Rates Rebate Amendment Bill

We now come to the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill. We start with Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 4 to 6, “Amendments about SuperGold Card income abatement threshold”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to put some questions to the Minister around this particular bill. When this was spoken to in Budget urgency, we indicated that we were supportive of this bill. However, we do have some questions, and there may be some amendments that flow from that and an opportunity to make this bill a better one. In terms of Part 1, I want to address clause 6. This is the clause that, basically, seeks to reference the status of a SuperGold card holder. In it, it specifically references the regulations that are contained in the Social Security Regulations 2018. This, in effect, gives the definition as to what a card holder is described as and also the definition of a SuperGold card.

One of the interesting things is around the eligibility criteria—so that those who are able to, effectively, access the scheme, which will be a new opportunity for many New Zealanders, which is a good move for us to be considering and addressing this morning, but the clause references the regulations around eligibility. Now, there is a question around the time frame that would follow for someone to receive a SuperGold card in the post from when they actually apply. The issue may be that for someone who becomes eligible for a SuperGold card towards the end of the rating year, there potentially is going to be a delay in them receiving the SuperGold card.

My question to the Minister is—there are two parts to this, really—the first is the definition of a “card holder”, which is defined in the regulations, and what that actually means. Does it mean that someone who perhaps might be eligible towards the end of June, or if we think about now, someone, on 4 June, who might suddenly turn 65 and, therefore, become eligible for a SuperGold card? They have right through until 30 June before their eligibility runs out, in terms of being able to access the scheme, but they don’t hold a card at that particular point in time. Likewise, it could be someone who perhaps turns 65 on 29 June, yet they don’t have a SuperGold card or are not in physical possession of a SuperGold card.

My question to the Minister is around the time frame through to 30 June and where that sits, but also how someone who is eligible to hold a SuperGold card but who may not physically be in possession of a SuperGold card, or be determined as a card holder under the regulations, would still be able to access the rates rebate, because this is a rebate that is meant to be available to anyone who, effectively, is 65 and, therefore, the age of 65 is the point at which eligibility kicks in. But the regulations are very specific in that it relates to a “card holder”, being “person who holds a valid SuperGold card issued to that person”. So the question is around that descriptor of “holds a valid SuperGold card”. Would it not be perhaps more appropriate to refer to the fact that they have become eligible? So the point at which they would be eligible to access the scheme under the provision of the SuperGold card actually is not that they are a “card holder” as such, but perhaps they become “eligible to hold a SuperGold card”.

The whole point of this is not to try and cut out anyone who is eligible or for us to be, as a Parliament, tripped up on the strict definition of things associated with the fact that you need to be a card holder or someone who holds a valid SuperGold card, but, rather, someone who is eligible and how someone who might be eligible as of, say, 28 June and who, therefore, can access this, aren’t prevented from doing so. I know that some senior citizens are able to apply in advance of that, and they receive that, and it becomes active on a certain day, but that would still provide a limitation perhaps to those that want to, for some reason, get on to it on their birthday, or whatever it might be. So I’ll just start with that question to the Minister.

I thank the member for the question. It’s an important distinction. Fundamentally, I’m very glad that we’re talking about the SuperGold card and ensuring people do apply for it as soon as they become eligible. For clarification, if the applicants apply before they have a SuperGold card, they will be assessed under the lower income abatement threshold. If they apply later in the year, they will be assessed under the higher income abatement threshold and receive the top-up available.

I think the process by which they apply—they are able to apply when they get the card, therefore they would be entitled to the full top-up. I think it’s an important distinction, but I think it’s also worth noting that this is based upon the income assessment as well. So it is important that to get the full entitlement, your income threshold has to be based upon the superannuation as the sole income because that’s the threshold component that we’ve set under this legislation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s great to see this initiative in the Budget. It’s one of the few initiatives that I would say has been useful, and I’m very happy for the seniors, as the Opposition spokesperson for seniors, that there is some rates relief. I guess my questions are, really, about the very broad-brush approach that the Government has taken, with very little nuance. It feels rushed, and I will go into a series of questions over this committee stage that look particularly at the regulatory impact statement (RIS) and the analysis, or lack of analysis, in the RIS that makes it feel like a rushed process.

That’s curious to me because, as the Minister knows, I’ve made quite a number of Official Information Act requests to her office, and what continually has come up around the Rates Rebate Scheme is redacted sections, particularly around costings. It felt like there was a significant amount of work going on, and I can’t reconcile the amount of work that went on with the very broad-brush approach and the lack of nuance in how it is being applied.

So although, on the one hand, it is good that there is some rates rebate for seniors, perhaps if it had been done in a more nuanced way, we would have better value for money for the taxpayers but also probably more significant relief for some of those who really need it. I’m thinking here about constituents in my electorate in Taieri, certainly in the Lawrence area where I’ve done quite a lot of door-knocking, and also in parts of Balclutha, where seniors who are homeowners have been deeply worried about their ability to pay their rates. I have to say that that issue has come about, really, through the affordable water reforms that were swept away by this Government, and then there was a new regime, but, ultimately, the end game is that the councils are being forced to push up the rates, which probably should have been done previously but all the systems errors meant that they couldn’t do that. Now these pensioners are faced with huge rates bills. Some of them have been in their homes for 40, 50 years—they’ve worked very hard to get there, they’ve got some security, and now they are deeply worried. I’ve had people in tears when I’ve door-knocked—so concerned about getting kicked out of their homes.

So to see rates relief is a good thing, but I wonder if, in a more nuanced regime, they would have a higher level of rebate that would take away that angst, and there might be some who would not necessarily benefit—for example, those who might qualify for the Rates Rebate Scheme who are in a relationship, for property purposes, with someone who can actually pay the rates. Those are questions to come later.

For the purposes of this contribution, what I would really like to look at is how this will be evaluated. I am a little bit fixated on monitoring, evaluation, and performance, because I think we do it pretty badly in New Zealand, and when I look at the RIS, the evaluation of it seems to be, on page 2, that the success of this policy will be demonstrated by the higher uptake of this scheme. I wonder if that is the right indicator, because to me it would seem, from an outcomes perspective, that what we’re really trying to do is stop people from getting kicked out of their homes. So perhaps a better measurement would be to ascertain how many people received the rates rebate, and, as a result of that, the change that we’re measuring is whether they are able to stay in their home and they do not lose their home to a mortgagee sale or to some other kind of hardship.

So it does speak, in some ways, to the contribution of my colleague Tangi Utikere, but I think this is very much around the design of the monitoring and evaluation, which seems, again, broad-brush and quite rushed and quite superficial—it’s an outputs measure; it’s not an outcomes measure. Wouldn’t we be better finding a way of actually enabling better access, as Tangi Utikere has said, but also of measuring the scheme in a more profound way so we can see whether it does address the mischief that it is designed to, which is that it is providing real relief to those who might otherwise face some kind of hardship? Instead, in the RIS, we have it that it will be demonstrated by a higher uptake of the scheme. So I am really keen to hear from the Minister and I will have further questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start with clause 4 of this bill in terms of the section 2 amendment, particularly around definitions. I think my first question is around the type of card holders that meant that they were eligible for this scheme in the first place. I know that we have asked the question around the SuperGold card and the previous speaker Tangi Utikere has also mentioned, in terms of some of the eligibility to SuperGold card holders but, also, in terms of people being able to apply and have access to the SuperGold card at the right time when they become eligible.

But I think I’ve got two questions for the Minister that are more broad: one of them is around SuperGold card holders. One of the things that we do see, for example, is that people who are migrants, etc., particularly in terms of the threshold of 10 years eligibility for super, etc.—we still see a lot of migrants who are over the age of 65 not being eligible for a SuperGold card. Is that something that the Minister has considered when designing this particular policy—when using the SuperGold card as a measure or as a threshold for eligibility for this higher-income abatement threshold? That’s my first question.

My second question is around—I will get to clause 5 a little bit later because I want to focus on one clause at a time. In terms of the SuperGold card, there are other card holder types that potentially would benefit from this increased threshold abatement, and that could be things like people who are on a community services card; it could be people who are on various other card holder types. I just wanted to check with the Minister what was the intent there to limit just to SuperGold card holders and not to other card holder types.

Now, when it comes to the overall policy of this—and during the second reading, we indicated to the Minister that we have a lot of questions around this bill. As part of the speeches in the second reading, there were conversations around the fact that there needs to be some sort of easy, manageable things. But I also wanted to check with the Minister on, I guess, a broader question: why the rates rebate was selected as a way of alleviating cost pressures, etc., for seniors when there are other things that are facing the senior population and vulnerable people within our population, such as seniors who are renting, seniors who are from migrant backgrounds, seniors who potentially may not be paying rates in the first place. So, more broadly, I just want to kind of get a sense of the policy intent over here in terms of why the rates rebate was selected as the scheme that we’re looking at.

So those are, I guess, three questions. Two of the questions are around the SuperGold card. One of them is around eligibility to the SuperGold card and whether we are looking at some sort of intention from the Minister on expanding the scope and eligibility criteria of the SuperGold card holders; the second one is whether other card holder types were considered who are also in similar vulnerable situations; and thirdly: why the rates rebate? Why not consider other forms of support for people over the age of 65 such as increasing the super, such as over-65s who are renting—we know that there’s going to be an increasing number of people who do not own their own home over the age of 65 over the next decade, so it just seems like there’s a missed opportunity there. So I will be keen to hear from the Minister.

I’ll first just run through a few questions. With regard to the measure of success that the member Ingrid Leary was talking about, I think it’s important to remember that this rates rebate is an existing system that’s in place that we are enhancing; it’s not a new system.

I take on board the need to ensure that we have good measures in place. At this stage, the measure of uptake is one of the measures in terms of how successful this is in reaching the people that we’re trying to assist. I don’t think it’s an end position, but at this point what we need to do is gather that data, because the SuperGold card introduction is a new measure to be introduced. I think that’s the important component we want to work through, which is ensuring that we are reaching the target demographic. I think it will be important also to see an increase in the uptake of the SuperGold card holders as well, because we want to promote those benefits that are available through the SuperGold card.

In terms of the members’ questions about exploring eligibility for the SuperGold card, there is no work under way at this point to change the eligibility of the SuperGold card. The other card holder types, I think you’ve got to be cognisant of the fact that for the Rates Rebate Scheme, it’s about an income threshold. Those that don’t hold a SuperGold card can still be eligible for the rates rebate under the other income thresholds. So other cardholders still may be eligible if they own a home, they’re paying rates, and their income threshold is below the rebate income threshold.

Why was the rates rebate selected? Well, I might be bragging a wee bit, but it is a New Zealand First coalition agreement commitment to explore options to build on the local government rates rebate scheme for SuperGold card holders, so it is a delivery on the commitment of the coalition agreement.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have just quite a specific question, but I think it’s an important one in terms of this bill, and that’s in relation to the advice that the Minister received when creating what I would consider quite an extraordinary secondary legislation power.

Looking at the existing Act at present, there’s a power under section 3 that allows the creation, by Order in Council—so the Governor-General may amend the provisions of subsection (1) substituting any amount for any amount specified in that section. What that means is that the threshold can, essentially, be set by Order in Council, including the maximum total. What this does is it retains that, but it allows an Order in Council resolution in terms of what the Governor-General can do just for super.

That touches on the human rights discrimination provisions, so I would expect a section 7 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet to address the question of whether there’s a reasonable limitation lever in the legislation, or how this is being reasonably limited. Instead of having a reasonable limitation lever, it looks like we’ve gone the opposite way in that the Order in Council also allows the total maximum to be set at any level. A potential outcome could be that anyone who is not on a SuperGold card has a threshold at a much lower level than a SuperGold card member if at a later date, by Order in Council, those other two thresholds are changed.

The questions are really around whether the Minister received any advice in terms of the engagement with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; if so, what that advice was, and what, in her view, is the reasonable limitation being applied in this case?

It is quite an unusual power to have in any legislation in terms of what we already have. It’s known as a “Henry VIII” power, because you’re giving someone who’s not within the legislature, or making a decision as part of the legislature, the explicit power to override legislation. That’s already quite rare, but what this change does is build on that and it allows that decision to be made in prima facie breach of the Human Rights Act as well. I do think it’s important that this is an issue that’s considered by the Minister, and I look forward to hearing her response.

I think I can allay concerns. In 2008, Cabinet agreed that the maximum rebate and income abatement threshold should be adjusted annually in line with movements to reflect inflation from the previous calendar year. Cabinet adjusts that rate by Order in Council. The extension in section 3(1) will ensure that the additional threshold for SuperGold card holders will also be able to be adjusted annually in line with inflation through an Order in Council, similar to that process.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’m very pleased to—

💬 Shanan Halbert: Māngere.

—make a short contribution—yes, finally, thank you. I appreciate the Minister’s comments in the formation of this and the choice of the rates rebate. I want to raise a couple of aspects in terms of—and I spoke about this to the Minister the last time when we were able to make a contribution—the engagement and the public consultation, because we treat our seniors very much with care. For some of them that have very limited incomes, especially now in their retirement age, every dollar counts in their household, so this is a good system that we will be supporting.

However, when I read the regulatory impact statement (RIS), Minister, I am really concerned about the limitations and the constraints of the analysis, because it says right here that Cabinet had a preferred policy and that the department were constrained in the analysis of risks and benefits. One of the things of the system, when it does become available—because it has been chosen; it is being delivered on a political party promise—is that we want to maximise the number of our seniors in Aotearoa that are able to understand (a) the system, (b) the language, and (c) the assessment.

I just have some questions to the Minister around the transparency and understanding. It says here, Minister, that the department doesn’t hold any demographic information. Why is that, regarding rates rebates recipients? When you don’t have a baseline assessment, then someone’s got to make up some information from somewhere, with regards to our SuperGold card holders, because we want to ensure that when the policy is rolled out—we’re talking about two weeks; 1 July 2025, which is really soon, around the corner. My concern is for those who don’t understand the English language as well as they could—it’s around the accessibility of our Māori, Pacific, and ethnic seniors, particularly when you’ve got a system that is going to assist their weekly bills. So I come back to the analysis. Why wasn’t that done properly, so that Cabinet, when deciding that, could have the intensity, the numbers, and just do a really good cost-benefit analysis? So, whilst we are supporting this bill, I want to ask the Minister that.

The information that the department holds on our seniors is really important because then you can get a really good idea around success rate and how well the system will be rolled out—in particular, the time frame. When the analysis is not presented by the department, why is that? It has said very clearly in the RIS that there is a sensitive nature—we get that—but it is important that when systems are rolled out for the benefit of a particular group, particularly the seniors, you have baseline measurements for the uptake. I’ve heard the Minister talk about “uptake”, which is really important because we want to see the success of this policy and of this initiative, which will be targeted to specific seniors in our population. So those are the points that I wanted to raise.

Also, lastly, I do have a concern around the understanding of this policy in communities across Aotearoa where English is the second or third language. They’re very particular about their households and the money that they receive weekly, because they have to rely on their children or their extended families. So, Minister, that’s my plea—that when the system does come up, the territorial local authorities need help in rolling the system out so that the system is effective, so that it goes to the seniors that deserve it and that have worked hard all their lives, and that the rates rebates uptake is rolled out properly. Thank you.

💬 Hon Casey Costello: Madam Chair.

The Hon Celia Costello.

Celia Costello?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Oh, sorry! I went to school with Celia Costello.

I thank the member for her impassioned presentations on advocacy for our seniors. I would, first of all, highlight the fact that, again, this is an existing scheme that we’re adding to, and the challenges that the collection of data—because age was not a component of eligibility under the previous Rates Rebate Scheme, it was only income threshold, so it would have been inappropriate for the department to be gathering data about age, when it wasn’t relevant to the eligibility component of the rates rebate scheme, as it was before. We will be collecting that data, moving forward.

I would also highlight—and you’ve highlighted a really important issue—that we do want many people to take up this opportunity. So there has been a range of communications. We have specifically communicated with the councils. Office for Seniors have sent out communications. But I acknowledge the fact that sending this information doesn’t necessarily mean it is taken up. I know there are a number of local constituent MPs who actually sit with their constituents and help them fill in the forms to assist them, and I’m sure you’d add the same as to ensure that we reach as many people as possible—this is the reason why we’re trying to do this.

The SuperGold card eligibility will also allow that information to be part of the SuperGold card hub information, and, again, directing that information to the other discounts being available through the SuperGold card holders will be useful, as well, so that we can optimise those benefits.

So, yeah, the ability to analyse has been restricted because it wasn’t a criteria for the rates rebate eligibility as it sat previously.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got a few questions for the Minister, and thank you for the hint that you might be going to ask me. I really wanted to start with a couple of questions about the focus for the rebate and then move on to ask some wider questions about what options were and weren’t thought about. I guess I’d like to start by leading on to my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question about whether the Minister actually values seniors who don’t own property, and whether she considers that a senior, whether single or a couple, who pays rent is not also paying rates, in that very few landlords would subsidise their tenants by paying the rates unless it came out of the rental income they received.

I also looked at the question of timing and the Minister just referred a moment ago to the coalition agreement. The coalition agreement of November 2023—you must have been doing a lot of work on this beforehand, but this comes to us with the regulatory impact statement saying that in the time available and given the decisions taken by Cabinet, only one option has been assessed. So I just wonder what the Minister was doing about this proposal, this amendment bill, in the time between November 2023 and the announcement in this Budget that they were only able to look at one item.

Then I’d like to move to questions that would really depend on to what extent the Minister talked to the Minister of Local Government. To me it seems like we’re putting a band-aid on the issue—and a band-aid for only a few people—of affordable rates. Has the Minister talked to the Minister of Local Government, either current or previous, about some of the issues about the national rates postponement scheme. I’ve got a list here from Local Government New Zealand about funding and financing tools, and they’re in three tiers. Number one is ones that are on the Government’s agenda, like congestion charging, potentially sharing GST, a regional deal. There are some like the ratepayer assistance scheme that the Government has apparently shown interest in, and one of those is to end unfunded rules and responsibilities imposed by central government.

I understand that through the Budget the bulk of the cost of this scheme will be from the taxpayer, but surely there is an administrative burden, and I wonder if the Minister or her colleague the Minister of Local Government has actually taken the time to consult with Taituarā, local government officials, Local Government New Zealand, or those councils that are part of the consortium for the rates postponement—there’s a group that do the rates postponement together. And in particular, going back to this list of potential support for local government rather than kicking them, tool 20 looks at having a national rates postponement scheme, because out of the 85 councils, I think only about eight or so have a rates postponement scheme that may or may not be tied to financial hardship.

There are a number of reasons why people might want to temporarily postpone rates. They go on to the title of the building in question so that the other ratepayers are not disadvantaged by this and whether there would be some mileage. Unfortunately, the “2 or 20” national rates postponement scheme here is listed under tier 3, the tools that councils want but the current Government doesn’t have an interest in.

This is quite a narrow bill for a group of people. It’s a bit questionable as to how many will be eligible in the end, but would this Minister take up the issue of a national rates postponement scheme as a rather broader way of solving some of these problems?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to pick up on some of the points that have been made, but with different questions, actually. So in terms of the point made by the previous speaker, I note on page 4 of the regulatory impact statement (RIS) that the benefits of the Minister’s preferred option are not necessarily likely to outweigh the costs. What the RIS actually says is that “Given the short timeframes to consider the regulatory [impact] proposal, no assessment has been made.” And then again at point 44 of the RIS, page 15: “Given the short timeframes to consider the regulatory proposal, and that Cabinet policy decisions have already been made, a full cost benefit analysis has not been conducted.” I also refer to the table, which is table 6, and this goes to the previous speaker’s point. She talked about only one proposal having been looked at but, actually, there were options that were ruled out immediately with no consideration, including delaying the implementation until 1 July, which I think would be eminently sensible, given some of the issues that have been raised. There are a number of other options there as well.

So it comes to the philosophical question, and I have heard the Minister say that this is around the coalition agreement. It seems to me that there is a different philosophy from that side of the House, certainly from New Zealand First, that says that something that’s in a coalition agreement supersedes all else; there is no need for policy development or a rigorous process. I’d like to hear a little bit more about whether the Minister agrees with that. I guess that’s an ideological difference, but, if so, it would be good to have that on the record, because anybody in this place who is looking at policy normally would expect there to be a cost-benefit analysis at the minimum. So not only are we not seeing the CBAx but there hasn’t actually been one done, and for the RIS to say that they can’t even say whether the preferred option, whether the benefits are likely to outweigh the costs, is quite remarkable.

So if the Minister is justifying that based on a philosophical proposition that coalition agreements made through politics, not through policy, supersede all else, then I think it would be good to have that on the record. I think the Auditor-General and various other institutions of democracy would have commentary on that. Certainly, they have before, when we look at things like the Gumboot Friday funding, which went through a non-contestable procurement process, $24 million, no contestability of the funds, very little analysis. Is the Minister suggesting that this kind of system is akin to that? If so, it would be good to have that on the record. Also, why could she not wait at least until 1 July? This could have been an announcement outside of the Budget that could have been done with a bit more rigour and then announced at a later date. So that is the option that was ruled out immediately with no analysis. There were other options as well, including a flat rebate to all SuperGold card holders. Why was that not considered?

Also, providing all SuperGold card holders with a 50 percent discount on rates up to $1,600, and “Detailed analysis of this option was not completed but Manifesto Commitments from New Zealand First estimate the cost of this as $1-$1.2 bn.”—I’m really interested in that proposition, because it looks like some initial costings were done, and it would be really good to hear from the Minister. I realise it’s not ministerial work, but certainly some of the evidence that she has relied on for previous decisions have come from alternative sources, so if they had done some costings, it would be really good to hear about why they ruled that out. Was it purely a costing matter, or was it simply to do with the time and the quick time frames in which she had to deliver this policy? If so, and if the philosophical difference is that coalition agreements supersede everything, then, again, having that on the record would be useful.

There was also the option of raising the income abatement threshold for all ratepayers to $45,000, and that would have exceeded the amount budgeted for according to the reasons for rolling it out, but because we haven’t seen the CBAx or any kind of process, it’s difficult to understand why that was ruled out, so elucidating on that would be very helpful. My last one is the last point on the table. So I’m really trying to get a sense from the Minister about the underlying philosophy and justification for this lack of process.

I’ll just go back to the previous commentary around the recognition of other financial needs—those that are reliant on the pension and renting. For all of those factors there is a range of work, but it sits well outside of this piece of legislation, which is about providing some immediate relief in the rates rebate space.

In terms of the consultation with local government, although there was no direct conversation with local government, Local Government New Zealand have posted a press release saying they support the changes to the scheme, which is encouraging.

In terms of the discussion points broadly about the decisions being made around this Rates Rebate Scheme and how we came to these conclusions, I will highlight yet again that this is an existing system that we knew was successful—we knew it was favourably received by seniors, that they valued the system. Therefore, what we have introduced here is an opportunity to provide some immediate relief, and deferring things and all of that seems counter to the discussion around wanting to give relief as soon as we can to those that are desperately in need. This is targeting those that are completely reliant on superannuation as their sole income. It is one tool in the tool box to provide that rates rebate.

In terms of the commitment, this is a broad commitment to cost of living relief, not just purely a coalition commitment around the rates rebate. It was an opportunity to improve cost of living pressures. This is one demographic and one tool that we’ve been able to deliver some immediate cost relief in some small way for those that are reliant on superannuation.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Now, just before I take the next call, I’m aware this is a relatively small part. I’m aware there hasn’t been a select committee but I will be looking for some fairly targeted presentations henceforth.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do have a question that I don’t believe has been traversed at all, and that is in relation to clause 4, which has a definition of “cardholder” in it. Now, I was interested in looking at this particular definition, and I see that it refers back to the Social Security Regulations 2018, which I also have. The definition in the Social Security Regulations suggests that a cardholder is a person who holds a valid SuperGold card issued to that person. Then there is a definition in section 283 of those regulations.

The question I have for the Minister is: at the moment, SuperGold cards are available to those people who are 65 and over, and I am aware that that Minister’s party, and indeed my party, have a commitment to that particular age of superannuation. But I am also aware that that is not a universally recognised position in this House. In fact, the largest party in Parliament has a policy position—and I’ve just checked their website to make sure that that is correct—of raising the retirement age to 67 by 2044. There are many of us, myself included, who would be affected by that, and I am sure many New Zealanders listening to this today may be impacted by that. So I think it is prudent of this committee—and, I think, the hope of all Ministers when they put forward legislation that they feel will be beneficial to the country, and which we in the Labour Party agree is going to be beneficial to New Zealanders—to make sure that that legislation is sustainable over the long term. I wanted to know: will this definition of someone who’s entitled to a SuperGold card change with the possible superannuation retirement age rising to 67, if the National Party were to have its policy implemented, meaning that those people who would currently be covered, come 2044, may not be in a position to receive the benefits of a rates rebate under this scheme?

I think it’s not clear, from what I’ve read—and I have looked into the regulations, as I said—what the situation would be, but I think it would be really useful for the committee if the Minister could clarify that. Often, we might think that 2044 is a long time away. However, when we look at some of the legislation that we have to change in this House, often it’s to do with those future dates and issues with the legislation not foreseeing possible changes—that issues arise and we need to make changes to that quickly. I have had a quick look through the regulatory impact statement and the departmental disclosure documentation. I think this is something that could have been traversed at select committee, so I am interested to hear what the Minister’s view of that is, in terms of the intersection of the retirement age, eligibility for the SuperGold card, and those definitions being used in this Rates Rebate Scheme, in clause 4.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to have a look at clause 5. This relates to the actual figures that are contained in there. This is the clause that we haven’t actually touched on yet, because it identifies what the actual level of abatement is when it comes to income. I have a number of questions that relate specifically to this section, which actually is the guts of Part 1. Because we’re talking about here what the actual threshold is, what’s appropriate, the costings that are associated with that, the lack of analysis, and what’s contained in the regulatory impact statement (RIS), so there are a number of questions related to this clause.

As for clause 6, which is yet to come, there are a number of questions about what it is that the local authority actually has to take into consideration in discharging their duties, and there has not been any comment made around that—so there are no questions around that. But in relation to clause 5, this is, effectively, the two-tier approach, where the existing low-income abatement threshold is set—it’ll be at $32,210 in the new incoming year—and this bill seeks to basically insert the new level for a SuperGold card holder, which is higher than that, at $45,000, and it does basically cover, on analysis, a couple who are both in one household receiving New Zealand super. It wouldn’t actually give them much discretionary income over and above that, to receive the full abatement level.

My question to the Minister is: what analysis was undertaken and what consultation was undertaken? Because these are the sorts of things that we would be exploring in select committee. We would be hearing from those that held a New Zealand SuperGold card, or those that didn’t, and what difference this would mean. This is a Budget measure that has been slated as alleviating cost of living pressures. We accept that; that’s why we support this. But why $45,000? Why not have it at a slightly higher level that acknowledges that there are some seniors in our community who perhaps undertake a little bit of work, that generate a little bit of additional income, who would not be—under this proposal—able to, effectively, be eligible for the full-abatement level.

Now, I get that this is a reducing amount, so the more that someone earns, in terms of the income levels, then the amount of the rebate that they’re able to claim would reduce over time, as that income increases. But my first question for the Minister is: was there any consideration around increasing the level so that it took into account discretionary income? It doesn’t have to be huge amounts of money. But when we’re looking at people in communities who are SuperGold card holders, who would go about doing, even if it’s five hours a week—some employment opportunity that they might do—this would make a huge difference in terms of their inability to be able to actually activate or achieve the full rebate. That is the first question I have for the Minister.

The other one is around the figures. Nobody has talked about what is being described as “$154 million over four years”. Now, how was that figure arrived at? Because the RIS—and it is good to see a RIS with this this Government, I have to say—identifies that, actually, there is quite a level of uncertainty around the confidence that officials were able to provide with the figures, with the uptake, with the costs that this would place on councils; and we’ll get to that later. But how was that $154 million figure arrived at? The other thing is there are a couple of figures floating around—one says $154 million; one says $155 million. What is the accurate figure here, in terms of the appropriation that has been recorded or is sought to be achieved by the Government?

This is something that has been in the pipeline, and considering that this was a National - New Zealand First coalition agreement opportunity, why were these costings not done sooner to give certainty around how much it’s going to cost? So, really, two questions there. One is the discretionary level of income and those thresholds, and whether there was some thought given to actually increasing it from the $45,000 to take account of that. The second one is around that figure: what is it, $154 million or $155 million—$1 million makes a difference in this Budget—and how was that figure arrived at?

I’d sort of first calculate, in terms of the levels being set and how much discretionary income you would allow in that system—unfortunately, the allocation of limited Government resources in the context of social policy is complex and requires brightline tests to be set. Like, there have to be some limitations on what we’ve done. So this has been based upon the foundation of a couple who are solely reliant on superannuation as their only source of income. That was the decision that had to be made. In the fiscal environment that we’re in, it is important that we are accountable for those taxpayer dollars that we take off New Zealanders and, therefore, we’ve set a threshold in that space.

The other component I think the member has raised is around the certainty of the numbers. As I’ve previously stated, we didn’t collect demographic information on the Rates Rebate Scheme. So, in terms of determining how many seniors were taking this up, it was not a calculation, it wasn’t information that we had, we weren’t asking people’s ages when they—so, therefore, determining how many superannuitants were taking up the Rates Rebate Scheme meant that we had to make some decisions. What we did know was the approximation of 66,000 households that were solely reliant on superannuation as their income, and that is the estimate that’s been driven. So, yes, it’s not an exact science, but that was how we reached the conclusions that we’ve reached.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to thank the Minister for answering my previous questions so concisely. It’s really good to see the level of engagement from the Minister and also her level of expertise. Now, I spoke on clause 4, and those questions have been answered.

I want to move on to clause 5. I know the Minister mentioned before the variation in terms of the threshold between one setting for SuperGold card holders and one setting for other ratepayers. That has been clarified, but I want to check with the Minister: in the regulatory impact statement, it does state that the rate for SuperGold card holders was $47,000 for a couple. As far as I remember from the original Rates Rebate Act, it is in terms of a household, not for individuals. Would that be correct? The $45,000, in terms of what we see in clause 5, which inserts new section 3(1AA)(a), is not for an individual amount?

One of the questions I had was whether, in that case, the Minister then considered, rather than looking at an individual household amount, an individual amount, because we know that, in terms of superannuation as well, there have been complications between considering it as a couple and considering it as an individual. Was that idea ever floated? In which case, then, if we’re looking at individuals, that original amount of $32,000 potentially might be sufficient, as opposed to the higher amount.

I also wanted to check, because the departmental statement doesn’t actually specify that any form of Te Tiriti analysis has been done on this. I appreciate what the Minister has said, in terms of there hasn’t been sufficient information—and I’m hoping there is going to be better information that’s going to be tracked as a result of this—but would the Minister be open to, as we are tracking this now with this legislation, there being adjustments in the future, and balancing, depending on what sort of demographic data we will be receiving as a result of this? Those are my questions for clause 5.

Now, moving on to clause 6, I’m really interested in the fact that, for this clause, there are specific ones where the chief executive (CE) of the territorial authority is not required to verify the statement about the following matters, but I really want to check with the Minister whether the Minister would consider some of my amendments to include additional matters as a part of that list. It’s interesting that there are things like ratepayer’s income, other persons, occupancy of the property, etc., which seems really reasonable, but what isn’t fair and, I think, should be captured—and whether the Minister would consider them—is things like a person’s relationship status, a person’s immigration status, and things like a person’s criminal conviction records. I think those kinds of thing are also important to capture if we are going to be looking at things and the CE has the mandate to authorise and not require those sorts of things. I think the additional amendments that I’ve proposed are reasonable and are also in line with some of the other things that we see here. So I want to check with the Minister whether the Minister would consider those amendments.

Since I have a little bit of time left, just going back to clause 5, one of the things I did ask regarding the threshold was also just to ask the Minister to consider the tabled amendment that I’ve put forward as well, which is to increase the threshold—the Minister may not accept the one to increase the threshold for any other ratepayers—from $45,000 to $56,000 for a ratepayer who, at the time the ratepayer applies for the rebate, is a SuperGold card holder. I think that captures the higher threshold in terms of a couple having a higher superannuation threshold of $47,000—unless there is a reason for keeping it at $45,000? Also, it captures what previous speaker Tangi Utikere mentioned as well, in terms of what happens if there are families who are just adding that additional income.

In answer to the first part, regarding the combined household income, if they weren’t a couple or they were on their own, they would be well below the threshold and therefore fully apply for the full rebate.

In terms of the suggestion that we gather more data, I think we’ve already discussed the fact that we want this process to be as accessible and as encouraging as possible. I think it would be both administratively more difficult, but I think it would also be obstructive to the application process if we were asking such personal information about an applicant. The data that is being recorded is the data by which we assess eligibility and that’s all we’re interested in. The SuperGold card is one of those new eligibility components.

The council to whom they submit the application does not review the accuracy of that information. They accept the information as an accurate account, and it is then evaluated so that the rebate can be forwarded. So I would not be considering any additional requirements to add further information purely for the interests of data gathering.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 to insert definitions of “deserving citizen” and “deserving resident” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 4 regarding a community services card are out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s 10 remaining tabled amendments to clause 4 regarding other forms of card are also out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5(2) to replace “$45,000” with “$56,000” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5(2) to replace “$32,210” with “$56,000” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5(2) to insert new paragraph (aa) be agreed to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5 to insert new subclause (4) is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 to insert “unless they reasonably suspect that the statement is untrue or dishonest” be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 6 to insert new paragraph (e) regarding the ratepayer’s medical history be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 6 to insert new paragraph (e) regarding the ratepayer’s criminal history be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 6 to insert new paragraph (e) regarding the ratepayer’s immigration status be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 6 to insert new paragraph (e) regarding the ratepayer’s relationship status be agreed to.