Rates Rebate Amendment Bill

I move, That the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I want to thank the House again for considering this bill under urgency and for the contributions from members that have brought us here to this stage. New Zealand is still in recovery mode from the economic damage caused from the COVID period and we know that many Kiwis are still feeling the impact. This is especially true for our seniors on fixed incomes as the rising cost of living is taking a significant toll on them. Now, seniors have worked hard throughout their years and deserve to enjoy their retirement without added financial stress. That’s why this Government is committed to growing the economy in order to lessen some of that financial pressure. By focusing on economic growth, we can bring down the cost of living and help those Kiwis—and all Kiwis—get ahead.

While we acknowledge that this process will take time, our plan is making a difference. Inflation is under control, tax relief is putting more money into Kiwis’ back pockets, and initiatives like FamilyBoost are helping with the cost of childcare for families.

We know that rates are rising and this is putting extra pressure on many of our seniors. Couples on New Zealand Superannuation, with limited income, are facing increasingly high rates bills as a percentage of their income. The disparity between growth of household rates and the adjustment to New Zealand Superannuation underscores the urgency of this intervention. No senior should be forced to choose between essential needs and unaffordable rates. No seniors should have to move out of their homes away from friends, families, and their communities. They deserve peace of mind in their retirement, which is why this Government is stepping up to ensure that all Kiwis receive the support that they need.

For the last time today, I want to highlight the significance of this bill for our senior community. The bill proposes amendments to the Rates Rebate Scheme, introducing a new income abatement threshold set at $45,000 per household. This change provides additional financial relief to 66,000 more SuperGold card holders. Furthermore, due to the structure of the abatement threshold, individuals earning over $45,000 may still qualify for a partial rebate if they hold a SuperGold card.

These changes, worth over $154 million over four years, will come as relief to those seniors who are on fixed incomes and are dealing with rates increases. It is no secret that I believe in limited government, but limited doesn’t mean being constrained in our vision; it means having a laser focus on what Government is meant to do. Many people throughout this country are capable of making their own decisions. What they want from us is action on the things that they cannot influence. Our elderly community on low incomes with fixed costs deserve the opportunity to live out their lives free from the creeping burden of higher rates that they cannot afford. That’s why it is important we consider this bill under urgency.

For years, the local government sector has been crying out for more support from the Government. It is also a key priority for this Government. I want to thank and acknowledge my colleagues in New Zealand First. The National Party and New Zealand First in their coalition agreement included a commitment to enhance local government rates rebate schemes for SuperGold card holders and to maximise the benefits of the SuperGold card. It has been a great pleasure working on this policy, and I know that many seniors will be thankful to know that more financial support is on the way. I am proud to commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Kia orana, Madam Speaker. I rise as the Labour spokesperson on local government and, in doing so, it will come as no surprise that the Labour Party will be continuing our support for this piece of legislation, albeit under urgency today.

I reference the fact that this bill has been progressed under urgency with a tinge of sadness, because what would have been really helpful, I would have thought, would be to hear about the impact that this would have on households out in the community—but perhaps, actually, the impact that it would have if the threshold had changed, the impact that it may have had if some of the other components to the criteria that’s been proposed in this bill would change as well. It’s likely that this would have gone to the Governance and Administration Committee, and that committee would have been able to hear from affected individuals, but also from councils as well. And I’ll touch on that later in my contribution.

We’ve heard the Minister acknowledge the New Zealand First Party because it is accepted that, yes, this is part of the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement, but that’s been the case for quite some time. The question that needs to be posed is why has it taken the Government so long since they have addressed that as part of their negotiations—to actually deliver on that commitment.

Whilst households have had to wait for this commitment to come into place under this Government, the pressures that they have been facing have continued to grow, and so that’s rather unfortunate. It would have been helpful to hear from seniors about the fact that they have worked their whole life, as the Minister has said. And he says that they’ve worked really hard and that they deserve to have some rebate or recognition of that.

The question I pose to the Government, of course, is: is an extra 58c, which is the increased amount over the last 12 months for this rebate, per fortnight, the sort of alleviation of cost pressure that seniors who’ve worked so hard actually deserve? This is a piecemeal form of support for households and seniors who are doing it so tough right now, who are facing those cost of living pressures for their households. A senior citizen simply needs to go to the supermarket to see the rising cost of butter, of cheese, of milk, of bread. An extra 58c a fortnight is not going to cut much of that. So it’s disappointing that we didn’t have an opportunity to hear—the Government didn’t have an opportunity to hear—from superannuitants exactly what this will mean to them.

We hear a lot from the sector as well in local government around the rhetoric that this Government seems to have about requiring councils to get back to the basics. The question that the Government needs to really answer, I believe, is what are the basics? Is it just the rubbish, the recycling, the water, the roads, the footpaths? Where do community libraries, where does community development, where does funding for those vibrant community events that take place fall within that? So this is from a Government that is talking about getting back to the basics, but failed to, I think, understand what vibrancy means in our community.

Yes, affordability is absolutely important, but let’s also reflect on the fact that superannuitants and other households are facing increasing costs, whether it’s rates, whether it’s insurance, whether it’s other costs of living pressures. This will go some way, but I think not far enough, perhaps, as others would suggest that we would have heard from people out in the community around what this might mean.

We’ve also heard, as this bill has progressed through the Parliament—well, we actually haven’t heard, but we have become aware that there were five councils that were consulted about what this would mean for them. How much would it cost? Because the regulatory impact statement (RIS) identified that in some circumstances it would be a $200,000 cost to implement this. Now, in scrutiny week last week, we put that to the Minister, who indicated that there was some work being done around that. You know, it would have been helpful if that information was made available to parliamentarians as part of a formal select committee process. We have not been able to have the benefit of that. So we don’t know what the actual cost is going to be for councils for implementing this particular regime, and that is a rather difficult thing to stomach.

But of course, this is fast becoming the modus operandi of this Government: simply whack on additional costs to others in the hope or the expectation that this change would come. This is exactly no different in that regard. This is a policy position that has been taken. It will be worked through by way of legislation when this bill will pass—and it will pass, you know, today. Those additional costs will be borne by councils around the country. Yes, I accept that for some smaller councils, perhaps the costs will be much less. It is a cost none the less, and there is an opportunity cost around that as to what that money could be spent on in local communities.

So this is fast becoming the modus operandi of this Government, and it actually extends into other areas. I want to just cite through, briefly, one example, and it’s in the Ministry of Education space when it comes to rural buses. In my local community where the local council, recently Horizons, have made the call not to actually accept the need to fund things that fall within the purview of the Ministry of Education. I congratulate the council on doing that.

But the message I send to this Government—the question I ask to members opposite and to the Ministry of Education—is: what is the Government doing to ensure that communities like Rongotea and Ashhurst are able to utilise bus services and routes?

Andy Foster: Point of order. My point of order is that this is not relevant to the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): And the point of order is not a point of order. The call about relevancy is mine.

Andy Foster: Well, I’m alerting you to that. This is not relevant to the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Thank you very much—appreciate it.

TANGI UTIKERE: Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s interesting that Government members want to take a point of order to try and stifle this issue from being aired, because it does relate to this bill. This is about forcing additional costs on to councils, and this relates to the track record of this Government in basically saying, “We want councils to pick up the tab for doing all of the things that we asked them to do, but we’re not going to provide any funding.” The fact of the matter is that they don’t like to hear the fact that they have an issue with buses in rural communities. And, Madam Speaker, you’re very familiar with communities of a rural nature yourself, so you do know this. I want to know what the Government is doing to address that real, real need in my community and other communities all around the country. So this is a Government that gets a bit tetchy when it comes to being challenged around their expectation that councils are going to pick up the tab for doing things.

So, yes, we do support this bill because it goes some way to addressing some of the concerns, but it is far short. You know, it would be irresponsible, actually, if we did not support this, because at a time when households are doing it tough, when the Minister, in his own words, talks about acknowledging the fact that senior citizens have worked so hard over many years—yes, they have—yes, they have. And they deserve to go to the supermarket and buy a block of butter without having to think about prioritisation and what it’s going to mean for them. They deserve that. So any little bit that’s going to help them in terms of rates costs is a good move.

I do think one of the things that councils will be forced to turn their minds to, of course, is how they are going to make the community aware that this scheme exists, because the RIS identifies, and I think the Minister himself said, it was around 66,000 households that will become eligible. If the increase in uptake is such that that goes over and above that, well then that’s an issue the Government will have to—that’s a good thing. But it does come with a few issues the Government will need to turn its mind to. But in terms of the councils needing to have a process around making sure that they are engaging with the community so that the community know that this is actually an option available to them—that those who hold a SuperGold card do have this as an opportunity—is really, really important.

The Minister, in his contribution, talked about this being $154 million over four years. That’s the cost of the commitment. That pales in comparison to the amount of money that this Government has set aside and basically allowed for landlords and tobacco companies. So I think superannuitants in our community will detest that comparison because it will make a huge difference for them if the money that this Government had prioritised for landlords and tobacco companies was actually redirected into the households and back pockets of those that hold a SuperGold card. So I think that’s an important point to note as well.

As I said, we will support this amendment bill because it does provide a very piecemeal level of support and assistance to those who have worked hard. It is unfortunate that the Government has decided to ram this through under urgency when they’ve known that this was coming. They have not wanted to hear from the community, because I think that, actually, the community would send them a very strong message that this is not enough to support the cost of living pressures that they are facing right now.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to speak on the third reading of the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill.

Just for context, again this is one of the bills that was introduced under urgency, which meant that it had very little public consultation. We do have a regulatory impact statement, which is at least the minimum that the Government could be doing when we are introducing a bill under urgency, but what we did hear from the Minister during the committee stage was that there were no other policies that were considered as a part of this. This was the only thing that was considered simply just to fulfil a coalition agreement.

Now, we will talk about the broader context in a bit, but I think I want to first address a couple of points that we’ve heard during the committee stage. I think, first of all, one of the things that we did question the Minister on—and, yes, one could consider that was outside the scope of this particular legislation, which also, again, questions the fact that this is a bill that has an incredibly narrow scope. We’ve heard that this is going to cost $154 million over four years for something that is, frankly, quite ill-thought-out and very narrow.

The first threshold of this bill is you must be a SuperGold card holder, which immediately we are ruling out any migrants who are on temporary work visa conditions who happen to be over the age of 65.

Andy Foster: Who own a house and pay rates.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: We’ll also—because it’s a rates rebate. The very foundation for you to have rates in the first place is you have to be a homeowner. So, immediately, it rules out everyone over the age of 65 who rents or who is in a precarious or vulnerable situation. So the question remains: is this a bill that genuinely wants to address the seriousness of our senior population and the vulnerability, the genuine vulnerability, that presents to our senior population and the trajectory of some of the key concerns and crises we’ll be facing in Aotearoa New Zealand in the area of seniors in the near future? We shall unpack those things

The first thing that we do see in the bill, and we did question the Minister on, is the threshold of $45,000. Now, there are two parts to that. First of all, there’s been a split of the threshold. There is a threshold for ratepayers who are on the SuperGold card, as we see in section 5. There is also a threshold for any other ratepayers. The commencement date of this bill is, rightfully, when—let’s see—the Rates Rebate (Specified Amounts) Order 2025 comes into force, which also increases the other threshold from $31,800 to $32,210 as a response to that as well, and we see this drastic increase for ratepayers.

A couple of questions around that which we didn’t get clarity from the Minister on during the committee stages: number one is: why split it? Why not just increase it overall? What sort of evidence is there for people who are under the age of 65—and, by the way, this is considering total household income, not individual income; we’ll come to the household income part in a bit. So we’re looking at household income of $32,210. We didn’t get any clarity on, like, what is the proportion of people who are on there in the first place. Why don’t we introduce and increase the threshold completely overall to a higher rate? That’s the first question, which we’ve got no answer for.

The second question is—$45,000. Now, in the regulatory impact statement, we see that the gross income for a couple who are on superannuation for the 2025-2026 year is almost $47,981, to be exact, according to the regulatory impact statement. So if the purpose of the bill is that we are lifting the threshold to $45,000, we think it creates an anomaly where people over the age of 65, their household income if they only have superannuation as their sole income will not be eligible for the full rebate amount—45,000 is also $3,000 short, which means that they have this extra $3,000 where abatement will be taken into consideration as well. Why create that anomaly? Why not increase it and boost it to $48,000, in which case the entirety of a couple’s superannuation income will be considered?

The Minister did not want to take up our Green amendment, which increases the threshold to $56,000 for both, because it also creates a bit of leeway if, let’s say, a couple over the age of 65—we know that more and more people over the age of 65 are still working—there’s an abatement amount in terms of superannuation as well. But creating that $8,000 buffer will actually mean that people who additionally do some cover work, like if they are a reliever at the school, if they are a teacher over the age of 65, but want to relieve here and there, they will get some extra income—all of that is factored in.

So, from the very essence, the Government likes to paint a beautiful picture of how much they’re doing to seniors. But what we’re seeing is they’re trying to say they’re doing a lot, but actually doing very little; in fact, doing less than what they’re even saying within a very restricted limit of this bill of homeowners who are SuperGold card holders. I find that funny, but also disappointing. Disappointing to see from the Government that they couldn’t do the minimum for seniors on this very restrictive bill.

The other thing that we did talk about as well is this idea that a lot of the things that we are seeing—and this could be superannuation, and this is, to be honest, when we’re looking at benefits in general—is we’re still tying people to household income as opposed to individual incomes. The Government, again, didn’t take up our amendment where we wanted to split it out: you can halve it and have, let’s say, $21,000 or $22,500 per person. It is still the $45,000 threshold, but it also means that it allows people to have financial autonomy and not be subjected to what their spouse potentially is earning. That, I think, is something that is grossly missing.

It’s a problem that we have seen in our benefit system and our superannuation system for decades, and we have seen couples or individuals within the relationship who are being harmed as a result of this, who have to be, essentially, subjected to potential coercion by their spouses as a result of the fact that they’re tying things into their household income. So, again, we are seeing some really not well-thought-out policy positioning within this 1½-page bill. And if we’re able to take apart, in such a state, a bill that is only a page and a half, that is, frankly, an indictment of this Government’s ability to introduce a bill into the House.

But in the broader sense of things—and I did mention at the beginning that this is something that is quite restricted and quite limited in terms of its scope. Now, the Green Party—we did actually talk about this bill a lot within our caucus—landed on the position that we will not support this bill on the basis of the fact that what this bill does is not actually, genuinely support our seniors.

I mentioned at the beginning that one of the things we asked the Minister during the committee stage is whether other things have been considered as a part of this package, and the Minister said no; this is the only thing that was considered, again, because it was a coalition agreement requirement. But what we are seeing is that homeownership above the age of 65 is plummeting. It will continue to plummet because people can no longer own their own homes. We are seeing that the most vulnerable population, the most vulnerable part of our communities over the age of 65, will not be eligible for this particular bill, despite the fact that the Government paint a really beautiful picture that it is all about seniors; it’s not.

We want to see legislation introduced in this House that genuinely has the vulnerability and futureproofing in mind when we’re looking at our senior population. That includes things like increasing public housing, the number of public houses, looking at the priority order for how our elders are going to be looked after, and then for them to be able to—in situations where they can—actually live in dignity and live autonomously. We should be funding things like home and community care. We should be doing all of this, but this bill does none of that.

So we will not support it, because there is so much more that we could be doing, this Government could be doing, and they chose to do nothing. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party for this third reading of the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill. It is a bill which is giving financial relief to SuperGold card holders on their rates, but all ratepayers deserve relief. Respecting ratepayers and their money when councils are spending that money is the only real way for ratepayers across New Zealand—the people who have been mentioned by the Opposition—to get real rates relief. Cutting waste, focusing on core spending on basics like roads, clean streets, and value for money is the only way this can be achieved. The light show that we have seen masquerading as a toilet block down in central Wellington is a prime example. Councils need to focus on services and infrastructure that can only be delivered locally, not duplicating roles that are the purview of central government.

In this Government, we are doing our part on focusing spending on outcomes, not just spending as a good in and of itself as the last lot of speakers seem to think is a good idea. Inflation, because of the actions of this Government, is down to 2.5 percent. Stats New Zealand says that rates and payments are increasing at 12.2 percent per year. This is a sign of waste. Councils need to get focused. It’s time for new faces and values around the council table so that councils get the message to stop treating their ratepayers like ATMs and focus, like this Government is, on delivery.

This is good news. It is delivering on another campaign promise that New Zealand First campaigned on. It’s delivering on part of our coalition agreement with the National Party. This is New Zealand First and the Government looking after our senior citizens who need a bit of assistance, and our SuperGold card holders.

We know in the last three years that rates have increased dramatically—stratospherically, in some cases—and this is a real concern. I’m hearing a lot of concern from a lot of people about angst, anger about this, but for senior citizens in particular, they are really concerned that they might be priced out of their own homes—not their houses; their homes. This is about this Government looking after those people.

We want people to own their own homes—a property-owning democracy is really, really important to our economy and to our society. We know that our superannuation system will not cope if most of our superannuitants are not in their own homes. This bill is good news for SuperGold card holders.

We heard from Tangi Utikere that it is about 58c a fortnight. No, it’s not. What it is about is changing the amount that you can earn before that rates rebate starts being reduced—from 32,000 to 45,000, which is roughly the level, give or take a little bit, of superannuation. That makes about $600 a year difference, or $11.53 a week—not 58c a fortnight. So the Labour Opposition should get their facts right.

The Opposition quite regularly lambasts the Government for looking after the so-called rich. Last year’s tax cuts were not about the rich; they were about from the bottom up. These rates rebates are also not about the rich; they are about the people on $45,000—that is not rich. What is rich is some of the complaints from the Opposition.

Finally, just to echo what my colleague Cam Luxton has just said, this will help some ratepayers, but the other thing that needs to be done across the board is councils have the monopoly ability and statutory ability to rate; that comes with responsibility and that means the responsibility to use the money that they get from ratepayers wisely, carefully, and to deliver good value for money. I commend this bill to the House.

This is a split call.

Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau hei kaikōrero mō Te Pāti Whare i te rangi nei.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker, indeed greetings to all of us in the House. I stand as a speaker for the Māori Party today.]

Te Pāti Māori stands to offer support for the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill because we understand that the bill will put more money into the back pockets of our kaumātua, and this bill instantly reminds me of all our kaumātua who follow us around, to the more than 38 poukai across Waikato and throughout the country. So we support the intention and effect of this bill, which is to provide financial support for low-income SuperGold card holders who may otherwise face financial hardship due to high rates bills. Te Pāti Māori considers this to be one of the only areas of the Budget it can support, but questions why the income abatement threshold was not raised across the board.

Our view is that all households who are earning less than $45,000 are struggling and deserve to be supported. The Rates Rebate Act 1973 uses income as the primary threshold for eligibility. The current income abatement threshold of $31,510 per household, which will increase to $32,210 on 1 July 2025, excludes many SuperGold card holders from receiving the full benefit of the Rates Rebate Scheme. We welcome increases due to kick in this winter, at an extreme time when the price of butter, milk, and essentials is very hard. We note that the full effect of this scheme will not reach all kaumātua. Rebates are calculated according to a formula that includes the gross income and number of dependents of the ratepayer and their spouse or partner if accepted, and their rate amount.

The level of rebate available decreases for every dollar earned above the income abatement threshold. Those households face significant rates bills that are, on average, rising at a higher rate. Nō reira e te Pīka, Te Pāti Māori supports this bill. Tēnā rā tātou.

Thank you. This bill is a bit of window dressing. It addresses one very small part of the cost of living crisis. Does it address the housing shortage? No.

New Zealand First talks about “homes”. It only means owner-occupied homes. Some people call their rentals “homes”. Other countries have got some security of tenure; places talk about “renting for life”. This is seen as very much a second-rate option in this country. This amendment bill entrenches that difference and promotes the needs of property owners over renters. Often, the renters are much more vulnerable.

I’d like to look at how the private rental sector is likely to increase in importance. Already, about 30 percent of superannuitants rent and it looks likely to be an increasing proportion. Some people say people who pay rates should get some help. Well, I’ve got news for you: the landlord’s not paying the rates; the renters are paying the rates as part of their rent. Unless there is an extraordinarily philanthropic landlord, it’s the rent you pay every week, every fortnight, or every month that pays the council rates—the regional council rates, and some of us still think regional councils are important, and the local authority rates.

I also would argue that this bill does not address other people who are in more need. It doesn’t address students. It doesn’t address disabled people under the age of 65. It doesn’t address families with young children, whether they own their own house or not. Mind you, maybe they’re not so likely to vote for certain parties. It puts continued pressure—continued pressure—on local government. While the rebate itself comes from central government, from taxpayer funds—from all taxpayers to quite a narrow group. While the tax money goes to that group, it is also another impost on local government because it increases the administration requirements and it also doesn’t really go to the root cause. It’s a small band-aid on a big issue of: why are rates rising? Because there has been under-investment, there has not been use of depreciation—and this is, of course, the whole sector. It’s despite some very positive reports, whether it’s from chief executives, whether it’s from the Office of the Auditor-General, who—until recently so many councils got absolutely stunningly perfect audit reports, and now they’re going, “Oh, maybe that wasn’t quite”—

Andy Foster: Quite so.

CELIA WADE-BROWN: I’m delighted to have New Zealand First agreeing with me for once.

OK, so we’re going to oppose this bill. I also want to address the issue of how this Government has not helped a particularly vulnerable group, and that is women who are either single or widowed and they’re over 65. They are the larger portion of the over-65s, but they will live longer than their counterparts. You might say that that’s unfair, but they do. They have fewer savings because of the continued gender pay gap. And the women that are going to retire with all of those 33 pay claims dismissed, those women are going to find retirement tougher than their male counterparts. So we will be opposing this bill. It’s a band-aid on a small part.

Madam Speaker, did you hear that? Every superannuitant should be listening to that. The Green Party is opposing this bill, as is the Labour Party.

Camilla Belich: No, we’re not.

CAMERON BREWER: Labour is not? OK. Well, let’s just put it down to the Green Party. Sixty-six thousand more seniors will now be eligible for more support. The rebate increases to $805. I commend the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s been interesting being in the House for this debate, where there’s been a lot of comments made as a running commentary from the other side, but very, very few substantive contributions to this debate. Actually, it shows that the other side of the House has not actually been listening to this debate, where a number of speakers, not only in this debate but in the committee of the whole House stage and in the second reading and the first reading said that, indeed, Labour supports this bill. So I’m happy to clarify that for the member, who obviously hasn’t been taking any account of what’s been going on in the House or listening to any of the arguments that this side of the House has been putting forward.

Carl Bates: You’re the party of no. Why would we not think that you were going to say no?

CAMILLA BELICH: Well, Mr Bates, the reason that I would suggest that you would know the correct position of our party is because it has been said numerous times in the House, and that is the role of people in the House; to be part of the debate and listen to those who are taking part in it.

So we are pleased to support this bill. We will be outlining why that is and actually looking into this bill in some detail. I think it is important to note, as other speakers have noted, that this bill was announced as part of the Budget changes and has gone through under urgency. So as the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, who would have welcomed the opportunity to have received submissions on this bill, to hear from people affected by this bill, to hear debates around this bill, to hear if there are any issues in this bill, we have not been able to have that opportunity. We did have a session with the Minister in the committee of the whole House stage. There were a number of questions that were asked; a number of questions were left unanswered. So I think it’s important to note, as this is the last opportunity for this House to comment on this particular bill, that this process—although we support this bill and this bill is a good start—around bringing this bill to the House under urgency, without a select committee, has not been what we would expect in respect of good lawmaking.

This particular bill is one that would have really benefited, I think, from a select committee process and being able to have that scrutiny. I say that because when I look at the departmental disclosure statement, I can see the people who were actually told that this bill was going to go ahead. It was said that not many people were able to be consulted because it was Budget sensitive. It’s hard to know really why exactly it’s Budget sensitive. I know that there’s a lot of secrecy surrounding the Budget, but in terms of the people that are affected, these are mainly people who are on low incomes, who have a SuperGold card—so are elderly New Zealanders—and it’s hard to imagine that there would be any specific change of behaviour that would have resulted from wider consultation. Obviously, that could have been done confidentially as well.

But we do see that a number of councils have been consulted in the departmental disclosure statement: Auckland Council, Christchurch Council, Tauranga, Manawatū, and Clutha District Council. However, hearing from those people who would really benefit from this particular rates rebate bill or those on the cusp of that as well—that’s often what we hear in select committee. We often hear of people who maybe fall just outside of the entitlement, who believe that they have a good argument about why they should be included, and we weren’t able to do that. But we did see that some of those councils were actually included in that as well.

So, as has been said, we support this bill. But the reason that we support it is because we recognise what a difficult time it is for New Zealand, and especially elderly New Zealanders. We are facing some of the hardest economic conditions that I can recall in my lifetime. And certainly in the time that I’ve been in charge of my own family and household, I have noticed in the community very, very, very struggling people within our community—unable to afford groceries, unable to afford rates, unable to afford their mortgage payments. We have seen this get worse under this Government. So it is pleasing to see the Government recognise that there is a cost of living situation in New Zealand that deserves to be addressed.

We haven’t seen a lot of action. In fact, a lot of the actions that we’ve seen have made the situation worse. We’ve seen affordability and the cost of living really ramp up under this Government. We’ve seen loss of jobs. We had a hearing this morning with the Minister for the Public Service, but across the country we can see tens of thousands of jobs that have been lost. Some of the people who have SuperGold cards do also work. So it is relevant to them and it is relevant to their affordability of rates whether there are jobs that they can particularly go to. That hasn’t been a focus from this Government. Jobs have not been a focus of this Government; in fact, we’ve seen them go backwards. That’s why these types of measures, like rates rebate schemes, are needed, because people are struggling so much.

Will this go far enough towards addressing some of the cost of living pressures that people have? I don’t think so. I think we’ve heard a lot of evidence today from this side of the House, who have been taking substantive calls on this bill, around things that have got a lot worse and have raised the cost generally for households as well. It is good to see the Minister and others reflecting on the fact that we do have people who are superannuitants in New Zealand who are making hard choices around what they can spend their money on. They’re making choices about food, they are making choices about bills, they’re making choices about heating. That is not the type of society that we want to be living in. We agree with that, but we don’t think that the measures that the Government is putting into place go far enough and we don’t agree with their choices that result in tax cuts and subsidies for those who don’t need it and not enough for the people at this end that this bill does touch on, who deserve to have more. So that is very problematic.

We also see that this is a slight recognition of the terrible situation we are in in relation to the affordability of rates for local government organisations. The House is well aware of the steps that the last Government made in order to try and address the fact that there were unaffordable rates rises that would be necessary for New Zealanders. That was, unfortunately, scrapped by this Government. We’re seeing them take small efforts to try and corral local councils into getting together in relation to water and to try and get them in a scheme that would not be as helpful as the one that was proposed by the last Government. So we hope, for the benefit of New Zealanders, that we are able to see a more sustainable rates framework that is affordable for councils to be able to continue to do their work and for New Zealanders.

This bill is a little bit of a help in that, but it, as I said, does not go far enough. That is because of those dual things: the cost of living crisis and the fact that we do have rates which are so unaffordable for New Zealanders. It is regretful that we didn’t have a select committee process, but also that in preparing the analysis for this bill, there wasn’t really able to be any consultation with a number of people affected by this, because I think some of those wider issues around rates affordability, around the role of local government and the role of councils to be able to provide things that are needed, would definitely have arisen with that too.

At the same time as we see this small benefit for some elderly ratepayers in New Zealand to address the skyrocketing cost of living in this country, we also see cuts in other areas—for example, the cuts to the pay equity scheme. Many of those, specifically care and support workers, are near retirement, and many of those people will actually be covered by this scheme. So it will be cold comfort for them to see the fact that their earnings within their lifetime would be gendered earnings that were much lower than they should have been paid if they were in a male-dominated field, but they were unable to continue with their pay equity claims, and then they enter into retirement, and they get this tiny rates rebate.

So this is about choices—Budgets are about choices. This is a bill that was brought in through the Budget process. The choice that the Government’s made here is to give a small amount of money back to some elder New Zealanders who are desperately in need of some relief. At the same time, we’ve seen much larger cuts in other areas. We’ve seen their cost of living rise. We’ve seen mortgage prices rise. We’ve seen food prices rise. We’ve seen fuel prices rise. We’ve seen the amount that they spend on heating rise. And we know that and I’ve been getting emails just this week from people talking about the choices that they have to make in relation to fuel. I met someone yesterday who lived, actually, near my colleagues Ingrid Leary and Rachel Brooking in Dunedin, who was talking about the amount of money that they had to spend on fuel.

So this is a good start. This is a bill that the Labour Party will support, but it doesn’t mean that the work here is done. There is much more work that needs to be done to address the cost of living. There’s much more work that needs to be done in relation to the challenges that our seniors face, and my colleague Ingrid Leary has been doing very good work advocating for that. There are other challenges that people have. But from our side, we believe that the proper work of Government is really to ensure that people have well-paid jobs, that they have a healthcare system that works when they get sick, and that they have homes that they can live in—whether those are rented or whether those are owned homes—that are warm and safe, and that is the right of every New Zealander. So we believe that that should be the focus of this Government, but we support this bill.

I’m so pleased to stand. Sixty-six thousand seniors will be better off. I’m going to repeat that: 66,000 seniors will be better off with this bill—one of many cost of living relief payments we’re doing. I commend this bill.

This is a split call.

Madam Speaker, thank you so much for this opportunity to contribute to the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill. I would like to remind the House that Labour strongly supports this bill for a number of reasons, but can I also remind the House that the original rates rebate law in 1973 was led by Norman Kirk of the Labour Government at the time. It was created to recognise that local taxes, rates, can weigh heavily on low-income homeowners. We’re proud of that kaupapa and it is great that it has endured for 52 years. I would also like to acknowledge the Rt Hon Winston Peters for including this bill in his coalition agreement and for ensuring that this Government actually supports this bill.

The Rates Rebate Amendment Bill, at its heart, is about something simple and deeply meaningful because we are helping our seniors to continue to live in their homes with dignity; a home that many of them have spent years and years working hard to pay off. Right across Aotearoa New Zealand, our elders, our kaumātua, have spent their lives working hard, raising their families, and building up our communities. They deserve more than just a thankyou; they deserve real, practical support, and this bill moves us modestly in that direction. By lifting the income threshold for SuperGold card holders to 45,000, this amendment provides long-overdue relief to many New Zealanders—many who are asset-rich, but, unfortunately, income-poor who are increasingly struggling to meet their basic needs and their costs. It is the right thing to do and for that we also acknowledge the Government and the Minister of Revenue and officials who’ve been working on this legislation.

However, while we support this bill, we cannot ignore some of its limitations. Because I rise to speak not just for our seniors who own their own homes; I am from Parliament to represent South Auckland, Panmure-Ōtāhuhu, where we have just over 75,000 people, many of them who are struggling, from South Auckland. Many of our Māori, Pacific, and many thousands of our ethnic migrant community live in multigenerational homes. Many of them, even with the numbers of jobs in those multigenerational homes, are still struggling. This bill gives some help to some people, but, unfortunately, it gives no assistance to many thousands more.

So just to give you an example—and this is just an example—if you’re a 70-year-old couple who own a home in Remuera, you may qualify for support under this bill. But by comparison, if you are a 40-year-old solo mum who lives in Ōtara, you work a job, possibly another part-time job, but, say, you earn under the threshold—and you are of course still young—you do not qualify to be supported under this bill. In my opinion, that is not fair. What about a Samoan grandmother in Ōtāhuhu who is raising her mokopuna? Or an Indian auntie in Papatoetoe who owns her apartment but earns, say, $39,000 or a little less than $39,000? There is actually no support for her either. If you are a Filipino worker who works night shift and you also have a part-time job during the day just to make ends meet, you’re still struggling, and you don’t get any assistance under this bill either.

That is a gap in support. That is why so many in our communities in South Auckland feel forgotten and left behind, unfortunately, by this Government. Because this bill, as well-meaning as it is, is built around the assumption that help should only go to seniors who own homes. But in our community—Pacific, Māori, ethnic community—who make up close to 50 percent overall of the total population of Aotearoa New Zealand, many of them won’t be able to get support from this bill.

I do want to be clear: Labour supports our kaumātua and our seniors who are receiving rate rebates under this bill. We honour our seniors. We know that many of them are struggling to stay in their own homes, and we are glad that this bill will actually go through. But if we are to build a fair Aotearoa, a kind of Aotearoa where everyone should have a safe, affordable house to call home, we should support everyone.

I appreciate that the speaker before me, the Hon Jenny Salesa, addressed the need of particularly the 66,000 seniors in New Zealand, who would appreciate the support from this Government—and relatively soon, actually. But I do also want to emphasise that the Green Party oppose this bill because they believe it’s either everything for everyone, all at the same time, from money falling out of the tree—or nothing, for everyone. And that is absolutely impractical and, basically, just living in la-la land. But, anyway, this Government, the National Government, is about targeting the relief and delivering for people who need it, so I commend this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to reflect on Government members who make a number of interesting comments about our communities, especially when we get into the weeds or the nitty-gritty. I want to come back to the bill. This is an important bill for our community. We, as Labour, do support it; however, I do have the opportunity to point out some of its shortcomings. The intent of the bill is a good intent for our superannuitants—for some of our superannuitants. We’ve heard this side of the House point out that there are 66,000 across the motu, across Aotearoa, who will benefit. That is always a good thing when you receive emails and visits from superannuitants that can’t even afford to turn on their hot water to have a shower but they need to be clean.

Coming back to the bill, we’ve heard that it is a good bill, in terms of the intention to provide financial support for the low-income SuperGold card holders who will benefit, who face financial hardship. Whilst we’ve heard, on this side of the House, some of my colleagues point out the increasing costs to councils, one of the things we believe, in terms of Labour’s offering, is the importance of having consultation, not just with the community, not just with some councils, but with all councils across the motu. We know that those who will be eligible for the rates rebate amendment have to be SuperGold card holders, but not everyone will be receiving the full rebate. Because of the way the formula is set up, you have to meet that formula.

In the committee stage, I did raise with the Minister at the time that it’s one thing to have a new system, and some of the financial benefit; the communications to the community are another thing. There is a major assumption that councils will just pick this up, run it through their systems, and, basically, inform the community member superannuitants how you can apply, what your income is, what the rebate is that you may qualify for, whether it’s a partial or whether it’s a full rebate, and to have the accessibility to do so. There’s an assumption that everyone drives a car. There’s an assumption that superannuitants are computer literate. There’s an assumption that superannuitants have got all the trappings of a modern household. Well, you’ve heard my colleague the Hon Jenny Salesa point out that that’s not always the case. Some of the SuperGold card holders in our society, in our community, are really, really struggling.

They must also know where to go and how to qualify if they are entitled. I’ll just give you a very quick example. I come from Māngere, in South Auckland. It’s a very diverse community. Not all superannuitants and community members access the library service, the excellent three public library services that we have in our local community. English is not always the first language that is known, so we have a number of platforms where people can communicate with public services.

The other thing I wanted to point out was that the public needs time to digest when there are changes that are made in this Chamber. There are many changes, there are many bills that come out, and one of the things I did ask at the committee stage was how our people in the community will know that they can apply for this rates rebate and that they can get some financial relief because they qualify. Those are the things that I wanted to reflect on.

The other thing, when I did read the regulatory impact statement, which came out when we went through the process of the first reading and the second reading, is there were limitations and constraints on the analysis. I appreciate that the Minister did say it went through urgency, and there’s a process when we are making the laws of the land. The problem is the risks that come with that analysis, and then we have to look at who benefits. Sixty-six thousand superannuitants may be eligible because they are SuperGold card holders, but, as you’ve heard from this side of the House, those risks are real risks, particularly for our superannuitants who are on limited superannuation that they receive every fortnight.

I want to continue to raise that, because the cost of living crisis is very, very real in our communities, across the motu, particularly with those on very limited incomes, and many of the superannuitants are writing to members of Parliament about the unaffordability of the basics. Whilst we’ve heard some comments about things like butter and those things that people like to purchase, it’s actually the things you need to run a household.

One of the things that I also raised was the nil discussion that has been had with the community, because, when you don’t have a select committee process that the public can consult and make submissions on, members of the select committee don’t have the opportunity to ask questions. Members of the community don’t have the opportunity to actually tell us how their real life is, whether they’re from South Auckland, Invercargill, Christchurch, wherever. They don’t have that opportunity. So it’s very unfair on New Zealanders, superannuitants who have worked—and we’ve heard this from Government benches—all their lives. They may not necessarily be entitled to the full rates rebate that they’re entitled to.

This amendment bill—yes, you’ve heard us, and I hope all of the Government members are listening. In terms of Labour, we are strongly supporting this, but it only goes part way, and it’s important that, if we are going to be genuine in our contributions and we value the work that superannuitants—just because they’re retired, it doesn’t mean that a number of them don’t volunteer for community organisations in our community or continue to work because they just can’t afford their insurance, they can’t afford their petrol. I’ve had a couple of superannuitants write to me this week. They can’t afford a shower. They’re only having one shower per week. That’s shameful. That’s shameful if we are living in our society and some of our seniors can’t afford petrol, can’t afford to have a shower every day and they’ve limited it to once per week because of the health conditions they face.

The last point I wanted to raise was around the assumption that many of our seniors speak English. Well, some of them don’t. It’s either their second language or their third language, for diverse communities. When you know that you qualify for something like a rates rebate, actually, “What do I do? Where do I go?” Do I wait for my child to come home when they come to visit me, so I can speak my Mandarin or I can speak my Samoan or I can speak my Tongan, to ask my child how I qualify, where I go? There are services in our community.

It’s a good bill; however, it does not go far enough. There is always an opportunity for our Government Ministers, as they are directing the officials, in terms of consultation, to have the select committee process that is really important. Sometimes, rushing things through urgency is not the way to go. Not everybody watches Parliament TV. I can tell you now, in my community, I have to remind them that, if you’ve got Freeview, Parliament TV is the opportunity to see what happens in Parliament, because this is your Whare. This is the Whare Pāremata.

It’s helpful to make a contribution on the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill, and I do want to thank the Minister, the officials that worked on this, the Government members, but I also want to remind you that you have an obligation, just like we do, to continue to work hard for our community, and if we’re really serious, if we’re really serious and genuine about looking after our seniors, our superannuitant community, we have to do better. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

As the last contributor in this debate, I just want to say that I’m the last person that is standing in the way of 66,000 senior gold card holders getting rates relief. So, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.