Rates Rebate Amendment Bill

We now come to the debate on clauses 1 to 3, “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I won’t make reference to clause 3; I think that’s very clear in terms of the Act that it seeks to amend. However, I do want to pose some questions to the Minister around clause 1, which relates to the title, and clause 2, which relates to the commencement.

One of the things that I think is really important—and we do hear this quite a lot in this House—is that the name of the bill that is making its way through the House should really, truly reflect what the bill is actually about. I accept that sometimes that can be very difficult to achieve, particularly if there are competing aspects in a bill. That’s not the case with this one. It is a very discrete change around eligibility for the Rates Rebate Scheme.

I have an Amendment Paper which would seek to change the name of this bill to, I think, actually, call it exactly what it is, and that is the “Rates Rebate (SuperGold Card Eligibility) Amendment Bill”. I’d really encourage the Minister to consider the appropriateness of that. I think this is a bill that is purely around a change in eligibility for those that hold or possess a SuperGold card. So anyone that’s looking back at this would just look and say, “OK, well, it’s the Rates Rebate Amendment Act”, and might think, without delving deeply into it and looking at the annotations that would follow an amendment Act and what the changes were specifically about—whereas calling it what it is, the “Rates Rebate (SuperGold Card Eligibility) Amendment Bill”, would go more than some way to identify exactly what this bill seeks to address, and that is to deliver eligibility for this scheme for holders of the SuperGold card.

I’m interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that. It is the only Amendment Paper that is in my name. I think it is a sensible one, but I would be interested in whether the Minister was open, at this late stage—given also, though, that this was an Amendment Paper that was drafted under urgency and was tabled on the exact same day as urgency; none the less, I still think that it does ring true.

On commencement, we’ve had a lot of conversations in committee about the appropriateness of councils being able to deliver on this. My question to the Minister on this clause is very simple, and it’s whether she has confidence in being able to have this bill, which will become an Act, effectively coming into force on 1 July, which is not too far away. My colleague Lemauga Lydia Sosene had identified that. I wonder whether there are any concerns around the time pressures associated with this commencement and whether—look, I get the point that the Minister will probably make, which will be that the Government and Parliament will want this to come into force for the coming rates year; I get that. But is it such that it can’t actually be delayed, albeit slightly beyond 1 July, to allow for councils to get their systems in place to deal with this?

Now, the Minister has said that there appears to be some confidence that—well, councils like this idea, ratepayers like this idea, we like this idea, but we want to make sure that it works. So the question to the Minister is around the level of confidence she has that having this bill, or the Act, as it will be known, commence in a matter of two and a bit weeks is still an appropriate time frame, particularly given that there are a number of over-burdened administrative systems that councils around the country are more happy to contend with. It doesn’t have to be smaller councils that will only fit this bill when it comes to some difficulties with systems; there are larger ones as well, and I think that lends itself to what the Minister has said around those councils that are looking at a $200,000 cost which is not funded by this Government. That is an important distinction to make; yet another unfunded mandate that is being put on to councils around New Zealand.

So is the 1 July date still appropriate, or would she be open to amending that so that it is somewhat—just slightly—further out?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start with clause 2, “Commencement”, and then move on to clause 1, “Title”. In terms of the clause 2 and the commencement date, the previous speaker, Tangi Utikere, mentioned some of the viability of the implementation date of 1 July, but I kind of want to hone in on the complementary order that is coming into force at the same time as named here in the commencement date, which is the Rates Rebate (Specified Amounts) Order 2025.

Now, my understanding in terms of that particular order is that this is where it comes into effect for other ratepayers—we’re increasing the threshold to $32,210 from $31,510, which is in that particular order as well as the maximum rebate amount from $790 to $805. But what I’m curious about in this is: what does the Minister for Seniors mean by “immediately after”? Should immediately after, essentially, be interpreted as at the same time, like a few seconds after, or in quick succession? It’s a new thing for a commencement date that I’ve never seen previously on any of the other bills. If it just means a few seconds after, an hour after, it’d be good to know, because I genuinely have never come across that term before, and whether it’d be easier just to say, “at the same time as”.

On to the title, I take note of what the previous speaker, Tangi Utikere, mentioned in terms of his amendment, and I think his rationale is a really important one where through this bill, we’re not looking at a complete system change of rates rebate, but instead we’re looking at some minor adjustments. We are in support of Tangi Utikere’s amendment as well, but we also propose something else here which is that it is best to look at it maybe from a SuperGold card holder perspective or even simply a threshold adjustment, which is what we have here. So our proposal is: after “Rates Rebate” insert “(Threshold Adjustment)” just to again specify that this is looking at a very small portion of it.

I’m still a little bit puzzled, and we hear from the Minister that this came about as part of a coalition Government agreement in terms of looking at adjustments to the rates rebate for citizens, for seniors over the age of 65. But what we haven’t seen—and the Minister has continuously ruled things out outside the scope—in terms of this bill and in terms of the regulatory impact statement is how it benefits more vulnerable communities and vulnerable seniors than other members, and particularly that other members from the Labour Party have mentioned consistently as barriers for access to either SuperGold card or access to this.

So I wondered if the Minister would consider other title amendments that actually, again, more accurately capture the fact that while this is something that is going to benefit, it’s only going to benefit seniors who—to be honest—are eligible to a rates rebate in the first place, who are only going to be homeowners or landlords, but does not consider people who rent, does not consider the broader spectrum of, honestly, people over the age of 65 who are in more vulnerable situations. So I really think that there’s a missed opportunity here—whether the Minister will then consider “Rates Rebate (Great but a Missed Opportunity) Amendment Bill”. I’ll be keen to hear from the Minister in terms of my question on what does “immediately after” refer to in terms of the commencement date and whether the Minister would consider my title amendment.

Just to confirm: the 1 July date is the start of the new rates year. As you know, the rates year is up to 30 June, so this is to come into effect from the start of a new rates year—immediately upon the start of a new rates year.

In reference to the title, I think it is a very small piece of legislation. It is amending the current Rates Rebate Scheme. I think the title accurately reflects that.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendment to clause 1, to insert “SuperGold Card eligibility”, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to insert “(Threshold Adjustment)” be agreed to.