate Act 1973, requires applicants to make a statutory declaration. This involves them either being physically present at the council offices or meeting with an authorised person. This bill will remove the requirement to make a statutory declaration when applying to the scheme.

The priority for this Government is ensuring that all New Zealanders have access to rates rebates. We’re determined to remove the barriers for superannuitants to getting the rebate they are entitled to and deserve. The current requirement of applicants to be physically present is a barrier to people with physical mobility or other impairments that make it difficult for them to visit a council office. This scheme is for low income ratepayers, a significant number of whom are superannuitants. In the latest figures, 79 percent of applicants were superannuitants. Last year 102,000 New Zealanders applied for this rates rebate, which is a significant number. The average refund that was paid out was $582.50, which does make a big difference on somebody’s annual rates bill. For a person, this is a huge, huge benefit and of assistance to them.

Some of these eligible ratepayers may find it difficult travelling to a council office, especially when it is some distance away from their home. The current requirement for applicants to be physically present also imposes an unnecessary travel cost and can be, in some instances, quite time consuming. Another key reason is that researchers discovered that the physical presence acts as an inhibitor for some people because sometimes it’s just embarrassing, especially in small communities, to admit that you’re on a low income. Some applicants may still choose to travel to councils to get help filling out these forms or because they prefer this process to be a face-to-face experience. However, there’s no reason all applicants should have to be physically present to receive their rates rebate.

This change will also reduce administrative costs to local authorities. Many local authorities offer home visits to applicants who are unable to travel, which is an unnecessary burden on stretched council resources. The statutory declaration requirement also prevents councils from using technology to improve the efficiency of processing applications. Removing this requirement will enable councils to offer an online application process alongside a paper-based one. The application process without a statutory declaration is no less secure. When witnessing a statutory declaration, authorised witnesses are not required to verify whether the information provided is true, and it is an offence to provide false or misleading information. The risk of increased fraud from removing the face-to-face aspect of the application process is low because there are suitable fraud detection processes in place and the penalty for fraudulently claiming a rebate is very high.

This is part of the Government’s wellbeing programme to support our local bodies and their ratepayers to realise their ambitions and potential. Based on the four wellbeings—our social, economic, environmental, and cultural priorities—the Government will be working closely with our councils and communities to ensure greater influence on the design and targeting of public services that are provided by central government.

We’ve already made a significant change in this area earlier this year with the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill, which was passed into law in March. These changes in relation to the rates rebate began under my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson and corrected an anomaly under section 7A of the Rates Rebate Act. This assumed that retirement villages are all one separate rating unit. However, some villages are comprised of multiple separately rated units. The problem was that under some ownership structures, the eligibility of residents would be affected. The change that we implemented removed any confusion for councils as to who is eligible for the rebate. The second change related to the winter energy payment being included as income when assessing a rebate. This was not the policy intent of the winter energy payment; therefore the amendment in that Act fixed that also. Just to repeat, the Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill was passed in March earlier this year to ensure full eligibility for rates rebates for retirement villages and for those receiving the winter energy payment for 2019.

Coming back to the bill, in addition to the changes that we are currently seeking to make, I intend that it will be a much simplified process, primarily for superannuitants. I propose that for this new bill, a shortened select committee consideration time frame is appropriate for three reasons: first, there is significant support for this change, particularly amongst the local government sector. All parties affected by the change have expressed support for it. Second, removing the statutory declaration will provide benefits to applicants and local authorities with little risk. Third, the bill is short and makes a discrete change to the Rates Rebate Act. It was considered for inclusion in the Statutes Amendment Bill but members of the Opposition didn’t agree to that approach. I therefore commend this bill to the House.

Mr Speaker, thank you. The Minister who’s just resumed her seat, Nanaia Mahuta, is quite right that National did not support this clause in the Statutes Amendment Bill, which had the effect on the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill by taking away the requirement for a statutory declaration.

The reason for that was twofold. First of all, the Minister’s officials could not explain to me when I asked what the protections were going to be in the legislation in place of the statutory declaration, and I did ask for that information several times. It was disturbing to me that the officials could not enunciate what those protections would be. Secondly, because a statutory declaration is not that hard to undertake, given that justices of the peace are freely available in our society, they can be found in supermarkets; you can go to the local lawyer’s office; one can go to an MP’s office; council staff can sign those forms. So to put up an argument that there is a strong impediment to those eligible people making a statutory declaration simply does not hold any water, given that a number of those eligible people do, in fact, successfully make a statutory declaration and then uplift up to a $650 rebate on their rates, which National does support. It is a very worthwhile vehicle for people on lower incomes to find some relief from rates.

But the most concerning aspect to this bill, which has been, of course, excluded from the Statutes Amendment Bill and is now taking up the time of the House for this very small little change to the Rates Rebate Act—the major problem with it is that without a statutory declaration being required, there go the protections. I simply do not accept what the Minister has said, that the threshold against fraud has been not significantly lowered—I think, in the Minister’s words, minimal.

The Minister also said councils have processes in place. What processes? That hasn’t been explained in any of the documentation that I have read around this rates rebate bill, apart from a note which does say that under the Rates Rebate Act there are processes in place. What processes? What are the penalties? Nobody has enunciated that.

And then the next question that follows: who’s going to determine whether or not an untrue application has taken place? The onus goes from the Oaths and Declarations Act straight back to that local authority. So what does that local authority do—open a new section which is to check the veracity of applications for a rates rebate? That’s what it seems to be pointing to. So it’s that complete lack of checks and balances which will now prevail in this Act, because the reality is that, I suspect, the Government parties will agree to this.

But, in effect, we have taken a perfectly workable regime, under the Rates Rebate Act, where there is a statutory declaration which is provided for in the Oaths and Declarations Act, to be replaced with very little.

In fact, my last point on this is just to highlight what little protections there are there now. It is up to each and every council to formulate their own process for verification of the application as made to them. It has to get the approval of the Secretary for Local Government. So if that doesn’t speak to red tape, I don’t know what does. And if that doesn’t speak to adding cost on to local councils, also known as ratepayers, then I don’t know what does. What is being achieved? A sop, and that’s about all.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Quite a hard debate to follow, actually, over here, having quite an emotional reaction to some of the statements that were made by the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean, trivialising what this bill intends to do, and the challenges—the very real challenges—that are faced by people in communities like mine; a very rural community. I will speak to that in detail and I will also respond to the points that were made that there is no measure in place to require accountability and compliance of the law. I think it would have helped if the speaker had have read the scheme before giving the debate this evening.

First, I want to start by acknowledging the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, for introducing this bill, which I know is going to have an impact in my local communities in Northland. I will speak to the specifics of that when I give a few examples. I also want to acknowledge the preparatory work that has gone into the bill thus far. It looks like it is only a small amount in that it’s removing one part, which is the statutory declaration requirement, but it is a very considered piece of legislation that is being put forward. It is trying to address a problem which has actually been identified by the department itself and by the Department of Internal Affairs’ Service Innovation Lab. So I want to commend the Minister for introducing this bill.

Now, what it is proposing to do is to remove the statutory declaration requirement within the legislation, because it is seen as an impediment; something that is perhaps prohibiting people from fully accessing the scheme that has been in place since 1973. I think that the Rates Rebate Scheme is a scheme that we can be proud of. It is a scheme that makes available a rebate to New Zealanders who fall within the low-income bracket. The amount of money available for the rebate has been going up over time. The average is in the late $500s that has been granted, but, actually, more recently moving up to $610, $620, and, in the coming year, $630.

Now, that is a significant amount of money for people who are on low incomes, like many of the people who live in Northland. What I know is that we have one of the lowest average incomes in the country. When I look at a table of information available on the department’s website, I’ve highlighted there—in the Far North District, the Kaipara District, and the Whangarei District—the uptake that we have of the Rates Rebate Scheme.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I think the member has gone past the period where she can have a general discussion about the Rates Rebate Scheme, and she’s now to focus on the changes that the bill entails.

Yes, I am coming to that point, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Four hours—four minutes later. It just felt like four hours, I’m sorry.

Well, it is important to set the context to say why removing the statutory declaration is actually going to make a meaningful difference to communities like Northland. While we have a pretty good uptake currently, there is capacity for more. In talking to people in my electorate, the issues that were identified with the statutory declaration—which are mentioned in the paper and were mentioned in the Minister’s speech—was, first and foremost, access to council offices.

So if you consider the Far North District, for example, we are a huge district, from Cape Reinga to just north of Whangarei, in Hūkerenui. Our service centres are in Kaikohe, in Kerikeri, a centre in Kawakawa, Kaitāia—so that’s some distance from Te Ranga, Te Hāpua, Te Kao, and all those, who would have to travel a long way to Kaitāia to access the rates rebate and give a statutory declaration. What the removal of the statutory declaration requirement would achieve for those people who live in Te Kao and Te Hāpua, who, we know, are likely to be able to access this scheme because of the low average incomes, is that they wouldn’t have to travel over an hour to Kaitāia using their own cars or somebody else’s cars, using money to go and access a small return.

What removing the statutory declaration would allow them and the council to do is actually make the service available online or by paper. I know for a fact that they would use this system in areas that are particularly some distance away from our service centres. The other thing to remember is that we don’t have a public transport system in most of Northland, so that is not an option for many people to travel to these centres. Some of the centres are part-time centres, so not always open and the services aren’t available. I understand from talking to the Far North District Council that they do not do private visits to people’s private homes; some councils do, at an additional expense to them.

So what councils who have given feedback on this proposed legislation have said about the process is that it would allow them to modernise their processes to be able to use the option of online and paper-only, which would suit their communities, but currently the statutory declaration requirement and them being physically present at a council office does not allow them to be able to put that type of process in place.

The other example that the report identifies, that I can think about, is that in Northland, we also have, for residents in Russell, where there is a large part of the population who are superannuitants, who are, generally, the largest uptake of this, and North Hokianga, have to catch ferries, and the gold card doesn’t apply to our ferries in Northland, and it is something that they have complained about in terms of health services that I think would equally apply to this. So it is inhibiting our ability to provide what is, really, a wonderful scheme.

The other issue that was identified by the department is embarrassment. If I could give you an example, which I found quite alarming, of an experience up North, there were groups of people waiting for their turn to be seen by the rates rebate team. They were required to turn up—because that’s a statutory declaration requirement, to be physically present—and they were to wait to be called. They would sit at a desk in a communal hall with many closely spaced tables. Sometimes they already had their information about their income details, and they sat there, and while they sat there, those details were given back to them to confirm as part of the statutory declaration, with no privacy. And they found that incredibly degrading. They hoped that no one would see them entering—you know, to know that they were going in to ask for assistance. It was hard enough in the first instance to ask for assistance but to publicly do so made it twice as hard for them. So this bill actually acknowledges that one of the very real challenges that people have is embarrassment in accessing something that they are entitled to under our law and under the 1973 Act. If removing the requirement to be physically present for a statutory declaration can be done, then it could make this easier for our communities to access and better for their wellbeing.

Now, I just want to respond to the point made earlier that there’s going to be some harm caused by not having this requirement for a statutory declaration and that it’s not that hard to just get in your car—assuming you have one and you have the money to put petrol in it—to go down to your local council office, which is an hour away and a ferry across, to make your statutory declaration in person. Or we could go to a JP. Now, interesting, because I’ve been doing a project locally and in our spread-out community of Northland there are actually huge gaps where we don’t have any current justices of the peace to be able to serve our communities for things like this.

So, you know, I look at Kāretu, I look at Waikare, for example. It’s a 45-minute drive to Kawakawa, assuming you have a vehicle or somebody who can take you in—over some of the worst roads in the country, by the way. And we don’t have a JP in those towns—sorry, not even a town; in those communities—so that’s another issue that we have to address. But it wouldn’t prohibit them, if this goes through, being able to access their rates remission, and I know plenty in the community there who would be able to, because they wouldn’t be physically required to present to give their statutory declaration to access it. And we’re getting marae digital connectivity and so they’ll be able to do it down at the hub. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the chance to talk to the first reading of the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill. The scheme is a central government - funded rebate for low-income ratepayers. Applicants, as we know, apply to local authorities who then grant the rebate and then there’s a subsequent refunding by central government. And those of us who’ve been involved in local government, and indeed as MPs for statutory declarations, know well—quite well—this particular scheme. So what this bill is doing is taking away the statutory declaration obligation and allowing for officials to rejig the application form. So quite straightforward, but our issue on this side of the House is the very curious and strange timing of this bill.

The reason we find it’s very strange and curious for the timing is that the Productivity Commission’s draft report recommending that this whole scheme be abolished and come back in another form as a national rates postponement scheme, that particular draft report is due out just but two months away—the end of November, just two months away. So why are we doing this right now? It’s a complete puzzle to us that you would head into what is clearly strange timing when you’ve got the Productivity Commission and they are looking at, of course, the inquiry into local government funding and financing. They recommend that this scheme be replaced and their draft report is coming out. The Minister of Local Government knows this.

So, on this side of the House, we’re saying your timing’s off. It makes no sense. It certainly is an absolute indictment for nothing other than the Government filibustering its own bills, delaying on a deficient legislative programme. And the last speaker before me, Willow-Jean Prime, taking up the full 10 minutes is nothing short of an example of exactly what—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will now start addressing the bill.

Mr Speaker, we oppose the bill.

I’m very disappointed in the previous contribution by Denise Lee. The Opposition say that they support the Rates Rebate Scheme. They talk about how it’s good for people to have access to the scheme. But then on the other hand they don’t seem to be supporting this piece of legislation. I’m hopeful that they will vote for it but from the two speakers I’ve heard so far, it appears that they’re not going to be voting for the scheme. They’re asking why we’re doing it now. Well, the reason we’re doing it now is because we’re supporting our superannuitants. As we’ve heard, 79 percent of those who take up the Rates Rebate Scheme are superannuitants and those people have contributed a lot to this country and it’s our way of honouring them.

Now, talking about some of the specifics in the bill here, the bill removes the requirement, as we’ve heard, to make a statutory declaration when applying for the Rates Rebate Scheme. I’d like to endorse the comments that we heard from one of the previous members who spoke quite vividly about how the superannuitants, particularly, in this case, have to physically go to complete their statutory declaration and for a lot of them, as very proud people, it can be quite a challenge for them to, you know, acknowledge that they are on a low income. Now, many of us in this House know what it’s like to be on a low income at times. For a period of time, my wife and I were on a minimum wage with two children and it was quite difficult and there was a humbling aspect to that. One of the key aspects of this bill is around providing that anonymity for people who are in that situation, and particularly for our seniors who are at times vulnerable.

We’ve heard the word “wellbeing” spoken about in this debate and I’d also like to highlight that aspect. This bill is about the wellbeing of those who, for whatever reason, happen to be either on low incomes or on fixed incomes, and often for our superannuitants it’s both. They might be on a pension, some of them might still be paying rent, they might still be paying a mortgage, and there’s not a lot of money coming into the household, and they are on a fixed income. As we know, last year 102,000 New Zealanders applied for the Rates Rebate Scheme. And the average refund that we heard from the Hon Nanaia Mahuta was $582 per year—

💬 Hon Peeni Henare: How much?

—$582. That is a significant amount—that really is a significant amount—and that’s about looking after people.

This is an absolutely fantastic scheme. I’d also like to acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson, who’s done work in the past few years to extend this scheme into retirement villages so more people can have access to the scheme. It’s $582 and when you add that to the winter energy payment that this Government brought in, you’re getting up to around a thousand dollars a year for many of those people.

Now, just sort of diving into some of the key aspects of the bill here, this bill reduces the local authority costs and enables applications to be made through multiple channels, for example, online. Now, we have the local body elections up at the moment and rates are a big issue. We constantly hear candidates saying, “We will lower rates.” One of the ways that they could potentially lower rates would be for the council to not have as many costs.

💬 Hon Member: Ha, ha!

💬 Ian McKelvie: That’s clever.

And this bill makes it cheaper round the processing fees. Yes, it may be at the margins and some of the members are sort of joking there, but it does. It certainly does make it a bit cheaper for those councils.

And there is, for example, the online aspect, and I would like to highlight while I’m talking about the online aspect that it is important that as society does move online, there still is the opportunity to pay using cash. I heard an example recently of someone who went to a council to pay—I think it was a parking fine—and literally could not pay with the cash. They were standing there and they couldn’t pay because they said, “You have to pay it online.” And so the person behind the counter used their own card to actually pay for it. Now, I digress slightly—

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, too far.

—but it relates to the aspect of being able to pay online. And it is important that we do get that balance right. So it reduces local authorities’ costs to administer. It links in with the four wellbeings in terms of social, economic, environmental, and cultural. And, I think, particularly the social, because the point that I began this with, I believe, is a very important point, that the wellbeing—and for particularly the mental wellbeing of people who are on low incomes, having that anonymity is certainly an important thing. Seventy-nine percent of the applicants were superannuitants last year, and the 2013 Disability Survey found that 49 percent of those over the age of 65 have a physical disability. So those with a physical disability, giving them the option to be able to apply for the scheme at home without having to physically go somewhere, it makes sense; it increases the access. I am surprised that the Opposition haven’t picked up on this. The Opposition talk about how the rates rebate is a great scheme, but why wouldn’t they want to increase access for people, particularly people with disabilities? As we know, 49 percent of those over the age of 65 do have a physical disability. We support the bill because it removes a barrier for eligible applicants to apply. So the key aspect here is about access.

There’s another aspect about wellbeing: it reduces the local authority costs to administer the scheme, enabling local authorities to provide an online application. The bill also makes a minor word change to allow application forms to be approved by the Secretary for Local Government. Now, why is this important? It’s important because it would allow local authorities to design and supply their own application forms for use. So it gives a certain sense of autonomy to local councils around the forms that they want to use, and it’s important that we do get that balance right in terms of central government not being overly heavy-handed with local government. It’s about collaboration, and this Government is certainly committed to collaborating with local councils. An example of that collaboration, here in this bill, comes through that, where the councils can supply their own application forms for use and they can administer it online. So, basically, they have the freedom to do that.

Look, we’re certainly determined as a Government to remove barriers for superannuitants, and it’s important that we value superannuitants. We’re coming out of a previous Government—nine years—and I’m not convinced that they did value superannuitants. I’m not convinced that they did. But this Government? The winter energy payment, the Rates Rebate Scheme, this piece of legislation here—making the Rates Rebate Scheme more accessible is a key way that we are valuing our seniors. We’re valuing all they’ve given to society. The scheme ensures that people entitled to super on a low income can easily access that part of the Government’s wellbeing programme.

I think that I’ve covered all the key points there. So I spoke about the wellbeing, linking in to the winter energy payment, the fact that—particularly our superannuitants’ access of it, and particularly the aspect around access. I have challenged the Opposition, saying why won’t the Opposition support this bill—why won’t the Opposition? I’d like to hear a good reason—one good reason—why the Opposition won’t support this bill. The Opposition say they support the Rates Rebate Scheme but they won’t support access, and I would like to hear that. I’m hopeful that the next speaker from that side will give us a clear example of why. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. My main reason to stand and oppose this bill is because of what Jamie Strange wanted to know—two reasons I’ll give him on why are we opposing this bill.

First of all, we know there was a draft report by the Productivity Commission in July which said that they will be coming up with the final report in November about this issue. So we could have waited till November to know what the Productivity Commission is saying, and that is the first reason. The second reason is that the Government doesn’t have enough legislative programme and they are just trying to filibuster these kinds of bills to fill in the time. We are seeing that the MPs from the Government’s side, they are just filibustering this bill. The speeches could have been wrapped up in two minutes—said why they are supporting it—but they’re filibustering it. So these are two reasons that we can see why the Government has introduced this bill. We oppose this bill.

E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand—[Interruption]—to support—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look, can we just calm down? Just calm down. It’s only Tuesday night. Give the speaker an opportunity.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Absolutely, Madam Speaker, and I am sure things will get more robust as we progress into members’ day tomorrow. But I am proud to stand tonight, on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, as our sole speaker on this piece of legislation supporting the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill, progressed in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, the Minister of Local Government.

This is, as many members of the National Party, the Opposition, have mentioned, a relatively small bill in size, but the impact that it will have, particularly on those of lower incomes, particularly superannuitants, who, I would note, are often invoked by the National Party as those who they would like to be supporting—it will have a massive impact. That is because of section 13 being changed, that being the form of verification required when one is seeking a rates rebate. It removes the requirement for a statutory declaration, and enables a far more accessible and cost-effective process which actually may be far more aligned with internal local government or council processes. To quote from this bill itself, it states—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry to interrupt the member. We’ve got two whips over here standing up having conversations. Now, if you want to have a conversation, you either go out in the lobby or you sit down next to someone and have that conversation.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I hope that the whips are paying attention to this incredible piece of legislation and the speech that I’m giving on behalf of it. So, returning to new section 13, that being “Form of verification”. It states here that “An application that is required to be verified in writing for the purposes of this Act must be verified in a manner and form approved by the Secretary for Local Government.” For those who are listening at home, what this essentially means is that no longer are those who are seeking rates rebates going to be shackled with a process which can be somewhat prohibitive, whether it is in costs or in complexity. Instead, we, through this process of removing a barrier for eligible applicants to apply for a rates rebate, will be allowing local authorities to provide an online application process alongside a paper-based process.

Importantly—actually, as members of the Opposition have raised in their contributions so far—this did come out of the Service Innovation Lab, which is a small group of dedicated, innovative individuals within the Department of Internal Affairs, ably captained by the Hon Tracey Martin. They recommended that this was one of the things that we could do. It’s certainly not everything; it’s not the panacea. It’s not going to fix things like this Government is focused on, such as inequality, overnight but it is going to make life easier for some New Zealanders, particularly those retirees and superannuitants. Importantly, for members of the Opposition who may not yet be accustomed to the process that those who currently seek these rates rebates have to go through, particularly if they have disability or mobility issues, it may be the case that staff from local councils have to make home visits, which, surely, members of the National Party would understand incurs costs on local governments, on councils.

What we’re proposing here is for that online application process which reduces those costs for local governments—Mr Ian McKelvie, I’m sure that we’ll see you standing shortly and making an impassioned speech in favour of this wonderful piece of legislation. But I would state, with regard to this being an identified barrier inside the Service Innovation Lab report—as well as the difficulty for those with mobility issues or disabilities in accessing rates rebates as they currently are required to, through the statutory declaration process—it’s also the case that it can be somewhat embarrassing to come forward in front of a local council, or to speak to employees of local council, and to make yourself known as somebody who is in need of a rates rebate. You literally, at present, have to go before those people and ask for that handout and you need to prove it and you need to go through a process—that process being all the more embarrassing and compounded if, for example, you do have the likes of those mobility issues, which currently, arguably, are people who are discriminated against under the status quo, which does not allow for that ease of access to those rates rebates. Surely we want a more accessible society for all.

The other important fact is that this bill makes a minor wording change—that being in new section 13, which I quoted from earlier—to allow those application forms to be approved by the Secretary for Local Government. This, essentially, allows for local councils to design, to create—potentially to co-create with their local communities—the kinds of forms that those who are going through the rates rebate process would like to use. Ultimately, that means that it can be easier for citizens in those local communities to access those forms, regardless of whatever their needs may be, but also it enables local councils to align these forms and these processes with their local internal unique processes, which in turn has a knock-on effect with regard to potentially enabling further cost savings and further cost reduction, which I’d state is something that was raised by my colleague Jamie Strange, from the Tron, which I visited recently. That’s one of the many places where you have local government candidates who are promising some really out-the-gate, off-the-wall kinds of proposals around cutting rates and somehow meaning to also increase services. I’ll leave it to those candidates before local communities—such as those that the people who are hopefully listening to and enjoying this debate tonight get to press those candidates on.

What we’ll see with this legislation passing through the House tonight—because it absolutely does have the support of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand—is that this bill will go before the Social Services and Community Committee. There we will have one of the fundamental premises of the National Party Opposition’s opposition to this bill tested—that being that local governments don’t want it to happen. So to any who are engaged in their local government processes who may be listening to this debate tonight, I would suggest that you go out there and you turn to Parliament’s website and you make a submission. It’s absolutely your prerogative in which way you’d like to make that submission, but, based on the rationale that’s being progressed by this side of the House and the absolute lack thereof by the Opposition, I would hope to see that you would be in support of something that increases ease of access and reduces cost on your local community.

Further, in my final minute and a half, I would like to acknowledge, as others have before me, the incredible work of the Hon Ruth Dyson and the amendment that she brought not too long ago to this Rates Rebates Act to seek to again reduce costs and increase access to the Rates Rebate Scheme. As members of the Opposition, and indeed members of the Government, will see here, what we have is a situation where we are chipping away at a flawed status quo. Absolutely, as I have said in my introduction, this is not the panacea, this is not the Holy Grail, and this will not fix inequality or poverty overnight but what it will do is make life slightly easier for those everyday New Zealanders that the Hon Simon Bridges finds himself banging on about so frequently.

I’d just like, in my final 30 seconds, to address the point made by Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi with regards to the Productivity Commission—its draft report being released in July and the final report coming out in November. That report concerns, in particular, some of the more innovative ways that we could look at raising revenue for local councils, and I’ll take from his contribution that the National Party is interested in how we can increase resources for local government in this country. I’m looking forward to their support there as well.

First of all, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the previous speaker, the honourable member Chlöe Swarbrick, on your member’s bill passing through the Governance and Administration Committee. It’s a very good bill. The previous speaker mentioned that this is a relatively small bill and that the purpose is to make this society a more accessible society. I want to say this bill is actually smaller than Chlöe Swarbrick’s bill, because this is a very, very small, piecemeal bill indeed. That bill also tries to make it more accessible to people to participate in elections. That’s good—yes, a very good bill. That’s why we have unanimous support for that particular bill.

Now, this bill itself, as I said, is very small, and also there’s no need—as our previous speaker, Kanwal Bakshi, just mentioned—really, for this particular bill, because the Productivity Commission is going to release the final report in just, say, over months. The draft report has come out and has suggested that we need to somehow abolish this particular scheme, and therefore there is no urgency to do this particular bill. But why is the Government doing this?

💬 Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: Because they don’t have anything to do.

Yeah—because they are living in poverty: poverty of ideas. They don’t have ideas—exactly. They had so many working groups, but in the end—in the end—there are no ideas. So they are trying to filibuster their own bills. This is very ironic.

I have to say, my fellow committee members, like Ginny Andersen and the Hon Peeni Henare and also Jamie Strange—oh, he was here—and some others, and Paul Eagle—these are very good members. I love to work with them, but tonight they are trying very hard to filibuster their party’s, their Government’s, own bill. Good luck to them, and I would like to see them tomorrow in high spirits. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. First of all, before I begin my speech, I’d just like to address Dr Jin Yang around his comment about living in poverty. I thought it was very interesting that the entire group across in the Opposition laughed, as if there was something wrong with living in poverty.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we just get on with the bill. And it’s Jian Yang—Dr Jian Yang.

Jian Yang—thank you.

So to the bill: it’s an utter pleasure to stand and take a call on this bill. The Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill is a small but good bill, and I want to congratulate the Minister, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, for bringing this amendment and bill to the House. It is an interesting bill in that while it is small, this good piece of legislation is the kind of thing that my community is really looking for. As you may be aware, my community is filled with a large number of superannuitants, a large number of people who are in need of support. So, being the ninth least affordable city in the world, this is a bill indeed that will support my community.

I’m also delighted that the bill is coming to the Social Services and Community Committee. I am a member of that, and, to endorse the member Chlöe Swarbrick’s comments, I look forward to the submissions.

Now to the bill: the statutory declaration creates physical and financial barriers. So, by doing away with the physical and financial barriers, we’re actually enabling people to generally access this easier. Being physically present—and we have heard this—is quite embarrassing for people.

💬 Michael Wood: Will the member yield the floor?

I yield to the member.

💬 Michael Wood: I thank the member for yielding. Just on the point that she has raised, I wish to ask her a question by way of example. I have a woman who lives in my neighbourhood who is elderly and who, for various reasons, is unable to leave her home but is eligible for the rates rebate, and every year she has to come around to my house for my signature to be able to progress with her rates rebate. Is it likely that this bill will assist with her situation?

I thank the member for his question. Absolutely—this bill is designed, 100 percent, to support your elderly community member. I think it is important to acknowledge two facts, one fact being that she doesn’t need to physically be in person appearing, and, secondly, the other part of the bill is that she can actually do that online if she’s able to. So in answer to the member: absolutely, this will prevent her having to physically do that.

Now, it’s absolutely a delight to continue to talk on this bill because, essentially, as the member has asked the question, many of us need to think about the old people in our communities, or the infirm—those who are in wheelchairs or having difficulty accessing and getting access to this. It’s really important that we remember that there is the ability, absolutely, to now do this online. I’m really looking forward to hearing from the submitters, and I really hope, even though the Opposition are not taking very long calls, that we will actually have a number of submitters who will tell us how important this is to them and how accessible this will be for them.

So, finally, in conclusion, or just before I take a seat, I think it’s also important to note that local authorities are not going to incur the cost to mitigate these barriers any further. That’s really important for our communities, our local bodies, and that is important, essentially, because what we know is that this in-person compliance is absolutely—I guess it’s a 1970s piece of legislation that we’re modernising. I commend the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d dearly love to ask the last speaker a question too, but I don’t have time. I see my whip looking at me very sternly. Now, interestingly, this piece of legislation first came to this House in 1973, and probably I’m the only one that can remember that—oh, apologies, Madam Speaker. The interesting thing about it is that I’ve never once in my public life, which extends beyond most of you as well, had a complaint about the way the Rates Rebate Scheme operates for those it operates for. The only complaints I’ve had about it are the people who struggle to access it for various reasons. Now, the Hon Ruth Dyson did fix one of those with a member’s bill a year or two ago, but the other issue that I get a lot of is people who are living in trust houses who don’t have access to the Rates Rebate Scheme. That’s a real challenge, I think, for some people, but I think the Rates Rebate Scheme, in itself—it would be wonderful if we didn’t have to have a rates rebate scheme, because, frankly, that would mean everyone had enough money to pay the bills; they don’t have, and so it’s essential to have a rates rebate scheme.

I want to make one other comment on this, though, and the other interesting thing about this is that I don’t think that the alternatives to a rates rebate scheme are solutions that would work in society. We’ve seen various banks try, I guess, to find other ways of, effectively, mortgaging rates, and I don’t think that’s a good solution at all, because, effectively, what happens is that people go into those schemes not really knowing where it’s going to end. The interesting challenge now, of course, is that as life expectancy grows and grows and grows, your ability to pay the rates could very well end before you get to the end of your life, and so it’s a flawed scheme.

So the Rates Rebate Scheme is a good scheme, but, as I said, I’ve never seen once in my time someone who was eligible for the Rates Rebate Scheme struggle to access it because of the changes that are being made in this bill. So for that reason we don’t support the bill, because I think that if you’re going to get a handout from the Government, whatever your stage, you at least should be accountable in some form, and that’s what the current system of applying for a rates rebate—it just gives you some accountability, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. So we are not supporting the bill for that reason, basically, and I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to make a contribution at this first reading of the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill, and I do so with pleasure, because this is ultimately a bill that is about fairness and access and efficiency and, really, about choice as well. This is a bill that attempts to make the application process for rates rebates a little bit more accessible to those who need a rates rebate in the first place. It also aims to increase the efficiency of the application process.

So, currently, the way that the process is set out under the Rates Rebate Act of 1973, as the honourable Ian McKelvie has pointed out, means that applicants have to make a statutory declaration. This is problematic for a few reasons. Firstly, it means that they have to actually be present at council offices and to meet with people who are actually authorised to allow them to make a statutory declaration. So, I mean, to me, this is what this Parliament is here for. This is what Government is here for. It’s to make things a little bit easier for people who need it, and this bill will make it easier specifically for those who have a physical mobility issue or other impairments that mean that it makes it difficult for them to appear in person at a council or in front of an authorised person to make that statutory declaration.

We also know that for many who live in rural communities, this is a little bit difficult for them, to actually get to councils where they can make a stat declaration. Finally, we are also talking about a group of people who are on low incomes and therefore need the rates rebate in the first place because their rates are high, and so to add travel costs to the application process—which means not only do they have to take the time and make the effort to travel to a place to make this declaration but they also actually have to pay to be able to do so.

This bill, although it’s a seemingly minor tweak, will actually make life easier for people, and that, I thought, is what we’re here to do. So it is actually quite disappointing that exactly one week out from when we celebrate the International Day of Older Persons on 1 October, the Opposition is not supporting a bill that will actually make it easier for those very people, largely those who are on superannuation, to be able to access what is rightfully theirs.

As the Opposition has also mentioned the fact that perhaps we should abolish the scheme in its entirety, I thought at this point just to note that the Rates Rebate Scheme goes back a long way. It goes back to the 1970s, when Norman Kirk was the Prime Minister, and his focus was on getting good things done to those who need it most. He acknowledged that people who were paying off a mortgage were often struggling to do so and that they spent a significant portion of their income paying off their mortgage in order to be able to own their house, but every quarter they were slapped with a rates bill that was a challenge for them, especially those who were earning low incomes but were paying high rates.

I just want to remind the House where this comes from, when there’s discussion from members opposite about abolishing it. This is there for a reason. It’s not just a handout. It’s actually there to make life easier for people who are struggling to be able to afford to live. So let’s just remind ourselves of that, and also of the fact that over the time that Labour was in Opposition, from 1972 to 1975, the scheme started to be run down, and also the amount that people could earn wasn’t updated, the amount that they were paying in rates wasn’t updated, and so the number of people who qualified for the Rates Rebate Scheme fell off, and it was just down to a handful of people who could actually afford it.

I want to also just very quickly pay tribute to my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson, who then took this further, because when she was, back in Helen Clark’s Government, the Minister for Senior Citizens, she noticed that so many who were dependent on superannuation couldn’t afford to pay their rents. So some of those tweaks were done then, in terms of updating the amount that people could earn and rates and so on.

She also noticed that there was a proliferation of retirement villages—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I should have stopped this earlier, but we are actually focusing on this bill.

Yeah, no. I’ll come to that. I just wanted to place it in context in terms of—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I understand that, but we are focused on this bill, first reading.

Sure. So I will move on to my next point, Madam Speaker—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good.

—which is that, in addition to the fact that it helps those who can’t physically be there to make a statutory declaration, it also provides choice. It provides options so that it can be done online, and there’s no reason that all applicants should have to be physically present. It doesn’t take away the choice for those who choose to be, but it gives others an alternative as well.

The other point that I want to make is that it reduces the administrative costs to local authorities. As we know, there are certain authorities that have to make home visits to those who can’t physically travel or perhaps can’t afford to travel to councils to make the statutory declaration, and that is a burden on councils that is unnecessary. What this bill does is to do away with that unnecessary burden.

It also improves the efficiency of processing applications, because in as far as there was the requirement—well, there’s still a requirement—for people to be physically present and make a statutory declaration, it has meant that councils are then prevented from using technologies that are increasingly available to us to improve the efficiency of processing applications. So the tweak that this bill will make when it’s passed into law means that it makes things much more efficient for local councils as well, because it gives them that option of processing online applications alongside a paper-based one.

People listening to this might think that removing this requirement might make the process less secure. But actually it doesn’t, because currently, status quo, when somebody goes to make a statutory declaration, authorised witnesses aren’t actually required to verify whether the information given in that statutory declaration is actually true or whether it’s an offence for applicants to provide false or misleading information. But in fact the penalties are already quite high for those who choose to provide false or misleading information. So the risk of this process being somehow less secure because of the removal of the statutory declaration requirement is actually not true.

So just to summarise, I guess, this also sits alongside an increase in the rates rebate that was made slightly earlier this year, which keeps up with the cost of living, and that goes to the heart of what this bill does again, which is to make sure that those who are eligible for the Rates Rebate Scheme are able to access it in a way that is easier for them and it actually makes the process much more efficient as well for all those involved.

I just wanted to quickly point out—and it was actually just mentioned earlier that the Hon Ruth Dyson had made a change to do with rates rebates and retirement villages. This week actually marks the end of the first year of when that change came into place: 4,275 applications were received by 44 councils across New Zealand, which has seen a total of $2.5 million—

💬 Hon Peeni Henare: How much?

—$2.5 million—that has actually been given back to residents who were eligible for this. That’s what we’re here to do, to make sure that everyone who is eligible for a rebate like this is able to access it in a way that they choose to access it and in a way that makes it easy for them to be able to do so.

I, coincidentally, met with John Collins, who’s the executive director of the Retirement Villages Association, just this afternoon, when he gave me all this information, and he told me that that tweak that the Hon Ruth Dyson made has made such a substantial impact on the lives of those who otherwise would have been struggling. So, while this seems to be a bill that does something really quite minor, I would argue that it’s a bill that makes a substantive change to the lives of some of our older citizens who have been struggling. So I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I stand to speak to this Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill in its first reading tonight. I understand that my colleague Dr Jian Yang referred to it as a poverty of ideas from the Government. I refer to this as “Space Invader”. It’s really just filling the gaps of the Order Paper in order to give this Government something to do in this House, because they are actually impoverished when it comes to legislation on the Order Paper.

This bill is proposed to make it easier for applicants who want to apply for the Rates Rebate Scheme. But, in support of my colleague Ian McKelvie, in my time in local government I have never had anyone who has complained about the process they need to go through in order to get their rates rebate. I think what we have to remember is that this money is actually taxpayers’ money that we are redistributing to people, and the least they could do is provide some accountability for their declaration of the financial means to prove that they do qualify for a rates rebate.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: Why don’t you like old people?

That is a very small action—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll just remind the member that New Zealand First gave up their speech. You could have had a say.

—to undertake in order to give accountability to the taxpayers of New Zealand.

There is absolutely no cost to an applicant in having a statutory declaration signed. We know that JPs do it for free. They are spread across this whole country. They are provided in every public facility, in libraries, in council buildings, in their private homes, and I know they are spread to the four corners of this country. It is not a difficult process to get a statutory declaration signed, and all it does is confirm legally that something you are stating on that paper is in fact true. It’s not a big ask.

But we have this bill before us, and I know it’s been raised already tonight, but we have heard that the Productivity Commission delivered its draft report in July of this year and it’s actually going to recommend that this scheme be replaced. So in eight weeks the final report will be delivered that will be recommending that very thing. So I have no idea why we are here debating this bill, when the Productivity Commission is actually going to recommend that it is replaced. This is a complete waste of the House’s time. I’m not going to waste any more of it either.

Everyone loves a refund—everyone loves a refund. It’s a good thing. Why would you make it harder for somebody entitled to a refund to be able to receive that? I really don’t know and we haven’t heard any arguments tonight as to why that would be the case.

I vividly remember how important it was to get a rates rebate. I remember my grandmother—God rest her soul—in Nelson, dressing up in her Sunday best with her papers clutched under her arm, marching down to the council chambers in order to get her rates rebate. That was important and that made a substantial contribution to the income for that household. And she wasn’t alone. She wasn’t alone, because last year over 102,000 New Zealanders applied for a rates rebate and that brought the average person who applied for a rates rebate $582.50.

Now, my question is: how much would that rise to, how many more New Zealanders would have applied for a rates rebate and got another $582 in their pocket had this obstacle not been put in their way? Now, my grandmother was able to get out the door and walk down the road and take her papers with her, engage with the person behind the counter in order to sign her statutory declaration and receive her refund. But my question is: what if those things don’t apply? What if there are barriers to being able to do that?

It is a priority for this Government to ensure that all New Zealanders have access to a rebate on their rates. We are determined to remove any barriers for superannuitants, or anyone else who has a disability that would prevent them from accessing the money that they are rightly entitled to. So what about the person that is not able to attend the council office? What if there is a barrier in that way? It takes time, and it takes money.

The other big issue in this space that hasn’t been discussed tonight is that often, in small communities, particularly rural communities, there’s a lot of stigma attached to going and getting a rates rebate, by having to go out and line up with others and fill it out, whereas if this was available online, as it already is with your GST return and your IRD return—you can do those online, but, for some reason, National Party members don’t believe that people who are getting a rates rebate are entitled to the same ability online—not quite sure why. But it removes that stigma of having to go and ask for a return of money if you are of a low income, and that is important to accessing, for people who need it, to be able to receive that income return.

The other point that would apply to those people in rural communities is how you get to the council office, particularly if you’re over 65. We know, for a fact, that there are quite a few people over 65 who are no longer able to drive their own car. So in those rural communities, where there may not be regular public service transport systems operating, this is a real barrier to stop people getting what they’re rightly entitled to. If there are online services, that would make that far more available for them to do it.

The other point that’s important here too is the issue around disability, and we know for a fact that 79 percent of applicants to the scheme in 2017 and 2018 were superannuitants. But the 2013 Disability Survey found that 49 percent of those over 65 also had a physical disability, and that’s a real impediment to enabling people to receive money that they are rightly entitled to. Based on these figures, we can assume that many applicants of this scheme may have a declining physical impairment or declining mobility, and so that is really important to make sure that we are facilitating that. The requirement to be physically present also adds to the costs for travel, whether that be public or even private. So considering the fact that these people are eligible for receiving a rates rebate, for the very reason that they are of low income, additional barriers are being presented for this.

So what’ve we heard in terms of reasons tonight as to why you would deny a person entitled to a rates rebate from having the ability to do that online? I haven’t heard one mention, and this is typical of National Party. You’ll talk about filibustering, but this is an important right for human beings in New Zealand, and it’s important that they have access to that extra $580; $580 might not matter to the members opposite, but there are people in my community where $580 in their pocket is a whole lot of money. It’s a whole lot of money for grandchildren or extra shoes or extra things around the household, and I’m prepared to stand up and argue for that.

So when we think about why you would not be entitled to being able to decline the statutory declaration, the only argument I’ve vaguely heard was the one raised around fraud: that there was going to be some sort of great downward slide into over-65 people defrauding the rates rebate system because they are no longer required to come in and make a statutory declaration. Well, I really struggle to accept that as a valid argument, and I would want to point out, by looking at the problem definition objectives in terms of the RIS—regulatory impact statement—that in the 1973 bill, in addition to it being made an offence to make a false declaration it is also an offence to provide a false statement, to wilfully mislead anyone involved in the administration of the scheme—so that’s already covered off—and to provide a false or misleading answer to any question. Therefore, in the absence of any statutory declaration, there are still sufficient measures in place to address fraudulent claims, and to deter them.

So the one argument that we’ve heard tonight as to why people should not be able to do this online simply has no grounding at all. If you’re already moving to a digital age, where we can have RealMe identities, if we can do our tax returns, if we can apply for a passport, if we can do all these critical, quite high-risk, and also involving greater amounts of money—if we can do all of these things online, why would we not be able to do something, as they say, so insignificant as a refund of $580 to people who are already on limited incomes? I think it’s just mean. The only argument I can come up with is it’s just petty, mean-spiritedness to deny people this ability. To try and make out that it’s a waste of time, I think, is actually quite insulting to New Zealanders who struggle to get by on a week-to-week basis.

So in terms of the bigger issues that we need to be thinking about, the issues that actually matter that I’m interested in that relate to this bill are the big questions around the digital divide, because if we are saying that we want people to be able to access this additional refund, we need to be also considering how people who are over 65, or those with disabilities, are accessing the internet, and making sure that they do have access in those areas, and that’s why it’s so important that we have a digital strategy that takes into account all of those people who may be on lower incomes, and providing good access to not only purchasing the equipment but knowing how to utilise it, and that is just so important.

Look, I am proud to see a bill that’s come forward and made it very clear to New Zealanders, particularly those New Zealanders who really care about their rates rebate. It means a whole lot. This is a bill that will enable accessing what you are entitled to far easier, and that is a good thing. Streamlining processes and making sure people know what they’re entitled to and how they do it, without unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape. We’ve heard time and time again the members opposite wanting to cut red tape and bureaucracy, and making the system more streamlined. But, funnily enough, when it comes to people on lower income, that argument’s out the window.

So I really do not understand what the problem is with this bill. When I have turned up in my area in Hutt South, at debates around election time that are hosted by retirement villages, the hot topic that we are always asked is about rates rebate. It is incredibly important, and many people use it for such important things as buying their Christmas presents, when they get that, for grandchildren, or for putting it aside for important purposes when you’re on a limited income. So this is a bill that demonstrates this Government cares about people. This Government cares about people on lower incomes, and we are prepared to make their lives better by accessing the funds that they are rightly due to. I am proud to commend the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill to the House.