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

Members, the House is in committee on the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill. Members, we come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 8—“Amendments to Social Security Act 2018”—and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

I am standing up to speak in the committee stage of this bill to put some arguments as to why each section, each part, each clause of this bill should not be voted for by this committee.

It is important that we start with a little bit of context here. The accommodation supplement is calculated based on your individual circumstances including income, assets, accommodation costs, family situation, and where you live. Up until the proposal today, those that have been eligible for the accommodation supplement have been able to take boarders. Not a huge amount can be paid as part of that boarding fee, but they have been able to take boarders and it hasn’t impacted their ability to get access to the accommodation supplement.

We are going to have to have some things clarified in this committee by the Minister for Social Development and Employment because, even during the interjections from the other side, we have heard claims that are simply incorrect. We do not support this going ahead. We need to make sure that we have a shared understanding here in the committee that board paid to those who are receiving the accommodation supplement isn’t something that is adding to the wealth of those that may be the head tenant. It is actually supporting them with paying utilities—the power, the internet, the water, and any other costs that come with having a home. Often, also, it is used to help and assist with paying for food. And what we know is, actually, when people consolidate their money in that kind of way, it can help alleviate the pressure that many people are facing in terms of the cost of living challenges that they’re facing.

This bill is attempting to take that away from some of the poorest New Zealanders. We’ve heard arguments from the other side that it makes the system fairer. We’re talking about working New Zealanders and beneficiaries who earn the lowest incomes in this country and were trying to get by by sharing expenses with boarders who were paying a small fee towards costs and living with them. They talk about fairness of the system, and I’m going to put to the Minister: in terms of the broader context around housing and the Government’s agenda, why was this unfair but it’s not unfair to give $2.9 billion worth of tax breaks to landlords? Why is this unfair and yet you can own multiple properties and not have to pay any taxes on them when you sell them? Why is it that the place that the Government are attempting to get any money back from on housing is from the poorest working—and I do say “working” because Mr Mooney over there was saying that we’re protecting the beneficiaries. There are a large number of people who get the accommodation supplement who are actually working. Why is it appropriate that the Government is trying to get money out of the poorest New Zealanders, in the space of housing, and not the others that I mentioned earlier?

I think on that point, for context, particularly given that this has been brought to the House in urgency, it would be good to know from the Minister how many are receiving the accommodation supplement that are actually working, as opposed to those that are on benefit. Not that we are judging those on benefit but—certainly, the other side is—we need to be having arguments based on fact and so we need to make sure that we are having discussions that are actually informed by evidence. That certainly hasn’t come through from the first and second readings from Government, nor from the interjections that they have put forward when the Opposition members have been speaking.

I’m really concerned about whether or not the Minister has received any advice about whether this will drive people into further poverty, given that they’ll no longer be able to get that little bit of support to help them with the everyday costs of running a household. I’m also really concerned and would like to ask the Minister whether or not she received any advice on the implications for those that have taken up boarding opportunities in these situations where someone may have been getting the accommodation supplement. We’re worried, on this side of the Chamber, that, actually, this change in policy could lead to higher levels of homelessness, as we’ve seen with their policy change around emergency accommodation.

These are the types of questions that I would expect very clear answers from the Minister, particularly given the fact that she saw this as being so integral to, perhaps, paying part of the Budget, that she’s brought this bill to the House today.

In this early stage, I want to just make sure that there’s some accuracies for this debate. This piece of legislation does not stop anyone from taking in boarders or charging someone who boards with them; it just means that boarder number one and boarder two are treated in the same way that boarders three, four, and five are. It is about equity and it also making sure that those who are boarders, where they are getting an accommodation supplement it means that we are not paying—or taxpayers are not paying—the housing supplement twice.

I’m not going to speak on matters that are clearly outside the bill. This is a very narrow bill. It talks about boarders and the instance there is no impact on the person who is the boarder, so I want to be clear about that.

Just reminding members, of course, that this context early on would be referring to the Part 1 sections early in the debate.

Oh, yeah. I read the bill. Thank you, Mr Chair.

I wanted to look at clause 4, and I wanted to pick up on the fact, on clause 4—I’ve got quite a few questions, because we did not have a select committee stage and we also don’t have a regulatory impact statement, which is deeply irresponsible of the Government. What we do have, as I mentioned in my second reading speech, is this document—Including Boarders’ Contributions in the Calculation of Housing Subsidies—which does contain some analysis from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). I will be using it particularly to refer to the new section 65AAA that is inserted by clause 4 into the Social Security Act.

Despite the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s comments about how this is a narrow bill, the impact is quite deep. So I wanted to ask, first of all—and we would have been able to do this in the select committee stage and pose these questions to both officials and the Minister—whether the Minister agrees with the advice that the risks associated with the modified income-related rent calculation include increased hardship among social housing tenants if their income-related rent increases. Does she believe that this bill will lead to an increase in hardship for social housing tenants? I ask this as well because I note that there is no child impact assessment being done in this bill, and I know that the previous member, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, asked about poverty more broadly.

But in relationship to my question around whether this bill will increase hardship among social housing tenants as a result of the provisions in clause 4 of Part 1, as to whether she also at any point considered how many children could be pushed deeper into poverty as a result of this. I say this because in her second reading speech, my excellent colleague Kahurangi Carter was referencing the child poverty documents from the Budget. Those look like child poverty is stagnating, and potentially even increasing, in some areas. So I’m curious to know as to whether she agrees with the analysis presented to her by MSD. If not, why not? If so, what made her continue pursuing this policy despite the clear analysis from her own ministry that “there will be increased hardship”?

I’ve got some more questions on Part 1, particularly around the document that we’ve got. It’s literally the only analysis that we’ve got. We haven’t had the chance to hear from social housing tenants, people who board, around what this means for them. But I wanted to start off by testing that very simple analysis.

The second question, and I don’t want to—so I know the Chair previously advised me to not do too many questions in one round, to allow the Minister to answer. But the second question was as to whether also the Minister agrees with the analysis by MSD in relationship to whether the Government could be overestimating the savings being made by this bill. Does she think this analysis is correct? If so, where does she think that those overestimations could be made by the Government? I think Part 1, and clause 4, particularly, are the best place to ask these questions, as this is where we’re adding the definition of “boarder”, for example, and that in of itself is what then leads to a restriction on those people accessing the accommodation supplement and the income-related rent subsidy.

If she does think that there was an overestimation of savings, where does she think those costs will be passed on? Does she agree with the Ministry of Social Development’s advice that those costs could be passed on to, say, for example, hardship assistance or emergency housing or advances, which in turn could put people into further debt? If she does not agree with that advice from MSD around the overestimation of savings, why was she so confident, when she published her Budget documents, that there would be very specific figures when it came to the savings? And how did she come to that conclusion, despite MSD warning her that those figures could quite likely actually be wrong?

To wrap up, my two simple questions are whether she agrees that there will be increased hardship among social housing tenants if their income-related rent increases, and whether she agrees with the analysis that the Government could have overestimated the savings that are being made in this piece of legislation. Thank you.

This was a measure that was in Budget 2024. Like any Budget, there are estimates that are made in terms of what the cost might be or what savings might be. But as I said at the start, as I said in my first and second reading speeches, and as echoed by my colleagues, it is common sense that if you have one or two boarders, they are taken into account in the same way a third boarder is. And, as I’ve said—and I’m not going to say it again—boarders are not affected by this.

The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.

Members, before the dinner break, the committee was debating Part 1 of the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 18—“Amendments to Social Security Act 2018”—and Schedule 1. The question again is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Before we went into the dinner break—and I want to reiterate the fact that we did not have a select committee stage; we haven’t heard from people affected by this, or any other agency. And the Minister for Social Development also hasn’t presented and done robust analysis. What we do have, as I said, is this document. [Holds up supplementary analysis report titled Including Boarders’ Contributions in the Calculation of Housing Subsidies] I don’t believe that the Minister adequately engaged with my previous question. This in relationship to the supplementary analysis report, page 7, where the Ministry of Social Development said, and I quote, “The savings forecast as part of this proposal was not able to account for behavioural responses that may result from this policy,” and then it also says that—and this is what I want to focus my question on—“This means that the savings from households where both the person receiving board and the boarder are receiving housing subsidies may be overestimated.” Does she agree that the savings in this instance were overestimated by her Government? If not, why not?

Following on from that, I’m primarily focusing on the provisions in clause 4, but I’m using this document because, basically, it addresses a lot of what clause 4 ends up doing. I also asked about whether she believes that people will be put into hardship as a result of this. I also want to now focus my attention on the issue around whether she believes that this bill has the potential, particularly because of the provisions in clause 4, to increase the amount of debt that people get into as a result of requiring advances. Did she forecast an increase in debt by people requiring advances in the form of rent arrears, for example, due to the provisions of this bill?

We know that, due to the supplementary analysis, people will be paying quite a bit more money each week—those affected by this bill; I’ll go into that in more detail. But I did want to ask whether she did any forecasts or modelling, or whether she even considered it, about, for example, whether people would be needing more recoverable assistance. I think this is particularly important because in the Budget, we saw, basically, an end to the non-recoverable assistance when it came to rent arrears, which means that when people are getting into rent arrears as a result of increased rents due to increased housing costs as a result of this bill, now the only way they’ll be able to get assistance for these rent arrears is through recoverable assistance. Did she make any modelling to account for that?

One of the issues that I also wanted to test is whether she considered—and I also want to note to the Chair, by the way, that she did not address anything in relationship to impacts on child poverty. I just want to put that on the table again because we did have the dinner break—she did not mention child poverty at all and how this bill may or increase it or otherwise.

But I want to move on to the issue around material hardship. There’s three different measurements that we use when it comes to child poverty, and material hardship is one of those. That means children not having the bare essentials being met. I ask this because that has been increasing throughout the past few years, including under her tenure. The Minister hasn’t explicitly engaged on the issue as to whether this bill risks increasing the level of material hardship in households. If she does think that this bill increases material hardship—which is a different measure from child poverty—I want to ask: which kinds of children does she think will be disproportionately impacted as a result of a potential increase in material hardship being driven as a result of this bill?

Just to recap—I want to make sure that she understands I am asking for her analysis of page 7 of the supplementary analysis report, paragraph 6, around the quote that says that the savings are likely to be “overestimated”, and whether she agrees with that.

Tēnā koe e te Tūru. Following on from my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March’s questions regarding the supplementary analysis report from the Ministry of Social Development, I’m looking at page 23, in regards to distributional impacts. I’d like to understand, regarding the distributional impacts that are stated around—Māori, Pasifika people, older people, disabled people, and young people are the groups that are covered there in the opening remarks at point 85. I’m concerned that there hasn’t been an analysis of the disproportionate impacts, also, on takatāpui and rainbow communities. We know from census data—the census actually released a specific report on this this year, actually, 2025, regarding the situation for housing for rainbow people. It stated that there’s a higher prevalence of severe housing deprivation for LGBTQIA+, takatāpui populations, MVPFAFF—that’s Pasifika rainbow, and takatāpui is Māori rainbow peoples—in housing specifically.

My question really is: is the Minister for Social Development and Employment confident that that community—which is disproportionately impacted by housing stock limitations or expensive housing, inability to afford safe housing—is not going to be impacted disproportionately? It’s not stated in this analysis, but I’d like to understand the advice that’s been given.

Further to that, obviously rainbow communities are one group, but the intersection of Māori and rainbow has a compounding impact, so are the cultural needs of rainbow people who are Māori also being considered in this? We know that Māori and Pasifika communities often live in different housing structures in terms of the make-up and the demographics of those households, so the intersection of cultural identity and rainbow identities, and what the impacts for those communities are. We can see here that Māori, Pasifika, older, disabled people are accounted for. I just want to understand the advice around rainbow communities, and particularly Māori rainbow communities, and the impacts on those communities. [Members rise to seek call] And if—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

BENJAMIN DOYLE: Sorry to my colleagues to my right. And if those considerations have been made, because—[Interruption]—thank you, yes. It’s not covered in here, so what advice has been received around that? The census data is very clear, and I wonder, also, if the Minister has been made aware of that census data. It’s quite shocking. We do see that, of a population grouping of 10,000 rainbow people aged 15-plus, 260 of that 10,000 experience severe housing deprivation. That’s a figure that contrasts to a non-rainbow population which has only 212 people per 10,000, so significantly higher housing deprivation. I’m worried that this amendment bill will drive that number and that gap further apart, and disproportionately affect rainbow and takatāpui MVPFAFF communities more severely. So what advice has the Minister received around that, and do you have confidence that that won’t increase that gap? Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr Chair. My colleagues are talking a lot about the supplementary analysis, and so it does seem appropriate to look at those issues that are coming up there. The issue about increased hardship is one I think you’ve heard us, in the discussions we’ve had, really emphasise. It’s not possible from the report that’s come up, the supplementary analysis report, to know just how bad that story is.

Other things in the report indicate that while the average amount that people will lose is about $100 a week—and that’s the people who have boarders, I think, just averaged out—there is a discussion about how there is a high risk of bad publicity because there are some people who are very impacted by this change that is being made. I would like to know whether the Minister for Social Development and Employment was given examples of some of the worst impacts on people, because it’s very hard for us to judge how much injustice there is if we don’t have those examples shared.

I’d also like to know whether the Minister considered the history of the legislation, in terms of the use of the term “boarder”, because what the Minister has said is that there is an equality here between boarders and renters. But, in fact, those arrangements are quite different in kind. A renter has often got an agreement with somebody, and it is often a more business-like arrangement. A boarder is often an informal arrangement, and it’s more likely to apply to youth in difficulties and adult children, etc. It’s not the same basket of eggs at all, so I wondered whether the Minister had had any advice as to whether there was an initial reason why there was a difference between boarders and renters in that way.

One of the things I can see is that you may have a wayward child who’s not particularly good at learning how to pay—or may default on any board. We’re catching out a whole lot of people in a situation which might be more risky for them. And before, that was possible; under the law today, that’s possible because they’re not going to be penalised for reaching out a helping hand to somebody in that situation. But tomorrow, they are going to be penalised for that. They’re actually in quite big trouble if that money doesn’t come through, because the Government is going to take it all away from them again. I’d like to know what the story is in terms of that advice.

I can also see from that report, and I’m talking about page 5 of the supplementary analysis report, that there was “limited stakeholder engagement”. I’d like to know: what was that “limited stakeholder engagement”? Who was talked to when that report was put together, and who was not talked to? We’re not having a select committee process, so not everybody will be talked to. I can also see a real issue of not knowing what the impact of this legislation is, and that surely is related to who was spoken to and who wasn’t—but also related to what is described in the report as “unintended consequences”. You have a well-meaning piece of legislation where, perhaps, all the Government is saying it is doing is trying to find equity in a situation that’s utterly undermined by the reality of what people will do when they’re on the breadline, and, in fact, they’re just not going to be able to make ends meet if they are in a situation where they have boarders and suddenly that is going to impact on the way that they arrange their lives.

The report talks about what might happen in reality. And they all seem pretty reasonable things to suggest. We’re not suggesting it’s OK for people not to declare what is really going on, but that’s likely to occur—you know, one of the things that’s likely to occur is that people just will not have boarders. So how much measurement has been done of that situation, because the Government says it’s doing it to recover money and it’s trying to create an equity. But is that actually going to happen or are we actually going to have a whole lot of people, as this report suggests, moved—[Time expired]

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have three questions for the Minister for Social Development and Employment about the unintended consequences, and I want to thank the Minister for making available the supplementary analysis. This is a really helpful document as the committee of the whole House undertakes to examine what is happening here and the policy impacts.

My three questions are about the impact on the housing market. It’s really useful that we have two pieces of helpful analysis here, one about the increased demand for temporary housing and one piece about the impacts of homeownership—and I will ask the Minister some questions there. But first I’ll start with what’s missing from here, which is the impact on rents. I want to ask the Minister whether she has received advice on the impacts on rents of this policy, particularly on the market for low-cost rentals and rentals that are appropriate for young people and for seniors, who might be impacted by this policy.

We know that about 7,000 households are affected by this policy and that it may have the impact of tenants choosing not to take on boarders if they are in a rental situation, and the flow-on impact of that being for current boarders, who may find it difficult to find suitable affordable alternate accommodation. I’m reading that from the supplementary analysis, because I don’t want to confuse this situation with another answer that the Minister has given, where she has said clearly that it won’t impact some sorts of boarders. But for this sort of situation, the official advice is that it will have an impact on some boarders who will find it harder to find accommodation if they need to move out of their current situation. My question there is: is there advice that’s outside of this supplementary analysis about what will happen to the market for rents? That question is in the context of this Government having a focus on increasing supply of not only rental accommodation but housing and being very proud of that record. So I want to ask the Minister: has she considered how this will drive up demand for rents and what impact that increased demand on rents will have across the housing market as a whole?

Then I turn to the part of the advice about the increased demand for temporary housing. I want to ask the Minister about the number of people who are currently in social housing who may be affected by this policy—so how many people might we expect that are in social housing now who may have a boarder living with them. I’m particularly interested in young people in that situation. I would like to have a sense of the size of the number of young people who are already living in a supported living situation that is social housing but is with their family, who might then be in a situation where they might not have access to that housing and so will be looking for other even more resource-intensive mechanisms for their housing. Many young people who are not living with their family, who have been in these situations where either their housing is temporary, or who don’t have clear parental help with their living situations really need a high level of intensive support, and that is intensive support which is costly to the taxpayer. So I want to understand the number of young people who might be affected by this and what impact that will have on the costs of the system, if there are more young people who are needing that level of intensive support.

I know, for instance, Minister, that a very excellent housing provider for young people in South Auckland, Mā Te Huruhuru, has recently taken on some more young people. That’s something we can really celebrate on this side of the Chamber—but around the Chamber too, for everyone who is interested in the housing of young people. But we also know that when they opened up that round for more tenants, they were inundated with applications. I think it was about 300 applicants of people who would qualify for the service, and so it is in no one’s interest to see that number of people who are looking for supported accommodation continue to increase. We want solutions where these young people can be living with their families, and we want the incentive to be for their families, for their friends, and for other people in their community to be able to take them on without any barrier to that.

The third question I have for the Minister is around the impacts on homeownership. The question here specifically, before I run out of time, is—particularly on young homeowners, for whom there is also a lot of interest in this Chamber in incentivising them to save for their own home and then to get into their own home—how many recent homeowners are claiming the accommodation supplement? There has been some confusion. I have heard speeches on the other side of this House that suggest that there is some misunderstanding about who is claiming the accommodation supplement. How many young people who have bought their first home—we’re really proud of them—have sought the accommodation supplement, or how many of them have boarders who are also in that situation?

Mr Chair, I’m going to quickly go through a number of questions but I do want to just say that the whole intent behind this is around to ensure greater fairness for those who are accessing housing support, and not having a situation where both a person who is paying board is getting the accommodation supplement and the house they’re living in, the person who’s receiving the board, is also getting the accommodation supplement. So that’s what the intent of this is driven at. We don’t anticipate—because there is such a small number of households affected—that there will be any significant impact on the rental market.

Clause 4 clearly lays out the definitions—I would refer members to that. It clearly differentiates between what rent is and what board is, and the percentages that are allocated. So I’m not going to read what’s in the bill.

In terms of the impact on material hardship, the member Ricardo Menéndez March raises questions about that. I would just say very clearly in this committee: this is a Budget ‘24 measure, so it has been in the public domain for over 12 months. The intention behind Budget ‘24 was fiscal sustainability and alleviating pressure across hundreds of thousands of households who were dealing with the cost of living, and part of getting on top of the cost of living crisis for low and middle income households is to ensure that Government spending is sustainable. Where there is a duplication of a housing allowance, that’s an obvious one to reduce, so it has been carefully considered. I reject that this is an injustice; this is actually a level playing field where we are not having two people in the same household claiming the accommodation supplement for the same house.

I’m seeking clarification. The intent of this bill, I think, has been in the public domain for quite some time. But I do want to remind the Minister for Social Development and Employment that we are only just seeing this bill, in urgency, so we certainly haven’t had the amount of time that that Minister would have had to scrutinise the level of detail that’s in the legislation. So we’re looking forward to a long and fulsome debate to get some clarification on particular points.

I want clarification on the point around who is affected here, because the Minister has stood up a number of times and said that it is to address the issue of fairness where two people are claiming the accommodation supplement for the same place, where one may be a boarder and the other one is the lead tenant. But I want clarification on situations where the lead tenant is claiming the accommodation supplement and the boarder is not. My reading of this is that the lead tenant is still going to have their accommodation supplement impacted by the income they receive through the boarder’s board. And, that being the case, I do want the Minister just to clarify that, because I’m looking at this, and I’ve only seen it for the last couple of hours, and I can’t quite take from what she’s been saying and what I’m reading that that is the case.

So, again, can the Minister clarify that the lead tenant, who has taken on a boarder and is getting the accommodation supplement, is going to potentially lose some of that accommodation supplement because they’re taking board? It’s not about two people; it’s about that lead tenant taking on a boarder and receiving board, and that being perceived as part of their income. If she can clarify that, that would be good.

My next question is around those that may be temporarily boarding, and I’m thinking about scenarios that may not be formalised to the extent that perhaps the officials have considered. I’m thinking of the sole mother with three children who has urgently left a domestic violence situation, has gone to a friend, and said, “I need somewhere to stay. Can you please take me in? Please let me and my kids live in your garage. I can pay you board whilst I’m here to cover the costs of me and my children being here, but I don’t know how long that will be for.”

Now, do they need to then declare to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) that they have taken on a family of boarders, and that that family is paying $100—let’s say a woman with three children—towards the costs of staying there, which is a very minimal cost and is certainly not going to see the lead tenant rolling in cash? Are they going to have to declare that to MSD? And what will that mean administratively if the lead tenant has no idea how long this domestic violence victim, this friend who has been a survivor or victim of domestic violence with their children, is going to be staying in their home? What does disclosure to MSD in that situation look like? I reference that with particular attention to the section in the bill that discusses the definition of what a boarder is, and I’m trying to work out whether those urgent temporary situations will be considered boarding situations.

I can think of other situations: someone is homeless, they are unable to access emergency housing, and they say to a friend, “Please take me in. Let me stay in your garage with my children. I’ll give you a little bit of cash to help with the costs of electricity and water, and perhaps even food, until I get on my feet. But I don’t know how long that will be for.” Does the lead tenant need to declare that to MSD? How is that accounted for? Does the Minister think that the perception in the bill that defines what a boarder is covers those particular scenarios, and, if so, can she please speak to that?

Yes, the definition of a boarder is really clear in terms of—when someone pays board, they are not paying purely for the room. That’s why it’s calculated at 62 percent. What we do want to do is ensure that when the accommodation supplement or the income-related rent is calculated, it is based on the information of people who are living either permanently or temporarily in that household to determine whether the person is eligible for the accommodation supplement and at what rate. That is what’s fair to taxpayers.

No one begrudges paying the accommodation supplement or income-related rent or whatever support is required, but it should be on the current information, and it’s very normal practice for someone who is receiving support—in this case, the accommodation supplement—to advise the Ministry of Social Development and Employment when their circumstances change. The other thing that I would say, again, is that currently, before this law passes, only the third boarder or fourth boarder is considered. We’re just saying that, actually, it is common sense that any income from the first boarder or the second boarder should be taken into account in determining someone’s eligibility for financial assistance.

I just need to follow up, because the Minister for Social Development and Employment has said the section in the bill about what defines a boarder is clear, but there’s no time frame or period of time that the person needs to be residing within that household and paying that board for it to then be deemed that that person is a boarder. Is the Minister seriously telling me that if a woman with her three children who has left a serious domestic violence situation and goes to a friend and says, “I need to stay for three days, four days, a week—I can give you a little bit of money. Please let me stay here.”, that lead tenant who’s getting the accommodation supplement is going to have to go to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), make an appointment or ring them up, and say, “I need to declare I have a boarder for three days who is paying $30 a night, and you need to take that into consideration, MSD, and deduct that from my accommodation supplement.”? There is no time frame for what constitutes what is a boarder. Is the Minister seriously telling me that if that woman with her three children pays $20 a night to the person who gets the accommodation supplement, that person is going to have to declare it to MSD?

Thank you, Mr Chair. It is important that we really scrutinise this bill because it is coming through under urgency. We’re looking at Part 1 as a whole, and I think it’s really important that we look at the effects that this will have on disabled people. We’re in quite an interesting scenario where the Minister that we are asking these questions of today, the Minister for Social Development and Employment, is also the Minister for Disability Issues. I think that she will have a lot more insight into this, so I’m really looking forward to hearing her answers.

I am interested to know why the Minister didn’t seek advice from the Ministry of Disabled People, from Whaikaha, around the effects that this will have on disabled people. Hopefully, the Minister can elaborate a little bit more just from their own role as the Minister, as to what she thinks are the effects that this bill will have on disabled people. One of the scenarios that comes to mind is when a disabled person is living in a Kāinga Ora home. Often, what happens is to make ends meet, to be able to pay the bills, to be able to participate in community, they’re actually having boarders live with them. And more than not, those people who are boarders are actually their support people. This is invaluable because, yes, support people are doing a job, but how amazing is it to actually build that community and have that disabled person be able to share the load and also support their support worker? That’s building community and that is making sure that our disabled people can—like, we know one of the biggest things that they’re facing is isolation. And so actually having the support person there, like, why would we punish that? I’m really interested to know what thoughts and what advice the Minister has on this.

Just looking here at the Including Boarders’ Contributions in the Calculation of Housing Subsidies: Supplementary Analysis Report that has come from the Ministry of Social Development, the section that is distributional impacts, which is, you know, talking about where one different parts of society may be impacted more than others. There is a section here on disabled people, and this is on page 24. There’s some really concerning numbers in here. In section 94, it says the number of disabled people who receive housing subsidies is difficult to ascertain. However, 51,459 supported living payment recipients also receive the accommodation supplement and 18,486 receive that temporary additional support. And furthermore, to that there are 15,624 supported living payment recipients who are also social housing tenants. We know how difficult it is for disabled people to have adequate housing. Accessibility is, and I know that the Government—this has been on the agenda—is focused on accessibility, like we all should be.

One of the other things we know in New Zealand is that our dirty little secret is that having a disability is a pathway to poverty and prison. So it would be really good if the Minister could elaborate more on what she thinks the effects of this bill will be on disabled people. This report also says that disabled people are likely to be disproportionately impacted by the proposed changes because many disabled people live with their support person who pays board. So thank you. I’d love to hear the answers.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister. Even though I’ve heard some parts of answers, I just wanted to impress again, into this space, starting with recognising the fact that in our context—particularly a Māori context, but not only Māori, Pasifika—there is no such thing as a standard nuclear family. So the intergenerational way of living is the way in which we thrive, flourish, and get on with our good lives. In that regard, how well is that appreciated in the analysis and therefore in the practice?

I’ve heard some responses to the boarder/boarding/housing words. But again, inside that definition, does it truly understand the intergenerational communal living idea—and in practice? I wouldn’t mind just getting more of a sense of confidence that that’s understood in this work. I don’t have any confidence currently in this work.

Then I would like some thinking or response, because it concerns us, around this “unintentional” or “unintended”—and it’s always said with such casual ease. It’s scary because “unintended” can equal devastation, more vulnerability, but it’s ticked off as, “Well, it’s an unintended consequence”—which equals “Oops”, and that is a dangerous situation. In terms of the classification of tamariki or mokopuna that might well be living with their kaumātua and all of those good things that come with extended whānau, how does this, in practice, keep those ideas safe, good, and healthy for whānau Māori? And what, in the end, are the mechanisms in place to ensure that these new definitions are not used to unfairly reduce support for Māori?

These are some of my questions. I’d be keen to hear it in more confidence. Thank you, Minister.

There have been a couple of comments and questions around the relationships of those in a household. The bill is agnostic. Whether it is a caregiver, a disabled person, family member, extended family, same-sex relationship or not—the bill is agnostic about all of that. It is simply about if there is one boarder, and the boarder is paying board to the person who is running the household, that’s what triggers this and the consideration of the accommodation supplement and the housing assistance that’s paid.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I know that I can’t force an answer that I like from the Minister for Social Development and Employment, but it would be great to get some sort of engagement on the issue around whether she agrees that the savings were overestimated, as per page 7 of the analysis by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).

But I wanted to take us to clause 4, new section 65AAA. I particularly want to home in on paragraph (c), which is the bit that reads “if P resides at any social housing in relation to which P is an additional resident, 62% of P’s contributions for the period (excluding in the arrears):”. This is basically the inclusion of the definition of “boarder” into social housing spaces. The reason why I wanted to specifically focus on that line is because on page 15 of the analysis that we were presented by MSD, there is, starting in paragraph 39, a whole section on the eligibility for social housing and priority rating on the social housing register. The analysis itself talks about how the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Kāinga Ora have raised concerns around contributions from boarders impacting social housing eligibility. Does she agree with those concerns or will she just keep giving us the same answers about how she thinks people are double dipping and ignoring, basically, all the negative impacts of this bill? Does she at least acknowledge any of the negative impacts? But I’m really interested in paragraph 41.

I wanted to follow on by saying that Kāinga Ora noted that contributions from a boarder that is not part of a household is specific to the house the applicant is currently in, not to them as an individual. Kāinga Ora also acknowledges that, basically, the income is relevant to the affordability calculations of the current housing situation and alternative housing options. I also wanted to ask, basically, whether she agrees with the concerns, but also whether this is a sneaky way for the Minister to reduce the number of people eligible for social housing. Because this bill could have a negative flow-on effect on undermining the number of people that are eligible for social housing, allowing her to paint a much more positive picture about the demand for social housing when we still have housing hardship in our communities, effectively giving a new coat of paint to the list, making it look way better, and then giving her Government an out to build more public housing.

I think if we didn’t have the provision (c) in new section 65AAA, these concerns wouldn’t be so prevalent. But because this applies to social housing tenants, I’m particularly concerned about the fact that we could have people losing their eligibility for social housing while still living in hardship, which the Minister has completely failed to acknowledge. She talks about fairness, but she doesn’t acknowledge whether people who will now not be receiving the accommodation supplement won’t be living in hardship or poverty or in some difficult situation. So I wanted to ask—on top of that and my previous questions—whether she received any modelling from HUD, Kāinga Ora, or MSD around the potential changes to the social housing waiting list as a result of this bill.

To recap, my question says—well, it would be great to get an acknowledgment from the Minister about whether she thinks those savings were overestimated; whether she agrees with MSD. I wanted to ask if she agreed with HUD and Kāinga Ora’s concerns around the contributions from what is impacting social housing eligibility, and whether she received any modelling at all from MSD on the projected changes to the social housing register waiting list.

We’ve heard stories from people who have lived in emergency housing or unaffordable rentals for months, sometimes years, before being able to access public housing. Now, people who may have boarders in their homes and unaffordable rentals who could be technically qualifying for the social housing waiting list could then be negatively affected and completely being kicked out or being put on from the A category to the B category, deprioritising them all together. And we know—or anyone who works on the front lines knows—that if you’re in the B category, your chances of effectively getting a Kāinga Ora house are basically zero. This, basically, could deprioritise people to a place where they could never get public housing.

It would be great to get engagement on this. But, most importantly, I’m asking the Minister if she agrees that the savings were overestimated.

I have answered that question, again, but I will put on record—and I would invite the member to listen to my answer—I did say the savings forecast could have been overestimated but equally could be underestimated because we don’t have the data.

Ricardo Menéndez March: MSD didn’t say it could be underestimated.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I’ve just answered your question.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a first call on this bill. It has been a free-ranging conversation, very much focused on policy, and I appreciate the contribution from the previous member, Ricardo Menéndez March, which is starting now—for the first time, in my view—to really look at some of the clauses and I share some of his concerns. What I am proposing is that we had a bit of a conversation around the policy ramifications for different population groups. I would like to make a contribution and ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment some questions about that. But I’m also very keen that we actually look—we’ve talked policy. We have not gone and looked in a technical way at the bill at all, in my view. I think the last contribution is probably the first one that has attempted to do that.

I would like to go back after that in a back and forth, if I may, with the Minister to ask some specific questions, particularly around clause 4, new section 65AAA going forward, and there a few questions on each of those very fundamentals. If I may, the first thing I’d like to say is just, we’ve mentioned other population groups, but the supplementary analysis report also talks specifically about older people. I am the spokesperson for seniors and it talks about how the bill may have a disproportionate effect.

I’m thinking about the housing crisis that we have and also the competing policy incentive that we share, I think, across the Chamber of wanting to keep people in homes as long as possible, rather than institutionalised. Many of the boarders that are currently able to be taken in are going into supported living in houses, often run by women who want to supplement their accommodation and their income because they have children who are taking these people on. There is an informality about it, but there is also a social value to it where, for example, they might provide some caregiving, they might do the shopping because the person who is there cannot shop or look after themselves completely, but they know that they don’t want to be institutionalised and they are not able to stay at home. For many of those pensioners, let’s not forget that they only got a $2.15 a week tax break when the tax breaks were announced last year. So boarding does serve that social purpose of encouraging and supporting seniors to live at home.

What I’m concerned about is that not only will this disproportionately affect those boarders, because the people who own the homes will be disincentivised because of the changes to the accommodation supplement, but also what impact will it have on their ability then—the people who wouldn’t be taken in, who can’t live at home, who may not be able to afford to go to a retirement village and who may not qualify fully for care. These are massive problems, given the tsunami of need that is coming towards us in New Zealand around aged care. That is my first policy question.

My second one is really just looking at the reality as I know it of women—and it’s usually women; there are men who do it—who have made a choice to try and be there to bring up their kids, who need to have boarders and they are able to make the system work currently, and yet they will not be able to or they’re disincentivised to under this bill. When we call it double-dipping, let’s be really clear: they are not double-dipping. The accommodation supplement is going to individuals either who are the tenant or the first boarder or the second boarder or the third boarder. But when we look at things like homeownership and capital gains, we have interest deductibility and we have no capital gains tax. Now, in my view of the world, that is double-dipping so I’m not sure how the Minister can reconcile her definition of double-dipping with that one.

The other one I would say is just going now specifically to the technical elements of the bill. Clearly, we have got new section 65AAA in clause 4, accommodation supplement—the interpretation. We have a number of questions around this. And Ricardo Menéndez March has leapt ahead, which is great, and we share some of those concerns. But if we may go backwards and forwards—and I will be seeking a further call, Mr Chair—the first one talks about service costs being excluded. Why is there that differentiation?

Now, when I look at the original Act, it is because section 65(2), it’s got service costs, in relation to any premises, and it’s got paragraph (b), and it does not include—[Time expired]

Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the questions from my colleague in Labour, Ingrid Leary, regarding the disproportional impacts on older people. Thank you for those questions, because it actually brings me to an important question about the question of the impact on rangatahi Māori. The distributional impacts outlined in the Ministry of Social Development’s supplementary analysis report talk on page 23 and 24 about how Māori and youth will be disproportionately impacted, potentially, by this bill. We know that UNICEF recently released a report, and I wonder if the Minister for Social Development and Employment has sought advice about this, because it’s a very alarming report.

Just to allow everyone in the committee to understand what I’m talking about, the UNICEF report, from May this year, ranks countries—there were 36 countries ranked—around youth mental wellbeing, and it actually outlines key determinants of mental ill health leading to suicidality. New Zealand Aotearoa has a shocking rate, an alarming rate, of youth suicide, particularly compounded with Pasifika and Māori youth.

My concern is about rangatahi, and my question is, as I stated earlier: has the Minister considered the impact on rangatahi Māori? In particular, we know that affordable housing is a key determinant of mental distress; the UNICEF report outlines that. Has the Minister additionally, in consulting the—my request is around understanding if the Minister has consulted that report from UNICEF, but also I wonder if or why the Minister has not sought advice from the Ministry of Youth Development or from the Minister for Mental Health, because these are intersecting issues. We know that the total number of 16- to 24-year-olds who receive a supplement is 54,693, so a really large proportion.

I also have a question around rangatahi for the Minister, around whether or not she’s considered an increase or having an age cap, I guess, or a base level to start the definition of boarder so that the age range is increased so that those who are rangatahi—why don’t we increase the age to 20, 21, 22, 25 to avoid including rangatahi in that boarder category? We know that there is a disproportional impact on youth. We know mental ill health leads in this country to an increase in suicide for our rangatahi, and mental health distress caused by housing—housing insecurity is a key determinant of mental health and mental ill health leading to suicide. I wonder if the Minister has considered putting an age range on the term “boarder” so that we can ensure that those who are younger, who are rangatahi, are not going to be affected by this.

We do not want to see rangatahi Māori—we do not want to see rangatahi at all—being more exposed to the risk of suicide. That would be a travesty. That would be a violence within this bill that I think we could avoid, and I believe the Minister would want to avoid that as well. I hope she’s able to explain her thinking on that and whether she would consider that. Thank you very much.

I have said before—so it’s feeling like it’s getting repetitive—the legislation is agnostic about who is a boarder and who’s not a boarder and their relationship with the homeowner or the head tenant. It is agnostic. But it basically means, if they have a boarder—i.e., they are paying board—that should, and will, take into consideration the eligibility for financial support.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for Social Development and Employment for addressing the questions. She’s trying the age-old trick that all Ministers do: try and pretend that she’s repeating herself to encourage a closure. But we’re not falling for that, because we have new material, and here’s a new question.

New section 108A—

Hon Louise Upston: Well, bring it, then, and ask questions. Ask questions, then.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Ministers aren’t supposed to heckle from the chair; that’s the first point. But the section that I’m referring to here is new section 108A, inserted by clause 10, and that refers to discrepancies and information received relevant to housing assistance.

Essentially, what this refers to is when—let’s say the primary tenant and the boarder have information that doesn’t quite match up. Fair enough, I imagine that would happen from time to time—particularly in the scenarios that we can all imagine or have assisted people with in our own areas, such as when someone is looking for a boarding situation because they are in a precarious situation. These are often temporary but certainly come about with very little notice. Now, it’s quite possible that the bits of information that both parties—party A or party B—would bring would be different.

But what concerns me is the proposals here that say that once the discrepancy is identified, they’ve only got one working day to sort it out. That doesn’t seem a very long time. It’s assuming that they’re in a position to be able to address the discrepancy—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just for clarification for the Chair, you’re linking that to Part 1? Because we’re on Part 1.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Yes.

Hon Louise Upston: No, he wants to move on to Part 2, clearly.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a question for the Minister for Social Development and Employment which is a new question about Part 1. I’m at new section 65AAA. I have gone to the Social Security Act 2018, which it is amending, and in that Act the definitions of the people that this applies to are set out. I want to clarify with the Minister whether there is a mistake here, because there is not an amendment to whom this applies, because this will have a particular impact on single mothers and single parents. They do not receive child support for children who are aged 18 to 19, and the policy has been before today—well, before it will take effect in 2027—that those adult children would have otherwise been able to receive a benefit.

I want to ask, particularly for that group of people, who will either be the homeowners or the head tenants, how this bill will impact on them. And I want to ask whether the definition of “boarder” here is intended to have a carve-out for those people who are 18 to 19 who reside with a parent. Many young people who are in this situation will be in a situation where they are with a parent and where they do bring some form of income into the family, and that income will, in some situations, be deemed to be payments for board and lodging. But surely, in the situation where we’ve had another policy change indicated by the Minister for the treatment of 18- to 19-year-olds, where they have even a single parent—I want to ask her whether this was something that has been missed in this bill and whether there should be in fact a carve-out for those people.

My question is also in the context of the supplementary advice that we received from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), which is incredibly helpful at forecasting those unintended consequences. But, obviously, MSD would have been restricted from the amount that they could have commented on this particular group of people, and there will be a particular impact that they will be needing to think through about those parents who will no longer be eligible for child support payments but will, effectively, be responsible for their adult children aged 18 to 19. I want to know whether this should be amended, and I’m happy to prepare an amendment in that regard.

Before I take the next call, just for some clarification for the committee, it would be helpful if you reference the clause or section that you’re talking to.

And, just on the other point around engagement—because I acknowledge that some members have called for engagement as well—if you front-load your questions, that will make it easier, I think, for the committee to be able to prepare to answer as well. But then also, if you’re going to take the full five minutes and you’re going to load up with lots and lots of questions, that can actually be counter to engagement as well.

Just in reference to the member the Hon Kieran McAnulty, my call last time was I wasn’t sure whether you were referring to Part 1 or whether you were referring to Part 2—just to clarify that. We’ll go to Carmel Sepuloni.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Thank you so much, Mr Chair.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for that clarification. My concern, though, is that when a Minister informs the committee that a member is speaking to a different part, the committee takes the Minister by their word. But she was incorrect. It’s not actually your query that was my concern, but part-way through my call, when the Minister says you’re talking about Part 2, you sit down and check. But I was not. And so I should be allowed the opportunity to continue my call.

Point taken. The Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Thank you very much. As I was saying, new section 108A, inserted by clause 10, Part 1—here we go, we’ll continue on. A situation where—let’s call it—“beneficiary A” and “beneficiary B” have provided information to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) that doesn’t quite match. They’re only given one day—one working day—to sort that out. Now, that doesn’t seem reasonable to me, and I would like to understand from the Minister for Social Development and Employment as to why they’ve landed on that.

But what concerns me more is that after 10 working days from the day on which MSD notified them about the discrepancy, this will, essentially, affect the benefits, the assistance, that both parties get. Now, that doesn’t seem very fair, when it is entirely feasible that only one of these parties has provided the incorrect information yet both of them will be punished if one of them doesn’t provide that information. And what’s even worse is that after eight weeks, if that one of those parties doesn’t rectify the situation, their assistance is cancelled.

Now, what is the justification there? When you have a situation that identifies that there are two different parties to this agreement, it requires both of them to provide information. If only one is incorrect and that party, for whatever reason—and that could well be incapacity—is unable to resolve that first of all within 10 working days, to be affected by, essentially, a suspension, and then by eight weeks a cancellation—that is going to cause considerable harm in circumstances that are quite feasible where parties, through no fault of their own—they’ve provided the right information; the person that happens to be in their residence hasn’t—but they’ve lost their benefit, they’ve lost their assistance. I’d like the Minister to outline the justification of it.

I’m looking again at Part 1, new section 65AAA, in clause 4, where the definition of “boarder” exists. I didn’t get the answers before from the Minister for Social Development and Employment about those that may be there for temporary lengths of time or because of emergency situations. But I wanted to ask the Minister, under paragraph (b), where it says “does not include a person who resides at any social housing”, whether any other exemptions or exclusions were considered.

I want to know whether the Minister considered that another exclusion could be a person who has left urgently in an emergency situation, such as a domestic violence situation, and whether or not the Minister considered excluding from the definition of “boarder” a person who may have been moved out for evacuation purposes because of a natural disaster emergency. Did the Minister consider a sole parent main tenant who was on the sole parent benefit and has children who are 18 or 19 now and so has become ineligible for the sole parent benefit but still has those children residing with her, but they are not working but studying, or perhaps working part time? Could they be excluded as boarders because they decide they want to give their mum $100 a week knowing that their mother is no longer getting the full amount of the sole parent benefit because the children have aged out? I want to know whether the Minister considered any of those scenarios for exclusion from the definition of “boarder” or any other scenario from the definition of “boarder”.

I also want to know from the Minister whether or not she considered a time frame with respect to how long someone needed to reside in that residence to be considered a boarder given the transient nature of some, the difficultly getting housing, the fact that often people are forced to live with friends or family for a short period of time until they can get more stable, secure, and, hopefully—and we always hope—permanent housing. Did she consider under this definition of “boarder” a time frame to be attached, perhaps giving them two months and then defining them as a boarder before they then incur the penalty that is being incurred by them now as a result of the legislation that’s being passed?

The minions are already trying to close the debate, despite them moving urgency. I wanted to ask about clause 9—specifically on the bits that read, “After section 69(3), insert”, and not (3A) but (3B): “MSD must cancel an accommodation supplement that has been granted if it has been payable at a rate of zero for eight consecutive weeks.”

I want to ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment where the eight weeks figure came from. What informed the decision to put eight weeks here in clause 9? For example, I can see a greater flexibility being needed—I mean, a boarding arrangement between family members can fluctuate sometimes. You know, somebody might stay there for three months or longer, and right now with periods of unemployment that are much greater than before, you could have somebody living there for a greater period of time. So I did want to understand where the eight-consecutive-week period came from, whether you may have wanted to give that a bit of flexibility or—you know, just the rationale behind it.

Following on from that, I wanted to draw attention to paragraph 44 of the supplementary analysis report, including the boarder’s contribution and the calculation of housing subsidies, because this is something that I would have definitely asked officials about if we had had a select committee—which I don’t understand. If she kept talking about how this was something in Budget 2024, why didn’t she introduce this bill between 2024 and today’s Budget? Like, we actually could have had proper select committee scrutiny, but at paragraph 44 it talks about the interactions in relationship to the excess income of boarders and how this may affect the assessment of parental income for student allowance.

Right now, for many students, they are not able to access a student allowance because their parents’ incomes are deemed to be too high. For many students, this in and of itself is a disincentive to enter into tertiary education. The analysis presented by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) in paragraph 44 talks about how that could be a negative interaction in terms of people’s eligibility for a student allowance. I wanted to ask whether MSD did any modelling around the reduction of people who now qualify for a student allowance as a result of the changes to the parental income that are in this bill, and I wonder whether that is counterintuitive to, perhaps, the goal of the Government to support people entering into education, to meet their aspirations, and to have the qualifications so they can enter a range of different types of employment, unless her intent was to create a low-wage economy—which, I mean, I would argue that that’s the case, but I’m keen to hear the Minister’s opinion on this.

I also wanted to ask whether, if MSD did do any modelling around how many people may lose out on student allowance, there could be a cohort of people who could end up being left in a situation where they’re dropping out of university all of a sudden after the bill’s passing, because you could have people, for example, who are studying towards a degree, who qualify for a student allowance, and they have suddenly been stripped out of that support as a result of the analysis—you know, a really good observation by MSD of how there will be an interaction, particularly under the provisions in clause 4, due to this.

If there’s an analysis by MSD, I’m keen to know if there is data on the different types of ethnicities, where those people may be concentrated. This is particularly important: having trained social workers in the past before, I assume that there’s a massive rate of people dropping out, for example, from the social work degree, but we’re actually starting to see it across the universities. I’m really worried, even in MSD apprentices, that the bill, in particular the provisions in clause 4, could lead to fewer people being able to sustain themselves in education. Is the Minister comfortable with this interaction? If not, you know, could she be open to excluding people in education from being qualified as boarders, and does she not think that this could be a way to ensure that people who are pursuing education end up missing—well, actually, the parents of students don’t end up having an income deemed too high for their children to then qualify for student allowance? Thank you.

There’s been a couple of questions about time frames. So in terms of any disputes, obviously we will want to ensure that disputes are resolved quickly, which is why there is a disputes process built into the bill. Because what we don’t want is for people to be overpaid assistance, which of course then leads to a debt, and that increases the stress for people who are receiving that assistance. In terms of the eight weeks, the eight weeks is part of the system functionality. It’s consistent across a wide range of existing suspension or cancellation rules, so it’s a standard time frame that’s been used and that’s why there’ll be no entertaining of any changes around the time frames.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to continue some of the kōrero around some of the questions in terms of Māori that was put up by Benjamin Doyle, but I also have an amendment that the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon Louise Upston, might want to have a look at. I was listening to Benjamin Doyle’s kōrero, and I think the points raised, particularly in the areas of the worst statistics, have to be repeated. You know, you’re talking about some of the worst employment rates going in terms of the country—in fact, that’s the only area where we saw a change, in terms of employment: unemployment rates, I should say. There’s a lot of consequences from this type of legislation, and, with that being the case, I want to ask the Minister what sort of consultation she’s gone through in that area, given that straight after the Budget I received calls from a couple of iwi leaders very concerned in terms of where the Government was moving in the Māori direction.

With that being the case, I thought I could help the Minister, and I have put up, as you will see, an amendment there in clause 4, new section 65AAA: before paragraph (a), to insert, when considering accommodation supplements, that due consideration is given to the principles of the Treaty”—namely, the principles of participation, protection, and partnership. I’m sure that could help the Minister very much, particularly now, and maybe bring the Government a bit more on side with Māori at the moment, who feel rather—

Shanan Halbert: Shafted.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —depressed, shafted from the current Budget. But any type of clause like this would, in fact, give some encouragement to Māori. So that’s a clause that’s being put up for serious consideration. It’s important that the obligations of the Crown are acknowledged and honoured. And, of course, the Minister will know, I’m sure, that the principles of participation, protection, and partnership benefit not only Māori, but all beneficiaries who are faced with having their benefit cut. So installing this type of clause, I think, will go some way to giving some encouragement to Māori.

So can the Minister explain how the principles I’ve mentioned are being actioned in the legislation? Maybe she might be able to point them out. How’s the Crown going to protect families when they’re sanctioned and their accommodation is cut off? Where will they go? That’s where, maybe, the Minister can inform us, in terms of her relationships with some of the iwi or Māori organisations, what’s happening in that area. And in that participation area, how is the Crown promoting participation when this legislation is being put through under urgency, with no one having the opportunity to participate in the select committee process? It’s a real stand-out. Here we are in the dead of the night, Friday night—

Hon Member: The rugby’s on.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I don’t know if anyone’s watching us—I think they’re all watching the rugby. Sadly—sadly—they’re all watching the rugby, and here we’ve got this cunning Government sliding through this type of legislation in the middle of the night.

But, seriously, I don’t put the principles up, Minister, just for a joke, because you will know that I’m very focused on partnership with the Crown—Māori and partnership with the Crown. So how is the Crown working in terms of partnership with our NGOs, Māori and mainstream community providers, when considering this new change? What’s the level of consultation, and will the Minister consider implementing what I’ve put up, which is, as I said earlier, in clause 4, in new section 65AAA, before paragraph (a), when considering accommodation supplements, that due consideration is given to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, namely in the area of participation, protection, and partnership—partnership being, I suppose, the go-to word given that that type of kōrero is now being questioned by many, many people, particularly after the Budget. So I put that seriously in front of the Minister and ask her: is that something that she or her officials or Government would consider?

Before I take the next call, it would help the committee—and I know that some members have been doing that—to refer to the clause that you are referring to; also, to all your Amendment Papers. And for those of you who are seeking engagement with the Minister the Hon Louise Upston, if you’d front-load your questions and give the Minister space to actually answer them, that would be helpful.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m referring to clause 4, inserting new section 65AAA, and we are looking at paragraphs (c) and (d). There’s an amount there of 62 percent. You’ve heard my colleague suggest that there might be an opportunity to carve out groups that are impacted more severely than other groups, and that’s been pointed out by the officials.

But my suggestion to you and my question is: do you really believe this is the best method of assessing a fair amount of division when—what we’ve talked about tonight—there’s a lot of situations which are very informal, and they’re based on people doing a deal for someone? For example, their adult children or their older children—they will actually have them for less money. If those adult children are paying $50 a week—and we’re talking, really, teenage children, often—there’s not actually a case in justice for a 62 percent deduction. That makes a lot more sense if they’re paying $200. But if they’re paying $50, that doesn’t make sense because it won’t cover the costs that are outgoing on things like water and food.

What I would like to know from the Minister for Social Development and Employment is: did she consider an alternative method of establishing the amount that should be reduced? Would she now consider an amendment which suggested that, so that there was a proportionality? If somebody is paying a low amount, which is reflective of a familial relationship or a goodwill relationship or just being a kind person, there might be a discretion from the Ministry of Social Development to not reduce at that level—which seems, to me, a lot more just in the circumstances.

I’d also like to know how the Minister got to the figure of 62 percent, because that just seems to be arbitrary in this situation. I’d like to also know—and this is a reference, again, to the supplementary analysis: there are figures there of the amount that is expected to be lost by people, so they are on page 21 at paragraph 74. Somebody with one boarder is expected to lose $92 per week, and somebody with two boarders is $148. Now, that can’t be right if they’re only paying $100 in the amount as boarders. If you’ve got a child boarding and they’re paying $100, are they going to lose $92? Is that actually what your officials are telling you, or is that based on some sort of averaging of what the estimate is that we think people are paying in board, on average rents? So how were those figures calculated as the loss to our families? So we have losses of $92 a week if there’s one boarder, $140 a week if there are two boarders, and $202 a week if there are three boarders.

Can we understand—and I genuinely would like to know from the Minister: what was the methodology used to come up with those figures which are in this report? What does she understand that they were based on? And why hasn’t she used a proportional response? Would she be willing to consider building in a discretion to deal with unjust situations where the board charged simply won’t cover the costs, for there to be an alternative formula rather than a hard 62 percent of whatever it is? Because I do hear the Minister when she says it’s agnostic. But that doesn’t seem agnostic to me; that seems blind. It’s just blindly stupid to charge people more when they’re actually doing people a favour out there in the community.

We’ve heard from my colleague about the wellbeing impact of that kind of wraparound care. In fact, it’s a theme in the night. So could I please have an answer to those questions—I’d appreciate it.

The 62 percent is something that was determined in the 1990s in terms of what was considered someone in terms of the accommodation costs associated with board as opposed to someone who is a renter. If somebody is renting off you, 100 percent of the costs are considered accommodation costs. That’s why we will not be entertaining any changes, and that’s why it’s clearly laid out in the definition of “boarder” and the percentage. If somebody’s charging $200 a week, 62 percent of the $200 are considered accommodation costs. We’ve traversed this a lot, but I’m hopeful that the member now understands 62 percent is the accommodation cost component of board.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to move us to clause 10 of Part 1. This is, in particular, the obligations in relationship to discrepancies in information received. This is adding in a new section 108A. What this new section does is, basically, it’s trying to address discrepancies that may arise, for example, from information received by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) from a beneficiary receiving housing assistance, and information received by MSD from another beneficiary who is receiving housing assistance or a tenant of social housing who pays an income-related rent. Basically, what this lays out is the mechanisms that exist to, for example, address these discrepancies.

What the analysis report by MSD identified is that there would be an increase in risk of people, effectively, committing fraud. Therefore, I wanted to ask, as part of the design of new section 108A, inserted by clause 10, whether the Minister for Social Development and Employment sought to check whether the fraud services by MSD which could end up investigating, for example, these discrepancies, are adequately resourced or whether they would need a booster resource in order to address these discrepancies.

I think this is particularly important because if we look at, for example, the new section 108A(3)—this is line 10 on page 7—there’s language like, “If the discrepancy is not resolved to MSD’s satisfaction within 10 working days from the date on which MSD notified A and B of the particulars of the discrepancy, MSD must suspend,”. There’s language here that just arbitrarily has laid out 10 working days. I want to understand what the rationale was behind it. I also wanted to understand, for example, whether for disabled people those 10 working days could end up being a barrier—like whether she sought advice around those 10 working days in new section 108A(3), whether they’re adequate, how did she come to that conclusion, was it just arbitrarily decided, and whether she was using other parts of legislation to help guide the decision to put 10 working days here?

Going back to my earlier question around the resourcing of MSD to address these discrepancies, I wonder whether she would like to address the fact that this may require additional resources for the services that deal with investigating fraud, as well as whether, for example, she thinks staff will need additional training to manage these discrepancies. If she does think that staff will require additional training to manage the provisions in new section 108A, inserted by clause 10, I wonder whether she would like to reflect on the fact that MSD did recently tell us that the front line is oversubscribed, and whether this will be feasible. Because the consequences of those discrepancies not being adequately worked out between MSD and the people receiving income support could be disastrous, right? We know that MSD makes mistakes on the regular when it comes to calculating people’s entitlements and so, while I know that automated decision-making may address some of this, I’m keen to get the Minister’s reflection on what I’ve asked around areas in new section 108A, inserted by clause 10.

Now, I did want to ask, as well, in relationship to the likelihood of people being criminalised—and by that I mean having to commit fraud in order to survive—whether she did seek advice from MSD around any modelling of, for example, a number of additional investigations that could likely take place as a result of this, whether she has any numbers around the increases of investigations that could be triggered. But I’m also interested to know whether she sought advice around the likelihood of greater benefit review committee hearings occurring as a result of people challenging decisions being made as a result of these discrepancies.

The benefit review committee hearings—for people listening in—are basically the hearings where people can dispute decisions that have been made by MSD. So I wonder whether, as a result of the provisions in new section 108A, inserted by clause 10, she thinks those hearings will be more burdened; we already hear at the front lines about delays to even get a hearing and an outcome.

Again, I know that we haven’t spoken about clause 10 and this deserves adequate scrutiny as it could have really negative consequences for people, so I’m keen to get the Minister’s reflection on these.

I’ve addressed time frames. In terms of the 10 days, we want to get the issues resolved. I’m saddened to hear that member thinking that this would lead to an increase in fraud. I don’t believe that would be the case at all. This is about people being clear about, if they are receiving board from a first boarder and a second boarder—that that is taken into consideration as part of their circumstances when they are eligible or for the level of accommodation assistance or not. The 10 days is so that we don’t have a situation where people are either overpaid or underpaid and getting it sorted quickly, which I would’ve thought that member was interested in.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment a few questions in relation to this—my first opportunity to contribute to this bill. The question I had follows on from the questions that my colleague Helen White was asking in relation to the 62 percent. I have a different question on a different part of Part 1, but it touches on some similar issues around the original Act that we are amending and the way that percentages were arrived at in terms of the active parts of this particular amendment bill.

I’m looking at clause 14(1)(q)(i), and I’m also looking at clause 14(1)(q)(ii) and 14(1)(r), and all of those proposed new sections reference 38 percent as a percentage number. I wanted to check with the Minister: she mentioned when in response to Helen White in relation to the percentage of 62 percent—which is a different part and in relation to a different matter—that that was agreed on in 1992, I think; it was agreed on in the primary Act. And I wanted to ask her for this particular percentage if this, too, was carried over, and if she did, in fact, think about looking at those different percentages of contributions and whether those are still appropriate at this time.

I think the reason that it’s really important for the committee to find that out is because this is an issue that we do have with amendment bills, is when we have an amendment bill, we only have the active parts that are being changed in relation to the primary piece of legislation. It is actually extremely problematic that we don’t have a marked-up bill that shows us what is an existing part of the bill and what is a change. In fact, the way that drafters draft this is that sometimes they change only certain words or numbers, and sometimes they change entire sections. And sometimes it looks like they’ve changed an entire section, but actually not so much has changed. It’s very difficult for us to ascertain exactly what the position is when we don’t have the entire Act in front of us, and of course we can’t mark that up ourselves when we’re going through urgency without a regulatory impact statement.

On first blush, they seem like arbitrary amounts. I appreciate that there’s a lot of history associated with this particular piece of legislation and its impact, and I’m sure that there was due consideration when the amounts were considered. I’d like to know: did the Minister take advice on that and what was that advice? Thank you.

The member refers to clause 14: 38 percent is the inverse of the 62 percent that I talked about previously that is counted as accommodation costs. The 38 percent is the balance that is not.

I will say to the Minister for Social Development and Employment that, as a result of the debate earlier on where we were debating clause 4, new section 65AAA, under the “boarder” definition, I have put forward an amendment that I want the Minister to consider, which adds an exclusion to the definition of “boarder”. Currently there’s only one exclusion, that being “does not include a person who resides at any social housing”—that’s (b). I’m adding (c): “does not include a person who has left a domestic violence situation to be in a new home where they would otherwise be considered to be a boarder”. I would like the Minister to let me know whether or not she will take the time to consider that exclusion, considering the very urgent and serious nature of the situation for those that find themselves in domestic violence situations.

I do have another exclusion, and the Minister can let me know whether she’s going to consider that. We will, of course, be voting for that because the amendment is on the Table. It is Part 1, again. It is clause 9, “Section 69 amended (Accommodation supplement: refusal, reduction, or cancellation of grant in certain circumstances)”. It says “After section 69(3), insert: (3A) MSD must refuse to grant an accommodation supplement if MSD is satisfied that it would, if granted, be payable at a rate of zero.” The next one is (3B): “MSD must cancel an accommodation supplement that has been granted if it has been payable at a rate of zero for 8 consecutive weeks.”

Now, what I want the Minister to consider is that there are some good people in this world who take on boarders who have high and complex needs. That includes mental health, addiction issues, but is not limited to mental health and addiction issues. In many of those circumstances, it does increase the risk of the board being inconsistently paid or variable in terms of payment, not through any fault of the lead tenant, and certainly, there are reasons for why that can happen for a boarder in that situation. But we wouldn’t want to discourage people providing an opportunity for those who have those high and complex needs to be able to take up board within their homes.

However, it feels unfair that that lead tenant or homeowner could then have their accommodation supplement refused when there is enough evidence to suggest that they are taking a slight risk and that there will be variable payments potentially and it could be inconsistent and there could be some weeks where it’s not paid. But to then have Ministry of Social Development (MSD) have in writing that if it’s deemed it would be payable at a rate of zero then they’ll have it cancelled seems unfair. It also seems unfair that if they’re gone for eight weeks consecutively then it would be cancelled, given there could be still a risk with the boarder because of the high and complex needs, and I wonder whether or not the Minister took that into consideration.

I’m worried that people will be discouraged from taking on boarders for a range of reasons as a result of this bill, and this is one. It puts them in a potentially precarious financial situation themselves. It does seem that MSD is going to have less flexibility in relation to those who are claiming accommodation supplement. And then what happens to those with the high and complex needs? We know that there are people who struggle to pay their board regularly. Doesn’t make them bad people—often it’s just that they have some very, very complex needs. I think many of us would have met someone like that across the course of our life—I would hope, if we’re in touch with what happens in reality. So I want the Minister to consider whether or not there should be exclusions there or exceptions, in some way or another, to ensure that that particular scenario is covered off.

It’s me, isn’t it? Oh, thank you—

Hon Member: “Busy Willie”.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you—don’t worry. Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I had a couple of areas I wanted to talk about. The Minister for Social Development and Employment has still not come back to me with the question I had earlier in terms of Treaty partnership and whether there had been any consideration or regard to that, and I was talking about new section 65AAA in clause 4. So I just want to put that up again, and I’ve got another amendment that I want the Minister to consider. But I have put that up seriously, given the current climate. It is an amendment that, Mr Chair—you’ve just come into the Chair—amends new section 65AAA in clause 4 to insert, before paragraph (a), “when considering accommodation supplements, that due consideration is given to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, namely the principles of participation, protection, and partnership”, which is a serious question.

I think it would help the Government very much if they went down this track, given that the Crown has a duty to protect whānau, particularly those who have been sanctioned. The Crown always talks about promoting participation, and, of course, partnership is the very challenging term that this Government is traversing at the moment.

I want the Minister to have a look in Part 1 at clause 10, and new section 108A(4). My amendment is about replacing “8 weeks” with “12 weeks”, and the Hon Carmel Sepuloni has just traversed that area. So it’s another serious amendment proposal. It’s about giving the Ministry of Social Development a more reasonable time frame to allow beneficiaries to correct a discrepancy before a suspension of a housing allowance, after identifying where the discrepancy is. This is pretty self-explanatory; this is about providing enough time for whānau before housing allowances are suspended.

We don’t want families kicked to the kerb and living on the streets, which, sadly, is becoming a bit more common than we might think. It’s very hard, of course, to track the figures in this area because all we hear is about whānau leaving emergency housing, but then we don’t know where they are going. So I think that we might be able to help that by inserting this type of clause.

I also want to know from the Minister what flexibility there is in terms of extending this time frame, and the impact that it will have on whānau while extending their time frame, because of the impact it will have on families, and the rationale behind why eight weeks is enough time for families to comply. It is a very contentious area when we look at the stats, as I’ve said before.

We’ve got terrible statistics in the housing area for Māori, and that’s what I talked about earlier. Māori are leading in all the worst statistics in terms of homelessness and in terms of unemployment at the moment, so I think that both these amendments would help the Minister immensely, and would maybe even garner or may be able to get some support from some of the local NGOs, because they would see a Government that is a bit more caring, rather than the punitive-type Government that it’s now being seen as by many in our community at the moment.

Is there any consideration given to those two amendments? I did not receive any response on the Treaty principles question. There was no response to that, but in Part 1, clause 10, at new section 108A(4), replacing “8 weeks” with “12 weeks” is, I think, a reasonable request, given that this is incredibly controversial at the moment. Given that so many of our people at the coalface—and when I say “our people”, I’m talking about Kiwis at the coalface—are feeling under attack from this Government, why can the Minister not consider something that is obviously not so punitive, but is a bit more sensitive and caring in terms of our local communities? Thank you, Mr Chair.

I will call Ricardo Menéndez March, but I will indicate at the moment that we’ll be looking for new material. I’ve been following this for some time, so please be looking for new material.

I just want to evaluate clause 11, “Section 162 amended (Obligations of young person granted youth support payment)”. That hasn’t really been covered. I just want to ask: why has there been a decision made that basically 100 percent—this is someone who’s young and receiving the youth support payment—counts as contributions as defined in section 65AAA? I’m concerned about this, due in large part to the analysis by the Ministry of Social Development and Employment (MSD), which does talk about the impacts on young people, but I did wonder whether the Minister for Social Development and Employment would be open to telling us what led to this decision.

I think that there’s an issue with young people who are boarding negatively contributing to the person who they’re boarding with losing income support. When you’re quite young and receiving the youth support payment—that in and of itself assumes that there’s a level of precarity. What I worry about is that that could create additional stress between the people living there. The provisions in clause 11, in and of themselves, make me worry that there could be an increase of additional stress between the people living with each other.

But then if we also look at—and this is new material—something that hasn’t been touched on, but I think could it be worthwhile raising it here in terms of the cost of living, and it definitely would have been raised in the select committee stage if the Minister had allowed us to have one in order to evaluate this thoroughly. In the supplementary analysis, there’s a mention of increased friction between people on income support and MSD staffers—that’s very explicitly mentioned.

I wonder—because of what clause 11 introduces and its relationship with the youth support payment, I think this would be worthwhile raising it: whether MSD would need to invest in additional measures to deal with this friction that MSD has identified will likely happen as a result of the bill; and, if so, what is the dollar figure, if any, of the resourcing that will need to go in to address the increased friction that this bill will cause, as identified by MSD themselves? I think the Minister so far has dismissed a lot of the MSD advice that we’ve been presenting, for example, like the increase in hardship, the increase in homelessness, the increase in the need for emergency housing. But I’m really concerned just regarding the advice from MSD that talks about increased friction because this is the reflection from the front line.

To recap my two questions in relation to clause 11, is whether the Minister would be open to reducing that 100 percent figure so as to not create additional tensions for people who are boarding together; and has there been any additional resourcing, training documents, etc., to deal with the fact that she has been advised that this bill will increase friction at MSD offices?

Finally, I did wonder whether she also may think that, as part of that overestimation in savings that I referenced before, that could include in clause 11 and the advice I’m referencing an additional need for security. Does she think that actually there may have to be increased spending on security at Work and Income offices to deal with an increase in friction? If so, has MSD modelled anything in relationship to increased security needs—for example, including additional lockdowns that may happen at Work and Income offices due to this friction that has been identified in the supplementary analysis?

I find it actually really staggering to see the members kind of laughing at some of these questions. I mean, perhaps as constituency MPs, they haven’t engaged with Work and Income clients who’ve been affected by a lockdown which interrupts assistance, but I think clause 11 would be a good point to raise that in. And while I take the advice from the Chair, I do want to again invite the Minister to engage with questions that we could have raised at the select committee stage. This is a bill that would have deserved a lot of scrutiny; we’re not getting it. So I do want to make sure that the Minister is also engaging with issues that pertain to the clauses but also the broader policy analysis that this bill deserves.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This is just my second contribution this evening. My first one was very much along the population group for seniors, but there are a number of questions—short, sharp questions—I’d like to engage with the Minister for Social Development and Employment on, if she’s prepared. We could do a backwards and forwards. So I will ask the questions and if she doesn’t respond, then I will just carry on. I’d really like to get these through Part 1.

The first one, Minister, is that the threshold, which is 62 percent—Helen White alluded to a sort of discretionary threshold. I have a tabled amendment that suggests 42 percent. We know, when I looked at the original Act, that the original Act, I think, was 1997. There hasn’t been a reworking of the data. So I’d like the Minister to consider whether 42 percent, given the cost of living crisis, would be more appropriate.

In clause 4, new section 65AAA—I’ll just wait for the Minister to see if she wants to; no, she doesn’t—paragraph (d), when we talk about the exclusions, it talks about the 62 percent, and then it says, “and lodgings at the premises at which P resides (excluding any arrears)”. Now, the arrears comes from the principal Act, and removing the exclusion would help those who cannot get an appointment at the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) due to front-line staffing cuts. And we know that because, in my electorate, people are finding it really difficult to get appointments. We don’t want this to be just an arrears and open slather thing. So would the Minister consider tempering it so that it captures the date that “a person (P)”, in the formula, first communicates with MSD to make an appointment? Now, that can be verified—it can be done electronically, it can be done with phone logs. It doesn’t disadvantage P, but it does seem very unfair in the current environment that arrears could occur because people have not been able to get hold of MSD. So I’ll just pause—see if the Minister wants to respond.

OK, I’ll go to my next question, which is around service costs. Service costs in new section 65AAA: people have actually wrapped up water supply to a premises as part of the costs. I think there is actually a miscomprehension that water costs are a legitimate cost. But the original Act excludes them, as does this. I don’t know if any thought’s been given to it. But we are moving to an environment with affordable water where it is likely to be metred. I wondered if the Minister has considered just removing paragraph (b) and taking water costs out so it’s not excluded—remembering this goes back to 1997—would she consider doing that?

OK, my next question for the Minister is around “boarder”. We’ve had a number of questions around that, but this is a genuine question around tent-dwellers, some of whom dwell in other people’s tents. We have that situation in Dunedin, and sometimes they are using their equipment and some of them are using dishonest means to get the accommodation allowance because they absolutely need it. So it’s probably not ideal to include a tent-dweller in a boarding definition, but I wondered if the Minister has considered whether there should be an extra provision to provide some kind of accommodation allowance, given the normality now of people living in tents and cars. I will pause, but I have some more questions still on Part 1. So the Minister is not engaging that.

So I want to have a look at clause 5, “Section 65 amended (Accommodation supplement: discretionary grant)”, which is around the accommodation supplement discretionary grant. The word “discretionary” has been taken out. My question is: why? Is this about automated decision-making? Because in the subsequent subsection (2), it talks about “may grant a person”, and I’m wondering if there’s kind of trying to make a brightline entitlement. So we have heard that MSD and other organisations are trying to have automated responses, using AI. And I just wondered whether the reason for taking the word “discretionary” out reflects that; and, if not, what is the impact that the Minister would like to see with the removal of that word?

I would’ve thought the member was positive about that. By the removal of discretion, it actually means that it will be granted to anyone who is eligible.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve still got some more questions. This is around, again, replacing another title, in section 66, with “Accommodation supplement: social housing exclusion”. I haven’t tried to guess at what that means, but the title has been changed, so I presume the Minister for Social Development and Employment is wanting that to have an impact, and I’m wondering if she could explain that.

If not, then, looking at clause 6(2), replacing “section 65” with “section 65AAA” in section 66(1). This goes back to something that Ricardo Menéndez March alluded to really early on in the piece. He referenced whether it is about making social housing harder. I’d like to unpick that a little bit, because when I look through the legislation, it does seem to do that.

“Kāinga Ora” has been expressly deleted as a community housing provider, and in that section it is being replaced with “social housing”, which is broader. Now, in the deleted subsection, “ ‘social housing’ has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992”, but that definition is now deleted. So my question is: what does the Government mean by “social housing” in new section 65AAA? Is it deliberate to indicate more privately owned social houses, and is it deliberately undefined—which would be a worry from a policy perspective, because it means it’s really broad; or should it adopt the same meaning currently used in the struck-out subsection, which refers to section 62 of the Public and Community Housing Management Act, and therefore explicitly say so?

Now, there may be a schedule that captures it, but I don’t think so. And if it does, it’s incredibly unwieldy and difficult to follow. So I’m wondering if the Minister could clarify that, because the problem is that the Act defines “social housing” as “social housing”, meaning “Kāinga Ora housing or community housing”, and a “social housing provider means Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities or a registered community housing provider”. It’s still different than what is intended by this section. We really need some clarity on that, Minister, because otherwise the cynical view would be that this is some kind of step to privatise social housing and that you’re trying to broaden the definition. But, otherwise, is there a way that we can get the original definition back in?

I have some other questions as well, because I can see the Minister doesn’t want to respond yet. She’s probably thinking about it. In clause 7, “Section 67 amended (Other funding exclusion)”, the heading is being replaced with “Accommodation supplement: other funding exclusion”. Again, it’s a subtle difference, but I want to understand why the Minister has bothered to change the words there if she hasn’t bothered to define “social housing”. What kind of difference does she expect to see from the change in that title?

One of the previous speakers referred to the disability community, and I’m not going to go into that except to say, really on behalf of the disabled community, there has been a lot of criticism about partnerships and about the impact of the current laws on those who are in a partnership and one of the partners is disabled. So I’m interested to know if the Minister even bothered to look at that to see if there was an opportunity here to make that fairer.

When I go to clause 8(1), “Section 88 amended (Accommodation supplement: special rules for joint tenants who are in relationship” in section 68(1), after “occupied:” it says “insert ‘as a residence’ ”. Why has she added those words, and what difference does she think that will make to implementation?

There’s another one that probably needs a little bit more clarifying, I think, and is a little bit more concerning, which is in clause 8(2), which amends section 68(1)(b). We’ve got “replace ‘accommodation costs’ with ‘weekly qualifying accommodation costs’ ”—and I think I’ve got an amendment on the Table on this. It looks like this is to limit the costs that will be recognised. Also, that could be changed by regulation, potentially, because “weekly qualifying accommodation costs”, presumably, is defined somewhere in regulation. Now if that’s a policy change, the legislative guidelines in the Legislative Design and Advisory Committee require those policy dynamics to be in the primary legislation, not in regulation.

My question is: why are you making it weekly? Why couldn’t you make it monthly or six-monthly so that it isn’t a barrier to access for people who are needing to articulate this all in a weekly budget? But, also, is there an intention that—or does it mean that—this is determined by regulation, and will she consider my amendment just to cross out the “weekly qualifying” and keep it as it was in the original legislation? Mr Chair, I still have some more detailed questions in Part 1, but I’m getting through them.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Tēnā tātou. Clause 11 amends section 162, youth support obligations. I want to preface this by saying that my questions will come from the context of working in suicide prevention and postvention for a number of years, and family harm in Te Tai Tokerau and the number of terrible things that occurred back in 2012 and, sadly, still occur today, particularly for young Māori men and young Māori boys. So that’s the space. Family harm, as well—young mums, older mums are suffering the types of terrible situations nearly on a daily basis. That’s the context.

So clause 11. What works for young people, Minister, is trust and working relationships, and even if it has to be with your Ministry of Social Development (MSD) case worker. Discretion is a key part, in my experience, in my observations, because when you have a trusting relationship, when you can trust that your MSD case worker is going to have your good interests at heart, discretion is a key to be able to apply the practice, and when you take it out, it screws that up. So it troubles me that those sorts of things are being applied, particularly at a time where young people are struggling to trust any authority, which I understand. I mean, I used to work, sadly, in these spaces, so I get how, when these things are applied—even with all the best intention—that these things stuff up, because rules and regulation that are changed like this, without speaking to young people and their families and their communities, you get this kind of messy situation where young people are caught in the churn of this kind of idea making, simply because it suits a certain bunch of people. So I’m concerned about that.

So what appropriate guidance will be offered to ensure that young Māori beneficiaries—young people—understand their obligations and rights under the new rules? So this is under clause 11. And then, has the Government evaluated the risk of rangatahi Māori falling out of support due to misunderstandings, administrative errors, and just simply deciding that “You’ve had enough of a go, young fella, we’re now just going to make the decision for you, at you.”? Look, I don’t mean to mess the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s face up, the way she’s grimacing now—

Dana Kirkpatrick: So rude.

Hon Nicola Grigg: What?

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —and, possibly, that’s a communication and an answer that she’s providing me, which is interesting in itself. But let’s just put it to you and dismiss the noise on the left. That is a real concern, Minister. I know it to be so—I know it to be so. I’ve worked in suicide prevention, postvention, and the risks of that for young people have not changed, at all; in fact, they are heightened by this kind of planning without them. So, Minister, look, honestly, I didn’t mean to cause your face to grimace like that, but these are my questions. I’ll leave it up to you, thank you.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’ll indicate to members that at this stage, there’s been a lot of conceptual and policy questions. I think we’re well covered there. Any questions now will be very specific to a part of the bill. I think you’ll hear that message.

Mr Chair, I have an amendment I’d like to ask about, and it is based on the indication that has been made in, actually, a very early part of the bill, the one that was concerning the number that was being described, so the proportionality. One of the things that is in the supplementary analysis is that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) says it will do a review.

I would like to propose an amendment that would go in at clause 15 and it would say that we are committed to a review that would include whether the proportion had worked in the time frame of the review, which I suggest should be two years. That would give us time to see what the impact was and review it—and it looks like MSD are already saying they will monitor any unintended consequences; they’re saying there are going to be a lot of them. That one is of particular concern to me, and so I’d like to know whether the Minister for Social Development and Employment would commit to the statement here in an amendment, because it sounds like MSD wants to do that review. It would just be to extend it beyond what is in this to include specifics, including the proportionality—with a proportion of the amount.

So I’d be very keen for an answer about whether the Minister would do that; and, if not, why not? Why wouldn’t we want to do that given the number of unintended consequences? But also, that issue about whether the proportion’s going to have an issue and whether we’re going to have consequences in the housing market in particular, with people—there’s a chilling effect here on people boarding. I’m going to keep my contribution short, because I know my friend Ingrid Leary would love to take a call.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to remind the Government members: they rushed this under urgency with no select committee scrutiny. It is well within our right to be asking questions around the impacts of this—I could’ve been asking this to officials outside of the late-night period.

I want to move to clause 14 in relationship to (2) and then the new definitions around “market rent”. This is page 11 of the bill, around line 9—it’s basically line 9 to around line 19—where it talks about how this is defined, “market rent”; that “for Kāinga Ora housing and for a period, means the rent notified to the agency by Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities—(i) as being the market rent for that housing”. I think there’s an important thing here in the language that the Minister for Social Development and Employment has chosen to use in this clause 14. If we marry up the language in clause 14 plus the supplementary analysis, I want to understand whether, in the definition of “market rent” that she has chosen to use for clause 14, she considered the highest possible market rent that someone could be subjected to after losing the accommodation supplement and while being in public housing.

I think this is important because what it helps us understand is the absolute highest increase someone could be facing in their market rent while being in a Kāinga Ora home, for example, as a result of the language that she chose to use in clause 14. This is important because, as we have talked about earlier, there is a genuine impact on people’s lives here. I know that she kept talking about how this bill is agnostic, but the advice that she has been given demonstrates the absolute opposite. So before the members on the Government side laugh and, you know, think that the issue of people suffering is funny, I would recommend that they may want to think about how the definition of “market rent” as laid out in this piece of legislation could have quite a negative impact on people’s ability to retain the Kāinga Ora home. So I did want to understand as to whether she did talk to Kāinga Ora and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development specifically about the range of market rents that people could be subjected to, due to the fact that this is specifically defined in clause 14 between line 9 and about 19.

I also wanted to understand, if we look at that very same clause—and we’re looking at line 4 to about maybe 40—there is the formula that’s been given. I did want to understand whether this formula is something that she chose to just carry on from previous formulas that have been used for calculating someone’s accommodation income, or whether this is something she chose to review and to seek any engagement with the Ministry of Social Development on as part of the introduction of this bill.

I also wanted to understand as to whether the calculation of accommodation income is going to be translated or created into something that is more user-friendly. You know, for someone who may have not pursued formal education and taken a level of advanced mathematics, I can see how they may struggle to, for example, take the formula that is in clause 14 and be able to interpret it in a way that allows an everyday person to understand what accommodation income means for them. There’s a formula that is “a × (1 − ((b + c + d) ÷ e))”. I mean, I can understand this formula—I did complete my calculus while I was in high school and we were taught that—but I can also understand that many people who are boarding may be trying to navigate and understand the changes that she’s making, and I want to know whether she’s devoting any resources to make clause 14 actually digestible for everyday people by resourcing, for example, a portal in the MyMSD website where people can calculate what their accommodation income will be like under clause 14. If not, I can see how the negative distributional impacts of this bill could be exacerbated by people not being adequately able to calculate their accommodation income as in the formula in line 10.

So, to recap, I’m interested to know the highest possible market rent that somebody in Kāinga Ora could be affected by this bill, and whether she is thinking of a user-friendly formula.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

We are getting very close. There is another factor that does come into this: ministerial participation in the debate. I’ll take a call at this stage.

Thank you, Mr Chair. We still just have a few more questions on Part 1. The first one is around clause 8(2)(b), amending section 68(1)(b), where it says, “replace ‘section 65’ with ‘ “clause 7” of Part 7 of Schedule 4’.” In Part 1 of the principal Act, the Social Security Act, that goes to Subpart 10, “Accommodation supplement”, and specifically, for this part, “dependent child”, as defined in Schedule 2, excludes “a child in respect of whom an orphan’s benefit or an unsupported child’s benefit is being paid”. Turning to that, the fact that this has been put in deliberately means, in my reading of the legislation—I’m seeking clarity: does this mean that the orphan’s benefit or unsupported child’s benefit becomes part of the calculation of the deduction of the accommodation allowance, and why did the Minister for Social Development and Employment deliberately go out of her way to ensure that was excluded, if that is the case, if I’m reading it correctly?

The second one is around tenancy. We’ve got two different definitions of “tenant”: there’s one in clause 8, and it’s a very specific one—after cash assets—and then we’ve got another one. So I’m just wondering which one supersedes.

The third question I have is in relation to amended sections 69(3A) and (3B), inserted by clause 9, where it has referred to the “rate of zero”, which my colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni referred to. This is a bit of a problem, because it says that “MSD must refuse to grant an accommodation supplement”, and “MSD must cancel an accommodation supplement”, and then it’s going about that zero area. Now, my concern is that there’s no discretion there, so the Ministry of Social Development suddenly has no discretion to be able to provide some wiggle room which it has previously. And yet when we look at the following subsection 69(4): “This section does not limit MSD’s decision to refuse to grant, reduce, or cancel an accommodation supplement”. So this means MSD must cancel an accommodation supplement with no discretion under the new subsections 69(3A) and (3B), and yet it has all the discretion to cancel or to reduce it if it wants to in other circumstances.

Now, that seems to me to be really problematic. It continues the David and Goliath relationship between the principal tenant and MSD, and it makes MSD the judge, juror, and executioner when it comes to eligibility. So if the Minister could please entertain my tabled amendment, I have suggested it would be better to allow them that discretion. Just change the words. Just have 69(3A), “MSD may refuse”; (3B), “MSD may cancel”.

If I turn to the other ones that I was looking at—Mr Chair, I’m making sure that I’m not going to repeat anything—I would like to see the discrepancy in the section that the Hon Kieran McAnulty referred to where he talked about the unfairness of one working day. We should please have that as two weeks. I think that’s a reasonable period of time to be able to get things in order for people who are—remember, these are boarders who may be transient; they do not necessarily have the same access and skills as others. Two working weeks seems about right. Even a week would be better than a single day. Now, I may have an amendment on the Table in that respect, but, if I don’t, I’d really like the Minister to please consider it.

Then the definition of “tenant” again, in section 6 of the Social Security Act—that is a different definition to replacement section 68(2), inserted by clause 8(3). Why are they different, and why are prospective tenants included, and which one prevails? If somebody’s in a tenancy but they’re going to be in a boarding or social house tenancy for another house, but they haven’t yet moved and they’re in a private boarding arrangement, for the purposes of this section, which tenancy prevails? It’s very unclear under the Act, and I would suggest it would be better if there was just one definition of “tenancy”. I wonder if that is because the legislation has been rushed.

Finally, I will just look at clause 11, amending section 162 of the Social Security Act: “If the person resides at any social housing in relation to which the person is an additional resident”—really clunky wording, I’m wondering if the Minister can please explain what that means.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I am seeking engagement with my questions around how this disproportionately impacts disabled people. I know the Minister for Social Development and Employment has a big interest in this area, so I’m really seeking that engagement. In the Speakers’ rulings, it says that we look for engagement from the Minister along with good conduct from the committee, so I’m really seeking that engagement now.

We’ve heard a range of really important questions from my colleagues on a range of people who will be disproportionately affected. That is in this report, the Including Boarders’ Contributions in the Calculation of Housing Subsidies: Supplementary Analysis Report, from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). In this analysis, it talks about a range of people who will be disproportionately impacted. We’ve heard it from members on this side of the Chamber, talking about Māori, Pacific people, older people—and, for my very own question around disabled people: we are seeking that meaningful engagement, because I haven’t heard any of these questions being meaningfully addressed. What we’ve heard is the Minister answer a range of these questions about specific groups of people, mine included—about disabled people—and the Minister’s answer was that this was agnostic. That, in my opinion, doesn’t address the advice analysis—that MSD has provided on pages 25 and 26—that there are disproportionate impacts outlined in this analysis. I’m seeking engagement on that.

To recap, this is a massive proportion of our society—51,459 disabled people—on the supported living payments. When the Minister chose—these people deserve an answer. That’s why I’m seeking engagement on this exact question around how this bill disproportionately affects disabled people, many of them living in Kāinga Ora homes. It’s hard to get accessible homes. It’s important that they stay in these homes, and many of the boarders that they have are actually their support workers. So we want to know who—

Hon Member: What?

KAHURANGI CARTER: It’s literally in the analysis that says disabled people—section 93—“disabled people are likely to be disproportionately impacted by the proposed changes because many disabled people live with a support person who pays board. Due to the limited availability of accessible housing within the private housing market and social housing, disabled people often incur additional costs related to their housing as a result of their disability. Many disabled people also have less choice over whether they live with a support person or not”.

We’re talking about a large population of people: 51,459 on the supported living payment; 18,486 on the temporary additional support; and, furthermore, 15,624 on the supported living payment. These people, if there was a select committee process, would have had the chance to ask these questions, to give their lived experience as to why it is so important that they are able to have this subsidy. That’s why I’m seeking engagement from the Minister to answer the questions about why these people who are disproportionately affected—should be answered. Saying that the legislation is agnostic is completely ignoring the advice in the analysis given by MSD.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s difficult when we pose questions and then we don’t get a response from the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon Louise Upston. I don’t feel like that is re-traversing areas that have already been covered when we didn’t actually get a response. However, I did say earlier that I was referring to and wanted to raise issues with clause 9 in Part 1, inserting new subsections 69(3A) and (3B), where it talks about the situations with these changes where “MSD must refuse to grant an accommodation supplement if MSD is satisfied that it would, if granted, be payable at a rate of zero.” And I raised the issue around boarders with high and complex needs and the potential for their board payments to be variable or inconsistent.

I went away and I actually thought, “OK, there is a solution. We can help the Minister by putting up an amendment.” So I have put up an amendment, and I want to speak to that amendment. What I’ve done is add, after the word “zero” in that particular subsection, “except in situations where the lead tenant or homeowner has a boarder with high and complex needs, including but not limited to mental health and addiction, and there is a high risk of inconsistent or variable board payments”.

I want the Minister to take that into consideration, because, as has been raised by my colleague Ingrid Leary, this is pretty non-discretionary. The two new subsections here, (3A) and (3B), say the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) “must” refuse to grant an accommodation supplement if, etc., and then MSD “must cancel an accommodation supplement that has been granted if it has been payable at a rate of zero for eight consecutive weeks.” There’s no discretion in there for the scenario that I’ve just explained, that I’ve added to the amendment that I’m putting forward.

There is another option, and the other option is something that we’ve also just recently added to tabled amendments, and that is for the Minister to consider changing the language so that it becomes MSD “may” refuse to grant, MSD “may” cancel an accommodation supplement. That would provide a level of discretion, at the very least, that may not require the amendment that I’m putting forward, which explicitly states the scenario where you would expect MSD to be able to actually—where it wouldn’t necessarily apply.

There’s two scenarios there I wanted the Minister to turn her mind to, for new subsections (3A) and (3B). She could simply change the language from “must” to “may”, or she could take on my amendment, which includes the extended version, which spells out a very real and possible situation where they would not have their accommodation supplement refused and where they would not necessarily have their accommodation supplement cancelled. I ask the Minister to consider both options, and to speak to them and to let us know whether she will or will not support, and to give us a rationale for her decision on that.

I’ve been clear about time frames and why I’m not accepting any changes to time frames. I’ve been clear about the fact that there are a range of people with different needs and different requirements around boarding, and the legislation is agnostic. We do not want to remove any options in terms of board being an option. It is simply a very simple, practical bill that talks about the fact that any board payment is considered.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 4 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of accommodation costs be agreed to.

The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendments to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the percentage of contribution to 42 percent be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the percentage of contribution to 25 percent be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendments to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the percentage of contribution to 28 percent be agreed to.

The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendments to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the percentage of contribution to 28 percent be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert “of over $700” after “pays for board” in paragraph (a)(i) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert “of over the age of 32 but under the age of 65” after “a person” in paragraph (a)(i) be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert “at the age of 36” after “a person” in paragraph (a) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of board to insert “of over $1,000 pays for board” in paragraph (a)(i) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert “over the age of 48” after “a person” in paragraph (a) be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude a person under 20 years be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude a person aged under 19 years be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude a person aged under 25 years be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude a person aged under 24 years be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude a person aged under 23 years be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude a person aged under 22 years be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude a person aged under the age of adulthood be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who has left a domestic violence situation be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than three days be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than four days be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than nine days be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than 11 days be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than two weeks be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than 19 days be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than three weeks be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than 29 days be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than 90 days be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than two months be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than three months be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than four months be agreed to.

The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert “of over $900” after “pays for board” in paragraph (a)(i) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert “of over $700” after “pays for board” in paragraph (a)(ii) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert “of over $1,000” after “pays for board” in paragraph (a)(ii) be agreed to.

The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert “of over $900” after “pays for board” in paragraph (a)(ii) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to delete paragraph (b) in the definition of “service costs” be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendments to clauses 4 and 15 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 8, section 68(2), to delete paragraph (a)(iii) from the definition of “cash assets” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 8, section 68(2), definition of “tenant”, to insert “of over $700” after “who pays rent” be agreed to.

The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 8, section 68(2), definition of “tenant”, to insert “of over $900” after “who pays rent” be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 8, section 68(2), definition of “tenant”, to insert “of over $1,000” after “who pays rent” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 9, section 69(3A) and (3B), to replace “must” with “may” be agreed to.

The Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 9, section 69(3A) and (3B), are out of order as being the same in substance as previous amendments.

Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 9, section 69(3A) and (3B), are out of order as being the same in substance as previous amendments.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 9, section 69(3B), to replace “8” with “12” be agreed to.

Members, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 9, section 69(3B), to replace “8” with “12” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 9, section 69(3B), to replace “8” with “16” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 10, new section 108A(3), to replace “10 working day” with “20 working day” be agreed to.

The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 108A(1)(c), to replace “1 working day” with “20 working days” be agreed to.

The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 108A(4), to replace “8 weeks” with “10 weeks” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 108A(4), to replace “8 weeks” with “12 weeks” be agreed to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 108A(4), to replace “8 weeks” with “12 weeks” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 108A(4), to replace “8 weeks” with “20 weeks” be agreed to.

The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 108A(4), to replace “8 weeks” with “16 weeks” be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to Part 1 to replace references to “62 percent” and “38 percent” with “50 percent” be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to replace clause 14(2) be agreed to.

The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 14, Schedule 3, to replace “38 percent” with “55 percent” be agreed to.

The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 14, Schedule 3, to replace “38 percent” with “54 percent” be agreed to.

The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 14, Schedule 3, to replace 38 percent with 53 percent be agreed to.

The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 14, Schedule 3, to replace 38 percent with 52 percent be agreed to.

The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 14, Schedule 3, to replace 38 percent with 51 percent be agreed to.