Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on Parliament’s website.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I move, That the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Currently, if a person has two boarders, those board payments are disregarded when the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) calculates the person’s eligibility for housing subsidies and other forms of income assistance. Currently, only board payments received from a third and subsequent boarder impact a person’s income—unless it is a person’s main source of income—when MSD calculates entitlements to assistance under the Social Security Act 2018. And only board payments received from a third and subsequent boarder currently impact a social-housing tenant’s income-related rent, unless it is a person’s main source of income, under the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992. As a result, the same accommodation costs can be subsidised more than once by the Government. This occurs when both the person making the board payment and the person receiving the board payment receive a housing subsidy for the same accommodation costs. As a result, households with boarders are advantaged in the calculation of housing subsidies over households who do not have boarders.

In contrast, rent payments received are currently considered when MSD calculates housing subsidies for a head tenant or homeowner. This means that those who receive board payments are unfairly advantaged, compared to those who receive rent payments, when MSD calculates housing subsidies. Furthermore, when rent payments received exceed the accommodation costs of the head tenant or homeowner, that excess amount is considered income, which then impacts other forms of assistance that MSD use—the Social Security Act 2018, definition of “income”. However, board payments received are not treated this way, and this advantages those who receive board payments even more.

The Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill addresses this issue by amending the Social Security Act 2018 and the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992, and their associated regulations. These changes will ensure that the housing contributions of all boarders—that is, 62 percent of each boarder’s weekly payment—are recognised in a person’s accommodation costs when MSD assess their entitlement to, and rate of, housing subsidy under the Social Security Act 2018. Housing subsidies covered by this change will be the accommodation supplement, the temporary additional support, and special benefit. The changes will also recognise the housing contributions—again, 62 percent of payments—of all boarders when calculating the income-related rent for social housing tenants under the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992, instead of just the payments of the third and subsequent boarders.

Furthermore, this bill will ensure that when the housing contributions from boarders exceed a person’s total allowable accommodation costs, or the market rent applicable if they’re in social housing, that excess will be counted as income for any form of income-tested assistance that uses the Social Security Act 2018 definition of “income”. This bill would address the inconsistent treatment of board and rent payments received. These changes are based on common sense and fairness. The changes will help to ensure that our welfare system is sustainable so we can continue to deliver housing support to those who genuinely need assistance.

To ensure these changes are implemented effectively, this bill includes other amendments. The accommodation supplement will no longer be considered a discretionary grant. This provides clarity for applicants and means the recipients will remain eligible for the accommodation supplement until they are no longer eligible, and MSD will cancel entitlement to an accommodation supplement if the recipient has not received a grant payment for eight consecutive weeks. The bill will also make clear that the portion of a property that a person lives at that is used for a person’s business will not be considered part of their accommodation costs.

Finally, the bill enables the disputes process to resolve any discrepancies. If the information provided by a person paying board or rent and the person receiving the board or rent doesn’t match, and where they do not agree on the rate of payment, the disputes process will be used to address the discrepancy. These amendments are required to ensure that MSD is no longer subsidising the same accommodation costs more than once, and to ensure that board and rent payments are treated in a consistent manner

Madam Speaker, I want to emphasise to the House that these changes will only affect those who receive board payments and not any housing subsidy paid to the boarder. It will only impact those people who are unfairly advantaged over those who receive another form of income. Most people who receive housing subsidies will not be impacted by these changes. This bill will ensure that clients are receiving the correct entitlement. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, barely 24 hours after their “brutal bully Budget”, where they literally stole from the workers to give to the bosses. After that terrible Budget of slash and burn, we see the first fruits of this sick Budget, with the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill. This is the first example of this Government’s strategy going forward, and it’s unrelenting—it’s unrelenting. Fresh from kicking workers in the face, this Government now wants to bash desperate Kiwis who’ll have a boarder living with them. It’s as simple as that. So we’re now going to attack people who actually need support. How desperate is this Government getting to find money for their tobacco subsidies, military hardware, tax cuts, and landlord loopholes, when they’re turning on uncles and aunties who take a boarder in to help pay the rent. I mean, how desperate is this Government that they have to turn the screws on people in the community who are really, really struggling.

The rules currently work to ensure that you don’t get unscrupulous head tenants, cramming people into rentals while receiving their own accommodation supplement. But this change will hit every single head tenant in New Zealand by including every boarder into the calculation. How on earth is that going to help any renter get a better rental? Surely that’s got to be the question for the House today. Does the Minister for Social Development and Employment think about this? Does she think about the type of stress that that’s going to put on different whānau? The reality is that in terms of helping any renter get a better rental, this isn’t going to help at all. If anything—

Joseph Mooney: Build a granny flat.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —the unintended consequences of this will see fewer people—as Joseph Mooney knows; he well knows—wanting to be head tenants in a rental if the bureaucratic and punishment elements of this mean-spirited amendment goes through.

The Government is so desperate to rob people to pay for their appalling Budget that they’re turning on everyone and anyone who takes in a boarder. It’s not just women, as we keep telling the public, and the public is very, very aware now of how this Government paid for its Budget, by sacrificing the women of this country. It’s not just women—although women are right at the forefront—it’s everyone. We understand the need of course to include more than three boarders in a rental for accommodation for allowance purposes. That is a restriction on profiting from slum-lording. But every single person who takes in a renter will net a pitiful amount of money from Kiwis who are already doing it tough. You don’t take in a boarder because you are rich; you take in a boarder—I’m not sure if the other side knows this because they’re not in that position. You take in a boarder because you want to pay the rent—

Joseph Mooney: How many houses have you got, Willie? You own more than me; I know that much.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —it helps pay the rent. Hustling these people, Mr Mooney, to fatten up Government revenue is disingenuous. It seems to be a theme of the Government—hustle anyone, find the funding from anywhere, whether it’s the good women of this country or beneficiaries, anything to pay for their rotten Budget. It shows how desperate that lot are that they want to make money off anyone who takes in a boarder just to help pay the rent. It’s as simple as that.

This Government doesn’t care about renters—we know that—but adding the punitive threats and punishments that will inevitably come along with this will simply see more people fall foul of the rules so this Government can penalise them even further.

The Government pretends that this is making things more fairer by including the first and second boarder into a person’s housing subsidy, but it isn’t. It’s changing the rules and then hunting down those who breached the new rules—

Joseph Mooney: “Mr Rich Landowner” over there.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —so they can penalise them further. Why make life more difficult for those trying to access housing subsidies, Mr Mooney? Why make life tough for people on Struggle Street? That’s what this Government does. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

It’s really outrageous that we’re here a day after the Budget, debating a piece of legislation that will take away from some of our most vulnerable. This is off the back of the Government admitting that they’re taking away from young people needing support, women in low-paid, undervalued work, people on the benefit who are now going to be facing cuts to benefit increases, tens of thousands of middle income earners who have children who need support, as well as now, people needing the income-related rent subsidy and the accommodation supplement to make ends meet.

There will be thousands of people left worse off as a result of this bill, and you don’t have to believe me, you can believe the Government officials that the Minister Louise Upston very conveniently ignored in her speech, who advised her about the disproportionate impacts that this bill would have on our most vulnerable. People who have, for example, one boarder would basically be left almost $92 worse off as a result of this bill. And the Minister for Social Development and Employment does not care that the ministry advised her that people affected by this bill could now be needing temporary accommodation, hardship grants, and what is worse, this Government decided to pursue this harm to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy few.

The Minister was advised, and again she conveniently ignored all of this in her speech and omitted it from her speech, that this piece of legislation and the Government massively overestimated the savings that they would be making in this bill because they rush it through without adequate consultation and analysis. And now the Government is claiming they’re going to be saving $150 million, taking it from people who often need accommodation support to give it to the wealthy few.

Joseph Mooney: When’s this man going to fight for the workers? Ever going to fight for the taxpayer?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: And that’s all in the advice from the ministry. And it’s wretched that the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, Joseph Mooney, who we could have used to evaluate this bill, is heckling and just doesn’t care. And he actually—I think he doesn’t care and hasn’t even read the advice; he hasn’t read the documents. And if he has, I think shame on him because the bill and the advice presented by the Ministry of Social Development clearly outlines the harm, the material harm that this bill will have on people, and it will push people deeper into poverty. Shame on the Government members making a mockery of Government legislation that will actually punish those doing it the toughest.

Stripping away the accommodation supplement and the income-related rent subsidy from those who have boarders will simply push up the cost of living. The Minister is completely factually incorrect in saying that these are groups of people that are unfairly advantaged. We introduced this change almost more than 30 years ago because it was recognised that due to the neoliberal reforms of the 80s, sole parents, for example, should be supported to take on boarders because there were many people who were living in public housing who were actually facing high cost of living. And by allowing them to take boarders without them losing the income-related rent subsidy, they could actually have connections, support, and be well.

Hon Louise Upston: Because they were large State houses.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: And it’s also rich that the Minister is now, finally, deciding to heckle and respond back, yet completely ignoring the fact that she will be leaving thousands of people worse off. She also happens to be the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction. And it’s so clear that in this Government Budget, child poverty will continue to be at staggering levels, potentially getting worse as a result of the Government’s decisions, because she does not care. She is the “Minister for poverty” rather than poverty reduction.

I want a Government that actually is bold and supports tenants who need adequate support. The accommodation supplement, it’s not the perfect top-up, but it’s a result of higher rents. We could be having things like rent controls, more supply of public housing—which this Government is cutting—instead of actually pushing through legislation that then strips away support from those who need it the most.

I want to go back to the supplementary analysis report that the ministry produced to actually show the Minister the impacts of her bill. It told us that disabled people would be disproportionately impacted by this piece of legislation—oh, she also happens to be the Minister for Disability Issues! I think she’s just turning her back on the very same communities that she’s supposed to be serving by introducing legislation that disproportionately affects disabled people.

Does the Minister Louise Upston disagree with the advice? Does she care about the disabled people that she’s disproportionately leaving worse off as a result of this piece of legislation? She does not care because this is the BS Budget, full of BS, targeting the most vulnerable people in our communities, and yet somehow conjuring tax cuts for those that are already doing it well, hoping—despite research showing us that in 40 years it hasn’t happened—that this will trickle down on those that are being punished right now. The Green Party won’t be supporting this bill, and we look forward to adequately scrutinising it in the committee of the whole House stage.

I’m taking this call to support the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. It’s quite a surprise to see that outrage from that member who just spoke before. I don’t understand why they don’t understand accountability, why they don’t understand that this is an issue which we need to fix. Because this is about the cases of double subsidisation in housing subsidy for the same accommodation cost. Why, I don’t understand, does the member support people getting double subsidy? And why don’t we take into account every boarder? Because it’s going to be fair for every dollar that goes into the welfare system, and also, there might be people, those who need that money more than these people, those who are getting it in the form of accommodation subsidy. We want to see that our welfare system is fair, to both taxpayers and also those who are receiving it, and that’s why we support this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill. This bill adds any housing contribution from all boarders to the Ministry of Social Development’s calculations when assessing a person’s entitlement to the accommodation supplement. It’s an omnibus bill. The purpose of it is to ensure that housing contributions received from all boarders are considered when calculating entitlement to—and the rate of—housing subsidies, which will in fact ensure more equitable treatment of board and rent payments received. I commend the bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou anō e te Whare. I stand in full and utter disapproval of the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill on behalf of Tāmaki Makaurau and on behalf of Te Pāti Māori. This bill is part and parcel of this Government telling New Zealanders to go and stick it; that you’re on your own; and that too bad, how sad if you’re Māori, rangatahi, Pasifika, homeless, hungry, and on the streets.

This bill is a direct assault on whānau who rely on collective living to survive. It punishes Māori for practising manaakitanga; for opening their homes to boarders, tamariki, kaumātua, or extended whānau, by slashing the accommodation supplement and treating their support systems as income. It targets our survival strategies if they are fraud, when in reality they are whakapapa in action.

By tightening income rules and increasing surveillance on boarders, it serves to divide our homes, forces people to hide their living arrangements, and pushes already struggling whānau deeper into poverty. This is not a policy of fairness; it’s a cost-cutting mechanism that criminalises poverty, undermines tikanga, and enforces a Pākehā model of isolated living that has never worked for our people.

This legislation absolutely squeezes eligibility and squashes the accommodation supplement on those whānau who are providing a roof over the heads of others. They are providing a roof over the heads of others because this Government—and, actually, successive Governments—have failed us. They have failed our people and have contributed to a housing crisis, a poverty crisis that keeps brown people homeless and incarcerated.

The members in the Government need a reality check. They need a reality check because whānau Māori and Pasifika and those on welfare support don’t have the luxury of living isolated as a whānau. We have responsibilities—intergenerational responsibilities—that mean that we provide for others. We have shared living to put a roof over our cuzzies, over our nannies, and kaumātua because this Government have failed us. Our households are multi-generational; it is a Māori way of living to manaaki and to look after our families—from kaumātua to mokopuna. This bill punishes us for taking care of each other, for living collectively, for supporting rangatahi, kaumātua, or solo parents. They are asserting that that our way of living is fraud and that we’re double-dipping, and in fact criminalising our way of living.

Let’s not forget Māori are absolutely overrepresented in poverty, and that is by design. When you target people who board or share homes to survive, you’re targeting Māori because we’re over-represented in poverty, in housing need, and in whānau-based living. This is a Pākehā-centric welfare policy that doesn’t understand how Māori live. We share homes, we support each other not for profit but to survive and uplift each other.

This bill has nothing to do with fairness. It’s about slashing welfare support. The real problem isn’t so-called “double-dipping”, it’s a fact that housing is unaffordable and benefits are too low—and this Government are telling our families to go and stick it, you’re on your own.

The solution is clear: wealth tax now, wealth tax on assets above $2 million other than the family home, foreign companies tax, land banking, and ghost house tax. The redistribution of wealth is the answer, not making legislation to protect wealth and power. Te Pāti Māori, as the Government-in-waiting, wholeheartedly do not support this bill.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent Amendment Bill—a long bill that I can probably just summarise much more simply than that. This simply prevents subsidisation of the same accommodation costs more than once. Currently, the Government is subsidising the tenant, or the landowner, and giving them an accommodation supplement, and then it’s supplementing the boarder at the same time, and that’s for the first two boarders of any boarding relationship. This will no longer be the case. There’ll be one subsidy that goes to one property for the one room that’s in that property. This is a very sensible thing that recognises the value of taxpayers to New Zealand.

We recognise workers, we recognise the contribution they make, and we manage their money carefully. Ironically, we heard from a member opposite, who is one of the bigger property owners, going on and on about the Government not caring about other people—a great irony. We heard from the Green Party what was, frankly, a load of nonsense. They just voted against granny flats. We’re about lifting people up, giving opportunity to people, helping people develop their own mana—less Kāwanatanga; more tino rangatiratanga. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you. I think it’s time we actually explained what this bill did because the Government don’t seem very interested in doing that. The thing that this bill is doing is it is taking away something that was encouraged in the past. In the 1990s we had a reduction in the amount that people got on benefits—in the early 1990s. And what they decided to do when that happened was they decided, in 1992, to allow people who were in accommodation—so they were in situations where the Government was subsidising that accommodation and a lot of those people were in public housing and they allowed them to use what was, often, a bigger State house. They said, “It’s OK if you have some boarders in there. You can have one or two boarders and we’re not going to take any money off you.” Now, you’ve got to remember, though, that the amount that those people were getting was very low and it remains low to this day—much lower than is possible for most of us in this House to live on. For example, a solo mother now gets $494.80 to live off every week. I challenge anyone in this House to give that a go.

There is an accommodation supplement on top. But I want to make the point that while we talk about “double-dipping”, what we’re actually talking about is something that previous Governments have agreed was a good idea because it allowed people to have boarders. It meant that we filled up our State houses. It meant that people were able to just add a little bit more to what was available in families. I take the point of the Green member that this is the same Minister who’s responsible for child poverty reduction and we are very likely to see a correlation here because it’s the solo mothers who have a boarder or two that will now have to pay more money and will lose money from the Government. So they lose about $100 a week. It’s $132 in some situations and it’s $100 in others. There are people who will be losing a lot more than that.

And there is this great document—and for anybody who’s watching, because we aren’t going to go to a select committee on this, this is the one to read. This is an objective report. It’s a supplementary analysis of the situation. It goes through, and it does as good a job as it can looking at this. And do you know what it says? It says, “The risks associated with these changes include a disproportionate impact on marginalised communities.” And do you know, Madam Speaker, who they mean? They mean—in this debate—the disabled, they mean youth, they mean Pacific, they mean Māori, because those are the communities that are marginalised. And they go through, in the analysis, and they talk about the impact on those groups, and they are actually really specific.

In the committee stage we will be talking through, and we will be asking some questions about the impacts on those groups because those are the groups that will lose, in this Budget, $100 or $130, on an average. There will be people in those groups who lose more. And I ask this House whether that is a responsible thing to do, when this Government was elected in because it said it was going to address a cost of living crisis. These are the very people who are most at risk in the cost of living crisis. They are hurting out there and this Government’s Budget hurts them a lot more. Because to lose $100 when that is the benefit that you’re on—you’re on $494 if you’re a solo mother. You’re going to lose $132 if you have two boarders. Is that a good thing, at this time? Is it really where this Government told the public, when they voted for them, they were going?

One of the things that this report talks about is the risks that are there because of this, the unintended consequences. They talk about the fact that people just won’t have boarders anymore and that will mean that we have more people on our waiting lists. They talk about the issues that it means for this group of people who will actually be so poor they’re coming back and asking for hardship grants. That’s what we’ve got to talk about today. We’re under urgency, but we will be in this side of the House holding this Government to account as best we can.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill addresses specifically the situation where one boarder pays for that boarding opportunity and the person receiving that payment both claim the housing accommodation supplement. That is what this bill seeks to address. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. When the New Zealand public need to assess what this bill does, it actually comes down to really simple question: will people be better off or worse off because of these changes? Sometimes, we can get caught up in all the detail, and the Government can try to justify things and put, what they think is, quite a compelling case. But no one is going to be better off because of this bill. It’s quite simple: everyone that this bill affects will be worse off.

In the broader context of housing, this bill actually makes things worse. It’ll be harder for people to afford their housing, and it will discourage people from boarding. If people are discouraged from boarding, there are fewer accommodation options available and, potentially, people won’t have accommodation. When you look at the figures, and some people could be affected by up to $100 a week, that could well be the difference between them being able to afford their rent and not—and if people can’t afford their rent, then they don’t have housing.

In a context when homelessness is increasing at unprecedented levels, when we have the Wellington City Mission saying things have been worse than they have ever seen, when, just today, there was a story in the press that said that in Canterbury, homelessness is growing at levels that they’ve never previously seen, where changes that this Government has made to emergency housing is literally locking people out from accessing the accommodation needs that they have—people in genuine need—this just makes things worse.

Now I would have thought that when the Government is looking around for savings to try and make this Budget add up, surely, they could have looked elsewhere. Because we’re talking about the people that need the most support. No one chooses to board because they want to; they choose because they have to, and now those people, through whatever circumstances that they are in, the best accommodation situation that they can find is to board with other people, and now the accommodation supplement, which they rely on, in some cases is going to be reduced up to $100 a week. That is a massive cut—$100 a week. It doesn’t matter how much someone earns, a hundred bucks a week is massive. When that is—

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: There’s always laughing on that side of the House when we’re talking about poor people becoming poorer. I’ve done, I don’t know, two or three speeches so far around this Budget, and every time I’ve done something and mentioned that this makes it worse off, the people in the Government laugh, every time.

Tangi Utikere: Disgraceful.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: It actually is disgraceful. A hundred bucks a week—I don’t know how they can justify it. We’ve had interjections: “Oh, think about the taxpayer and think about that”, and all this sort of stuff. All they are thinking about is their Budget, because they entered into tax cuts that were unaffordable and now they’ve been desperately searching, for the last few months, to try and make that add up, and these are the people that are paying for it.

The people that are paying for their shoddy Budget and their stupid decisions are the people that can afford it the least. They have—they’ve tried to justify it. Those that have actually spoken to it, they’ve tried to justify it by saying, “Oh, well, you know, the things that this bill brings in is in effect when there’re three boarders already.” Why not bring it down to two or one? If you’re in an accommodation situation where there are three boarders, then it actually is justifiable, because the costs are split across more people. But once you start going down to two and one boarder, and it equates to $100 less available to that person, no one will be able to stand up and say that they have had advice that this will not lead to more homelessness. They won’t—they will not have that advice.

If the Government cannot show the people of New Zealand that this bill—that their decisions—will not lead to higher levels of homelessness, then it’s clearly unjustifiable. When we have—

Joseph Mooney: What about the granny flats, Kieran?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: When we have a situation, Joseph Mooney, where you have voted for things that have increased homelessness, quite frankly, there are more people sleeping in cars and on the street, and in garages and in tents, because of you and what you have done, and you’re sitting here saying this is OK? Unbelievable. A hundred bucks a week might not be much for Joseph Mooney, but when it is the difference between people actually living in accommodation and living under a bridge, and they—the Government—laugh, and they can’t justify it, but they yell out anyway, I think the people of New Zealand can see all that they need to about what the values are of this Government and the lengths they’ve gone to, to try to make their Budget add up.

Look, I would just like to set the record straight here because it was that side of the House that sent this country into a full housing crisis. So to listen to that speaker Kieran McAnulty talk about homelessness and people in cars—on this side of the House we’re sorting it out. That is why this bill is a sensible, common-sense, practical, and fair bill where we will address the double subsidisation of housing subsidies for the same accommodation costs. It’s very simple and sensible, and that is why I commend it to the House.

This bill is set down for second reading immediately.

Second Reading