Rates Rebate Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 7 and 8, “Amendments about savings”, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I know that my colleague Tangi Utikere has some questions relating to this short part, mainly because it does have an impact on some of the things that we’ve not been able to cover in Part 1. We did have a number of questions around costings and so on.

This schedule here, I really am just wanting to ask the Minister for Seniors about how she sees this being delivered in a way that’s not going to be a postcode lottery through the transitional impact of it. That is because when we look at the regulatory impact statement (RIS) there are a number of risks that have been identified, particularly around territorial authorities’ ability to be able to actually roll out the legislation. There is a date here and it says that if it hasn’t been enacted by July, then it won’t come into effect. But it will be enacted by then, and therefore we are now contingent upon territorial authorities having the equipment and ability to be able to roll this out effectively and in a way that doesn’t make a difference so that somebody in one part of the country is receiving the full benefit and somebody else may not due to the territorial authority’s capacity to be able to deliver.

That was identified as a risk in the RIS where they have said there are four risks. The baseline measurement has been already referred to. The capacity risk we have not touched on at all. If I look at clause 51 of the RIS there is quite an extensive discussion about the Electronic Request Management System (ERMS) being planned to be retired in 2026—which is only a year away due to security concerns—and that’s to do with the Windows servers in places such as Christchurch City Council and Auckland Council, where they have created software for their administrative staff to process applications in a way that’s integrated. But not all councils are in that position. With a July 2025 implementation date, there’s no time to create a new version of ERMS and allow for territorial authorities to amend their systems to integrate with it. That is actually mentioned in clause 54 of the RIS.

It goes on to say that building a system of this nature and testing it would take between nine to 12 months and require additional funding. Council systems would also then need to be amended to reflect the new data fields and calculations at their cost. I do note that as a result of that the policy has only been able to partially meet the quality assurance. Now, that is a concern, but it’s even more of a concern with such an imminent date of 1 July when this is going to roll out, assuming that this legislation passes.

So what we want to know is that there’s going to be equity in terms of geographical equity. I note that Auckland Council and Christchurch Council have made steps to improve their systems. I don’t know where Dunedin Council is in that picture, but as an electorate MP in Taieri—and also the Clutha Council, which is much smaller, probably has not had the opportunity to update its data systems—I want to know that the seniors in my electorate are not going to be unfairly disadvantaged due to the capacity constraints that have been clearly listed in the RIS as a risk for this policy.

I’m going to truncate my contribution because I know that my colleague has quite pertinent questions, and I’d like to see those ventilated, given that this is the only opportunity that we will get to discuss this.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to just pick up on a couple of the issues that my colleague Ingrid Leary has referred to but not delved into. I thank her for leaving those to me. This is in relation to Schedule 1. It’s the transitional provisions that we are debating at the moment, and this really touches on the operational component for local territorial authorities to be able to deliver things in a timely way. As Ms Leary has identified, there is a definite time frame by which this bill would be stood up. We’ll get to the commencement date later. But in terms of those transitional provisions, in terms of eligibility being continued across through to the new council year, it is important.

One of the concerns that has been expressed, though, is the inability for there to have been any consultation with local councils around what this would mean for them in terms of implementation. However, what the regulatory impact statement (RIS) does identify is that there were five councils who were engaged with to get their views. Those five councils have been identified in the RIS: they are Auckland, Christchurch, Tauranga, Manawatū, and Clutha. My question to the Minister is: why those five? Why were those five selected for some form of consultation? The specific elements of what that consultation looked like have not been divulged. So I’d like to know from the Minister, why those five councils were selected. What was the specific nature of the engagement with those five councils, and what were the specific issues that they raised in relation to the roll-out of this particular proposal?

Now, I understand that they may not have been perhaps specifically told about what the proposal might be, but what the RIS does sort of lend itself to, or infer, is that there was some inkling that this was going to happen. The Minister has talked about this being in the coalition agreement between her party and the National Party, so it’s not as if this would not have been something that they were not able to foreshadow. But it is interesting that there were five councils that were selected. How were they selected?

But I think, more importantly, what some of those issues were that they touched on—because what else is in the RIS is the acknowledgment that there would be some administrative costs that would have to be borne by the council for this. In some cases, the RIS identifies that councils could incur costs of up to $200,000. Now, if we all reflect on what $200,000 would mean in our local communities for councils to do, some would say that, in the bigger scheme of things, it’s a little drop in the pot, but that is a significant amount of money. Is there confidence that the transition provisions are able to and are actually going to be delivered to avoid the geographical inequities that Ms Leary has referred to?

This is very, very important. So I’d like to know about those complexities, in terms of costs. It’s suggested from the RIS that it’s $100 million all up. That infers that some councils—I think it was two; the Minister can correct me on that—might incur up to $200,000 and that there would be a splattering of costs throughout the rest of the country for other authorities. From the Minister, I’d like to know, well, what do those sorts of costs look like, not just across the board but for smaller councils—I mean, there is a little bit of diversion between the five that have been referred to there in the RIS. Although two of them might be quite similar, the other three, I think that many members will accept, are large metropolitan areas or councils in terms of the representation.

So my question, firstly, is around those five councils. They’re the only ones that have had a chance to engage with officials on this particular issue or proposal, so I’d like to know about that.

We’d also like to know about the actual amounts that this would lead to for councils, and why has funding not been made available. In the bigger scheme, if this is $1 million, is this not yet another unfunded mandate that this Government seems to want to pass on to or hoist on to councils? Yes, we are supportive of this scheme, but we’re also supportive of ensuring that councils have the tools to be able to deliver aspects for their community. So those are the two questions that I’d like to start with.

I thank members for their questions in relation to the engagement with councils, as it’s an important component and we want them to be advocates of the system as well. In terms of the engagement, in the regulatory impact statement, as you can see from the councils, it was the larger councils where there was some concern about the technical systems that they operate and whether they would be able to adopt it. That consultation has been ongoing and continues. Those councils have all, along with many others that have been consulted, confirmed that they are happy. As Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) has communicated in their press release, they are happy that they are able to roll this out. That initial engagement with the larger councils we based on that. Since then, the department has continued to engage and the response has been very positive in regard to their capacity to deal with it.

Again, I would highlight that this is an existing system that’s already in place that we were adding a broader threshold—so the issues were really around the numbers. Again, as I’ve mentioned previously, the ability for constituent MPs to offer support to their constituents in terms of assisting and filling out the forms and making the process as easy as possible so that those who haven’t taken advantage of this scheme can optimise it—the objective is, of course, to increase the number of people that are accessing this scheme, and we will do everything we can to broaden that understanding and appreciation.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Again, I really appreciate the Minister’s response. I just want to check—the Minister mentioned that it is an existing system and it’s in the system. One of the things in Schedule 1, Part 1, clause 1 that really stood out to me is: “as if the Rates Rebate Amendment Act 2025 had not been enacted.” These are for rates for the year ending before 1 July 2025.

I want to check with the Minister: for those kind of rates, and then for them to go into the new year—i.e., starting from 1 July 2025—would the Minister know if the council’s internal system is able to easily make those adjustments from the perspective of rates postponement? My colleague Celia Wade-Brown previously mentioned that out of about 80 or so councils, eight of them currently actually allow rates postponement as it is. That includes Auckland Council, for example, and even Wellington City Council. So for those people who are going to be applying for and going to the new system but have traditionally been allowed to have rates postponement, does the system then allow the rates postponement adjustment to tick over, on the basis of what we see in Schedule 1, as of 1 July 2025? I’m assuming that’s an easily adjustable system if it’s already been captured, but I’d be interested to hear from the Minister specifically on those who are currently on rates postponement.

The second question, then, that I have for the Minister is—the Minister also just mentioned that this is, again, something that you apply for. Let’s say a person applies for it after this bill comes into effect, will they then get retrospectivity given the fact that they may apply it in September? We’ve heard that, yes, the bill will be active and will come into effect and people will apply for it—but at various times. Would, again, their higher threshold be on the basis of when they applied or when this bill came into effect? I think those are the two questions I would really like to get some advice from the Minister on.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to pick up on a couple of things that the Minister has, herself, brought into the debate, and also just a supplementary question, which I’ll start with first. From the contribution from Lawrence Xu-Nan, when he talked about the retrospectivity, I guess the supplementary question on that is: if there is some delay to the processing of the SuperGold card at the council end—at the territorial authority end—that would seem to be very unfair to the ratepayer, who would otherwise be entitled to that rebate. I’m wondering if she has considered who should bear that cost. Would that be a Government cost? Would the territorial authority, perhaps, have to pick it up, and, if so, how can we be sure that that’s going to happen?

There is, I think, secondary legislation available but, if not, having this on the Hansard would be really helpful so that if, for a ratepayer, for some reason there is a problem with the equipment at the territorial authority, which we’ve already canvassed, and if the ratepayer is told that, say, in an email from the council, they can then present that to the council—if the Minister can just clarify who bears that cost, I think even having it on the Hansard would be really good, in terms of making the case for that poor superannuant, who would find it incredibly stressful. But also, rates are stressful, if they can then recoup that and say, “Well, actually, I applied on this date and, therefore, as a matter of natural justice, I should be able to get the rebate”—that would be very helpful.

The further matter, though, that the Minister herself brought into the debate was something that just piqued my interest, because I understand it was made in a very sincere and genuine way and, as an elected MP, I certainly would be wanting to help anybody coming to my office who would like to apply for a SuperGold card. But I’m wondering if that is an indication that the Minister is expecting MPs and other agencies to be, sort of, supporting the roll-out of this—and then, how is that going to work? She’s just indicated that now, and for list MPs, who don’t necessarily have a permanent base or are not known to be there at particular times, is she expecting list MPs to do that too?

MPs have a huge workload and normally, for those listening, where we try to help is where people have gone to a Government agency and have fallen through the cracks. It might be a matter of housing, it might be a health matter, perhaps. For example, I’ve been helping a constituent recently who has been on a very long waiting list for hip replacements. It’s costing taxpayers a huge amount of money for home care, and actually, although the squeaky wheel shouldn’t get ahead on the list, with some further investigation and letters from an MP, we are able to step in and be that place of last resort to help constituents.

But what I heard from the Minister was something quite different, which was an invitation, perhaps as a matter of course, to be helping constituents to fill out the paperwork for the SuperGold card. Now, I’ve never done that. I’m not sure if my office have, and I know that my very adept staff would be able to support people to do that—and there is probably going to be a flurry of people now coming to the office to get that done. I would welcome that, because we want them to get the benefit of the rates rebate, but it does seem unusual to me that the Minister would be suggesting that, as a matter of course, people would go to their office.

I’m thinking also about the contribution made earlier by my colleague Lemauga Lydia Sosene, who was talking about some of the barriers for our ethnic communities. For some of them, English is not their first language. If we, as MPs, are going to be helping to support the roll-out of this, it could be really useful to have some additional translation material and paperwork available, perhaps some forms done in Samoan, for example—it is Samoa Language Week—that would be really helpful for those electorate MPs.

Actually, given that we have te reo Māori as an official language, perhaps we could also have some paperwork in our offices for that. Certainly, a lot of the people from Te Tai Tonga come to my electorate office, because there isn’t a permanent office anywhere, I think, in the South Island, given that that electorate stretches all the way up to Pōneke—to Wellington. If we’re going to be serious about taking on this duty, which I’m happy to do—I don’t know what it would entail work wise—is the Minister seeing that as a matter of course, or is this something just more as a backstop? I’m keen to understand.

Just in response to the member’s questions regarding the councils’ systems of managing postponement, the bill won’t affect that. The postponement system that the member talked about, councillors have advised that they can deliver on this work, so we don’t have any concerns in that space at this time. Will there be a retrospective effect? No, we haven’t considered that. There’s no retrospectivity. It will come into effect from 1 July 2025, should the bill pass.

In response to the member from Labour’s questions about the processing, I think there’s a misunderstanding about what I was talking about. I wasn’t suggesting that members assist with SuperGold card applications. What I referred to earlier on was that I know of MPs who have assisted members in filling out their rates rebate applications. I’m not suggesting that is compulsory and I’m not suggesting that that needs to be done. There are systems and information in place. There will be further information continuing to be circulated by the Office for Seniors. Councils, I know, have been helpful in the process. So that is not at all the suggestion that I’m making.

In terms of application dates, there were some concerns about processing applications and who would bear that cost and whether there would be anybody penalised. I can assure you that the application date will determine the eligibility. Regardless of whether there is any delay in processing, it’s the application date which starts the process. So how long it takes to process won’t affect what is paid out.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the Minister for Seniors for that clarification. I think what I’m hearing from her is that it is the application day, but is there any discretion that relates to any other time frames, particularly around when councils would be expected to have to undertake particular tasks? There is, for example, in the bill, the expectation that councils are not required to double-check eligibility criteria. Obviously, if this is Schedule 1, the transitional sort of provisions, is that something that can still be dealt with regardless of when an application is received or not, or is there some thinking around that?

I want to also just pick up on the Minister’s point around her expectation that, no, it wouldn’t be list or constituency MPs who would be, basically, taking on board this backlog of applications to assist with. Like Ms Leary has, we all have wonderful staff. I have wonderful staff in my electorate office that would very happily help anyone who comes and wants some assistance, whether it be for an application for a SuperGold card, Minister, or whether it be that they wanted to access this rebate scheme, either under the existing lower-income threshold or with the new one.

I think there is, though, still the outstanding question around where the costs fall, because the Minister hasn’t actually responded to the $1 million that is anticipated or expected as a cost that would currently fall on councils. Why is the Government not making available the $100 million to meet the costs that would otherwise be going into communities all around the country, and, yes, in some cases it’s the $200,000 mark for larger councils, and the Minister has said that that’s largely, I think, related to IT development or opportunities that exist within a local territorial authority. That is none the less a cost that is being borne by the councils. Why is the Government not footing the bill to do that?

The Minister also talked about, in response to my question to her—and I thank her for it—the fact that there is ongoing consultation with councils. Now, that is news to the committee, because we obviously saw that there was some level of engagement with the five named councils—Auckland, Christchurch, Tauranga, Clutha, and Manawatū. The committee was not aware that there was an ongoing level of consultation, I assume, with those five councils, and it might just be that, yes, they’ve agreed that it is acceptable for all five of those councils and they are able to roll it out and they believe they can absorb the costs or what have you, or no, there are three of them that have IT issues.

What’s not clear still, though, from the Minister is: is it just those five councils? Or since this policy announcement, has there actually been a wider level of engagement with a wider level or range of councils outside of those five to reflect, or in response to, some of the transitional issues that might be faced that perhaps the Minister or officials were not aware of—the Government was not aware of—when this was brought to their attention?

So this is about the fact that, OK, all we know at the moment is that five councils in this country have been involved in feedback around this. That’s better than none; I accept that. But now we hear from the Minister that there has been an ongoing level of consultation. Well, what is that, what does that look like, has that been widened or not? Actually, as some of these issues have come to light and given that this was introduced under Budget urgency, there has been the passage of time and the benefit of time since then and now, so what is the level of consultation? What is some of the stuff that those councils have been raising?

We don’t get an updated regulatory impact statement (RIS). We can only rely on what the RIS is in front of us, but there may very well have been some issues, and they may all be positive. It would be great if they were positive and saying that they don’t have an issue with this. But what are the issues that have been raised with the Minister or with officials as part of this newly found ongoing consultation to ensure that with Schedule 1 that smooth transition through to councils around New Zealand is able to take place?

I think, perhaps, I’m not making myself particularly clear, but, as I’ve said repeatedly, there has been ongoing communication with the councils. I think 57 of the 67 have been engaged with webinars, and they’ve been in Local Government New Zealand and sent out communications that they’re supportive of it. Of the five councils that were mentioned in the regulatory impact statement, they have, again, come through this process and supported it. They are just five of the many councils that have been engaged with; they will continue to be supported through this process.

In terms of around where that cost will sit, this is quantifying what that cost might look like. Most of the councils submit these forms in a batch monthly. How they quantify that cost I’m not quite sure, but in terms of that, ready to roll out—all of the feedback that we’ve had from the councils is that they are generally supportive of the process. Local Government New Zealand has come out publicly and said they’re supportive of the system, and, at this stage, we feel confident that they are ready to engage, and no further issues have been raised at this time.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to follow the same line of questioning. I know, Mr Chair, that you’re saying that new points need to be raised, so I just want to go back to the line of questioning that has been followed by my colleagues, and I thank them for raising points on Part 2.

The Minister has explained clearly that from her understanding there are no issues, but I go back to the issue of those who are eligible to apply. There is an assumption that is made by the department that things will come right in terms of the roll-out date, in terms of the eligibility of the SuperGold card, in terms of the understanding of who will be eligible and who will not, because you’ve got to meet the income threshold, you’ve got to meet also the SuperGold card. But what I want to put on record very clearly is that when the roll-out does happen, because there’s a lot of information that we have asked questions on—what I want to stress is the importance of the public engagement of who will be eligible and at what point. Because the department shows here in the regulatory impact statement that without the cost-benefit analysis and with a new electronic rates management system, there are going to be some issues, Minister, with the roll-out, particularly if only five territorial local authorities have had engagement that they have raised.

But that doesn’t speak for everyone. So I go back to what I earlier said, Minister, on those communities that will be eligible for a SuperGold card, and my question is: will the applicants receive the same amount of engagement, will they have a very clear understanding as to if they are eligible as SuperGold card holders, and at what point will they be eligible for rates rebates?

This is really important, and I want to put on record and stress that those households that are eligible for the Rates Rebate Scheme under the new system—at what point do those details need to be spelt out explicitly by the territorial local authorities, not just the five that have had engagement? What about everybody else? If we’re talking about the fairness of a system for our seniors, I want to stress that. My really quick question, Minister, is: will there be the same level of public engagement?

An earlier comment was made by the member Ingrid Leary that there has been a small assumption that MPs, constituent MPs—and I come from South Auckland, and there’s a lot of diversity, and there’s a misunderstanding of officials. Also, please don’t assume that people can just rock up to a Government office. They can’t. There’s a whole lot of things that come with approaching the Department of Internal Affairs or the Ministry of Social Development. You’ve got to go through a whole system.

So what I want to ask the Minister is: will the same amount of engagement, not just with officials when the system is rolled out, also be for the seniors? I continue to stress that for Māori communities, for Pacific, and for ethnic communities, English is not their first language. There needs to be a very clear system that when people can have the benefit of a rates rebate in their household because they’ve got very limited incomes, they will get the same amount of attention and engagement and clear understanding of the language in terms of what they are eligible for. That is my question to the Minister.

I would say it again, and I’m not sure how many times I can repeat this: we have not just engaged with five councils. All 67 territorial authorities have received information through their ratings officers. Webinars with councils have engaged with 57 of those councils. We have sent out information through Grey Power, through the Office for Seniors. We will continue to work with mayors and chief executives. The information has been sent out. I will say it again: it is not just the five councils that have been receiving information.

My only suggestion—and I’m sorry that I’ve created alarm—is that the constituent MPs may wish to assist this process. I am not trying to overburden hard-working constituent MPs, but I am acknowledging the fact that you may wish to assist. But there are lots of tools and information available. We will continue to engage. There will be further information sent out, and, again, the intention is to ensure the engagement—and any suggestions to improve that engagement, I’m sure, will be welcomingly received.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7 to insert new section 2AB is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.