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

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

Our Government is working hard to ensure our welfare system is sustainable so it can continue to provide assistance to those in need. This bill will recognise payments from all boarders when assessing a person’s entitlement to housing subsidies and other forms of income and assistance. This will help to ensure that taxpayers are not subsidising the same accommodation costs twice.

Currently, payments from the first and second boarder are disregarded when assessing housing subsidies and other forms of income-tested assistance under the Social Security Act 2018 and when calculating a social housing tenant’s income-related rent. Currently, only payments from the third and subsequent boarders impact a person’s income for the purpose of calculating entitlements to assistance under the Social Security Act 2018, unless the contributions received are the person’s main source of income. For social housing tenants, only contributions received from the third and subsequent additional residents count towards their assessable income when calculating the rate of income-related rent, unless the contributions received are a person’s main source of income. This bill seeks to amend the Social Security Act 2018 and the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992 and associated regulations to ensure all board payments are treated in a similar way to all other forms of income.

I want to quickly outline the key proposals. There are two key policy changes. The first is recognising that housing contributions received 62 percent of payments from all boarders when assessing their entitlement to housing subsidies. And the second to treat housing contributions from boarders that exceed the total allowable accommodation costs, or the market rent applicable for the social housing property as income for any other income-tested assistance that uses the Social Security Act 2018 definition of income.

The bill also includes other amendments aimed to improve the implementation of the policy proposals. These include defining boarders in the Social Security Act 2018 for the purposes of accommodation supplement, and if a person is not identified as a boarder, they will be treated as a renter; enabling a new disputes process for when the information provided by a person paying board or rent and the person receiving the board or rent doesn’t match; making the accommodation supplement no longer a discretionary payment; and specifying that the portion of a property that a person lives in that is used for their business will be excluded for accommodation costs.

This bill implements changes that are based on common sense and fairness. As this bill goes through its third reading, I want to reassure members of the House that the changes proposed in this bill will only affect those who receive board payments. It will impact those people who are currently at an unfair advantage compared to others who receive another form of income, and these changes will address that inconsistency. Most people who receive housing subsidies will not be impacted at all.

I do want to thank the officials who have worked on this very important piece of legislation, which is part of this Government’s commitment to ensuring our welfare system is sustainable and focuses its effort on assisting those in need. The changes in this bill should be seen in the context of how other forms of income are treated when calculating housing and income assistance, and all income from every boarder and every renter from now on will be considered, which is only fair and reasonable. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, another shocking piece of legislation from this Government. You would have thought that after the rotten week that they’ve had, they might have had something nice for New Zealanders, but they just keep piling it on, piling it on, piling it on. As I said earlier, look at the news; look everywhere. Even their most ardent supporters are putting the boot in, because it’s an uncaring, insensitive, punitive Government that is going to get its comeuppance in about 16 months—might only be in about three or four months, the way they’re going—because New Zealanders have had enough.

This appalling amendment attacks the infrastructure of renters who have a boarder with them to cover costs, and will only serve to take money from the poorest renters. The amendment will attack solo parents. It’ll take from the disabled. It’ll negatively impact Māori, Pasifika, and working people the hardest. The exemption of the first two boarders was to encourage better utilisation of State housing and encourage beneficiary households, particularly sole parent beneficiaries living in larger State houses, to take on a boarder or boarders to just offset some of the costs. So, you know, there was some thinking behind the previous policy, unlike this policy that penalises people and is going to, again, affect our community terribly.

What this Government now wants to do is bash that infrastructure and take money directly out of the pockets of beneficiaries and sole parents at the same time as this Government announces more punitive welfare sanctions. Where’s the regulatory impact statement on this legislation? There wasn’t one, because this Government doesn’t care. It will hurt the poorest renters hardest.

I’m worried, and I think our team in the Opposition here—Greens, Te Pāti Māori, ourselves—has been worried right through this process here, by the lack of voices here to speak to what the amendment will be like in practice, because they have not been given that opportunity. We talk about democracy, but the people who are being hurt don’t get the chance—don’t get the opportunity—to vent their views to this Government. For many, they’re just keeping their heads above water. Forcing them to include the first and second boarder for the purpose of their housing allowance will push many of them under.

It’s not just the lack of voices or a regulatory impact statement that concerns me, though. It’s not just that we’re robbing the poorest renters to balance the Minister of Finance’s Budget. That needs to be clear. She has been very clear that she will throw New Zealand women under the bus in terms of getting her Budget out. She doesn’t care. She doesn’t care about New Zealand women. She doesn’t care about New Zealand workers, Māori, disabled, whatever—anything to get their Budget out. And it’s about priorities for the Government. And we—when I say “we”: our communities, Māori, Pasifika, disabled, people at the coalface—are not a priority with this Government.

In terms of this amendment, it’s the Draconian nature of this amendment that I find most offensive. They sit there over there. They think, “Oh, it’s so simple. We just balance the books of both—it’s the numbers.” But the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), as has been particularly pointed out by our Green MP over here, who’s certainly got a lot of background in this area, he identified, and I agree, a discrepancy that will give the boarder and head tenant a day to explain—a day to explain. And if MSD is still not happy, they’ll suspend the boarder’s housing allowance and the head tenant after just 10 days. MSD then allows for eight weeks of suspension, followed by cancellation of all housing allowances if they’re still not happy. Oh, that’s a great way to treat our community. It’s an incredibly punitive approach to a system that’s been in place since 1992.

Rachel Boyack: Oh, who was in charge then?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes, that’s right: Jim Bolger. They cut his throat, too, didn’t they? Poor old Jim. Came on our side in the end, didn’t he? Yeah—1992. So just another attack. This is another attack on renters, and the Government just can’t pretend that it isn’t.

My fear is that this has been designed to catch as many out in as short a period of time, so that MSD can disqualify them from the housing allowance to make their numbers look good again. It’s always about the numbers. It’s never about the people. Kieran McAnulty knows this. Here’s the thing with this side of the House: while they’re ticking their boxes, and Tama Potaka and Chris Bishop are going, “Oh, we’re doing really great in the emergency housing.”, Kieran McAnulty is looking for the people. Where are the people? They’re out on the street. We’ve got homelessness at its worst in decades, all because of these punitive, disgraceful policies from this Government. Oh, we’ve got “Bish” stands up—Chris Bishop—“Oh, yes, the social housing emergency.” It’s all a load of rubbish—lies. Kieran McAnulty’s on to it.

We’re going up to Rotorua on Monday. We’re going up there; we’ll talk with the people up there, talk about the lies coming from this Government in terms of social housing, emergency housing. They’re ticking numbers and they’re putting people out on the street—putting people out on the street. It’s just a stunt. We’ve seen that emergency housing is a stunt. Pay parity is a stunt. Well, it’s not a stunt; it’s real, but it’s part of their stunt—it’s part of their stunt. Their stunt is “We’ve got to pay for our rich mates. We’ve got to look after our mates—we’ve got to look after our mates.” That’s what it’s all about: change the rules, catch as many people out to disqualify them, and then claim the problem is getting better because there are fewer people receiving the benefit. We know the strategy.

This isn’t social policy; it’s punishment—it’s punishment—for needing help in the first place. They’re taking from the poorest renters. They’re taking from the poorest renters while creating a punishment regime that will automatically suspend payments within 10 days of notification. This will lead to tenants unable to pay their rent, and we’ll see them pushed out and homeless, which will be even more problematic, because the Government has just slashed the emergency housing budget as well. It’s just the flow-on. Why such Draconian measures? Why does the Government keep punishing good Kiwis—Kiwis at the coalface, working-class New Zealanders, Māori, Pasifika, disabled? It’s like, “We can save it. Let’s just cut that lot off.” Some of these MPs over here should be ashamed of themselves. The member over there from Takanini, you should be ashamed of yourself. Takanini should throw you out—throw you out. You’ve forgotten your people at the coalface. You’re a disgrace.

Rima Nakhle: You should be ashamed of how you treated the Māori wardens.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Ha, ha! The Māori wardens. They give the Māori wardens a few peanuts—they give them a few peanuts—and then they take $1 billion out of the Māori budget. But here’s the thing: David Seymour says there’s no such thing as Māoris. “I don’t believe in Māori budgets.” And the other side of it, this lot, can’t stand up and say, “You’re wrong, David.” They say, “Yes, please, David. No, David. Keep kicking us in the guts, David.” And he rolls out his stupid latest Regulatory Standards Bill. It’s a disgrace and they’re a disgrace.

Just back to the bill—I need to get back to this bill. As I said, the MP for Takanini, she should stand down. She should stand down. She’s feeling so guilty at the moment. Anyway, I want to just wrap up and say our community deserves support. What is clear from this legislation is that as far as this Government is concerned, disabled, Māori, Pasifika, and working-class renters requiring housing allowances are not part of a community they want to support. Labour speaks against this amendment because it won’t help the poorest renters. It will cost them. It will punish them. And it’s going to come back on this Government over the next 16 months. Kia ora anō tātou.

There’s only one way to explain the intent of this bill and this is because Minister Louise Upston’s, heart is rotten to the core. How else can you explain a Government—[Interruption]. Yeah, go ahead, take offence.

Joseph Mooney: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s been a very longstanding principle for this place that members should not make statements that reflect poorly on other members of the House, and that certainly did. He should withdraw and apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I’ll just take some advice on that because there have been a lot of statements that have been thrown around the House just this morning. So this is how I’m going to deal with this. It is a line call about whether that is a poor reflection, but I would invite all members from now on to really think about their comments. The further note that I would have as well is that interjections should be rare and reasonable. We don’t want an ongoing barrage of commentary, despite some members clearly enjoying that—that is certainly not the experience of all members, though. Is that a point of order?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: No, I just want to continue. I meant what I said when I said that the Government’s heart is rotten to the core, and this includes the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s, because how else can you explain 14,000-plus people being left worse off as a result of a bill that will strip many low-income people from the accommodation supplement and the income-related rent subsidies? All for what? To pay for tax cuts for the wealthy few and the fossil fuel industry. Shame on this Government.

The Minister thinks that voters are stupid because she completely omitted details of the bill that will increase hardship for people, that will leave people needing emergency housing, hardship grants, and other forms of temporary assistance. She did not mention this once. All the while we’ve been trying to raise this issue to the Government members, they’ve been laughing away because poverty is a laughing matter for members of the Government. Shame on the Government members who, through urgency, as part of this legislation, have decided to throw thousands of families deeper into poverty to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy few. We deserve much better. The people in public housing who were and are living on the streets and in emergency housing deserve better.

We need a Government that is committed to taxing the wealthy few fairly so that we can have thriving public services, not a Government that is slashing and burning our public services, making the lowest-income workers pay for the tax cuts, including some of our lowest-paid women in some of the most undervalued professions. If you don’t believe me about the impacts of this bill, you’ve just got to look at the analysis made by the Government ministry that talks about the disproportionate impacts that this bill will have, about how Māori, disabled, the old will be paying a disproportionate price in this bill. They will be left reeling because, on average, people will be paying over $100 more each week as a result of this bill.

This shows that this Government is deeply unserious about addressing the cost of living crisis, because none of them—none of them—have dared, in their contributions, to face up to the fact that this bill, as explained by the Government’s own analysis, will leave accommodation supplement receivers paying $100 on average extra each week. All the while, people in social housing affected by this bill will be, on average, paying an extra $132 a week. That is the difference between people being able to put food on the table and pay their bills.

But they seem to be completely out of touch. For all the performative outrage from people like Joseph Mooney, who talks about having left poverty, clearly he decided to turn his back on the very same people he claimed to represent and belong to. So easy to do when you spend hours and hours in the Koru lounge, talking to people who simply are not reflected on the bill that is literally criminalising people in poverty. The advice on this bill has told us that this bill will literally criminalise people because it will encourage people to have to lie about who they have as boarders in their house. That in and of itself could lead to fraud investigations and people literally being burdened with tens of thousands of dollars in debt or literally facing prison time. Shame on this Government for pushing through a bill that does nothing—nothing—but increase poverty; nothing but increase inequality; nothing but disproportionately affect Māori, the disabled, Pasifika, and the working poor.

This Government has completely described this bill factually incorrectly, either by choice or because they chose to not read the bill. I haven’t seen any of them honour the communities that will be disproportionately impacted by this—none of them. Those members talked about fairness. Fairness to them seems to be giving more money to the wealthy CEOs, and then leaving over 14,000 people way worse off. Being $100 less each week may not mean much for them, the privileged members on the other side, but it is literally—literally—a lifeline that is lost for families in public housing.

But this is all part of the plan of the Government members to drive people away from public housing and on to the streets, to undermine our public housing stock. We’ve seen how the Government, as well, is building less public housing. We’ve seen how the Government is investing less in the very few supports that still exist for homeless people and yet is completely happy to drive people away from their homes and on to the streets without them creating a lifeline.

It would have been fair if the Government had said, “We’re making changes to how people who have boarders can access the accommodation supplement and the income-related subsidy.”, if they had introduced an alternative, but there is none. That means that on average this Government is leaving those families paying an extra $100 to $130-plus, on average, each week. In fact, if you have three boarders, the difference now will be over $200.

We’ve got to remember the history of why we had a bit of reprieve for people who had at least two boarders in their home. That is because historically, over 30 years ago, it was acknowledged that because of the neoliberal reforms of the 1980s that meant that public housing tenants could be left paying market rent, that we needed to support people like sole parents who often were living in public housing without other people with them, therefore paying additional costs and without the support systems. This is why we had that reprieve for people with one to two boarders. It was to support them. The rug has been pulled out from under them.

All for what? To give more money to the tobacco industry, to the fossil fuel industry, to the mining industry. Shame on this Government for pushing through these changes and for the complete inability to address the harms that this bill will create. Not a single one of them has talked about the communities who this bill will be affecting. They’ve been so busy posting on Instagram about their performative work because for many of them—particularly the list MPs from the Government side—their one job is to heckle. Their one job is to create speeches made by ChatGPT instead of engaging with the communities that they are harming. I think our communities deserve far better than this.

This bill—as I’ve spoken to—will create negative material impacts on people and the front line. They don’t even seem to care about the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) staffers who will now be in charge of administering this bill. They don’t seem to care about the MSD staffers, because the advice from MSD themselves talked about how this bill will increase friction at the MSD offices. It could literally put MSD staffers at risk because of that increased friction. They do all this performative outrage when there’s a lockdown at the MSD offices about how much they care for the safety of MSD staffers, but then they’re quite happy to rush through pieces of legislation that literally increase friction at the MSD offices.

I wish all the outrage and heckles on the other side would be about the poverty that this bill is creating, but it is an outrage driven by the fact that they seem to be offended by the fact that this bill is increasing poverty. I wish they were outraged about poverty. I wish they were outraged about inequality. I wish they were outraged about the cost of living crisis. Instead, all we get is performative outrage. When it comes to the communities that they’re harming, they’ve turned their faces back away from the streets and on to this echo chamber and instead they would rather create imaginary characters in their head like beneficiaries—as Nicola Willis has described—playing PlayStation all day when she has not taken her time to, for example, meet the people on the benefit who have been negatively affected by this Government’s actions, including the bill in front of us.

We could have heard from boarders, from people who have boarders, from low-income public housing tenants in the select committee stage period, but instead they decided to introduce this bill under urgency, even though they knew that they were going to do this more than a year ago. They decided to do this more than a year ago, and yet they didn’t honour the democratic process of actually putting this bill through adequate scrutiny, which shows that this Government doesn’t want to face the truth of thousands of people in public housing and unaffordable rentals telling them to their faces about how they will be left worse off.

They are literally scared of facing the communities that they’re harming. They’re scared of being told that they’re leaving people homeless. They’re scared of being told that they’re leaving people in debt. They’re scared of being told that they’re increasing hardship. They’re scared of telling the single people on the supported living payment that they are going to be facing additional barriers to simply keep a roof over their heads. They’re scared of the scrutiny they could have faced on this bill, so they would rather push it under urgency because this is a Government scared of owning up to the voters that they have chosen to harm, that they have chosen to literally push to the streets. All for what? For their wealthy mates.

We deserve a Government that taxes the wealthy few and funds adequate public services so that we can have public housing for all, free early childhood education, free dental, and the things that our communities need to thrive. We will make sure this is a one-term Government so that they can’t continue with this harm.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The member Ricardo Menéndez March, in his concluding remarks, said that we will be leaving people in debt. But if you listen to that, they will be piling debt on the whole nation—each and every individual, not some people that he thinks we will be leaving in debt, because this bill is not leaving anybody in debt. This bill is not leaving anybody in debt, and we want to see that our nation is not piling more and more debt for each and every individual. That’s why we are responsible towards each and every dollar that we spend.

I want to make it very, very clear that there was opportunity available to members of the Opposition in the committee of the whole House, but it was quite unfortunate to see that so much House time was taken and so many of their amendments were deemed out of order. There was that opportunity for them to put amendments through if they wanted to, but they didn’t know what they wanted to change in this legislation. That was very clear last night in the committee of the whole House.

Now, we know that this bill is to fix the double subsidy issue that has been spotted, and we want to see that everybody gets a fair deal. We also know that not everybody in a State house can have a boarder because it depends on the size of the house; it depends on their own needs. So this bill is also going to bring fairness to everybody in the State houses as well.

To stand up and justify that it’s OK for people to receive a subsidy twice for the same accommodation? I don’t know how they justify that, because these people—those who are in State houses, those who are receiving the accommodation supplement or receiving a benefit—I’m sure that they are in that state only for a little while because they are working hard as well to get out of that state, to get back into employment, to earn enough so that they are independent. Because they have been through those phases, they realise the importance of each and every dollar that the Government spends. I’m sure these people also will appreciate this legislation going through, making sure that each and every boarder’s money that comes to the State house is taken into consideration. It’s going to be a very fair deal because it is going to take into consideration each and every boarder at the same level.

Another thing which this bill does is it clarifies the difference between boarder and renter. It’s a very thought through legislation. The ACT Party supports this legislation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill. I’d just like to acknowledge the Hon Louise Upston, the Minister for Social Development and Employment, who has brought this piece of legislation to the House because she wants to achieve a sustainable welfare system to enable us to continue assisting those in need. This piece of legislation ensures there is fairness across the whole housing allowance space, ensuring greater fairness in regards to those accessing housing support. Duplication of housing allowance—well, this will eliminate that; two people in the same house claiming the accommodation supplement. We need to ensure there’s fairness. Taxpayers fund all housing support. So this will ensure some fairness through that.

Just noting the Green member Ricardo Menéndez March, who just resumed his seat, accused the Government of performative outrage. Well, I think that he needs to look in the mirror—faux outrage, absolutely. I commend this bill to House.

Mōrena e te Pīka. Mōrena e te katoa. I te tuatahi, e mihi atu ki tō tātou nei whānau kei Tūrangawaewae Marae.

[Good morning, Mr Speaker. Good morning to everyone. In the first instance, I acknowledge our family that are on Tūrangawaewae Marae.]

Today, 30 years ago, there was a signing at Tūrangawaewae. There’s a beautiful photo of Te Atairangikaahu, Mr Bolger, and others celebrating. He kaupapa nui tēnā [That’s an important endeavour].

I start my contribution today with that in mind, because here we are, today, fighting about—or listening to the Government’s stand to maintain poverty, and in fact, let’s put more belts and braces around it so we keep it exactly the comfortable way in which we want it.

I recognised last night in some of the speeches, and even again today, not a single piece of real intelligence, understanding, and appreciation of how this affects Māori children, Māori hapū and iwi—not sincerely, and not really. When the Minister for Social Development and Employment talked about this “agnostic”—well, she didn’t talk about the concept; she used the word. The danger about such words is, first of all, this then imposes that religious thinking, and I’m not quite sure. She didn’t explain what she meant in the context, except when you say those sorts of things, what you’re saying is that if you are agnostic, anything goes; the opposite is true, then anything goes, and if “anything goes” is based on very a fundamental, racist way of thinking, living, and being comfortable, then this is the kind of rubbish that you end up with.

But I do want to congratulate the Government for their persistence in showing complete disregard and disinterest—and this word, “disdain”. Because if you don’t ask whānau—well, I mean, what are you scared of? Are you scared that you might have to change your mind, that you might be convinced that whānau, hapū, iwi communities know, understand, and have their reality and are able to share it? Why wouldn’t you open this process up and do that?

The only thing I’m left with, really, is that you care not. Though you might write and talk about it as if you do, but it is a complete fake—it is a complete fake. But here’s the other, probably, perverse, but good thing: everybody can see you. Everybody can feel you. So keep going, because, in the next round, you will be gone and we will be here—yeah, get yourself ready for that. [Interruption] OK, bark up, boys. Bark up, boys—keep going, we’re used to it.

I did hear also last night this whole thing about double-dipping. Again, it’s such an old and false perspective because double-dipping was used 20, 30, 40 years ago today still assumes that there’s enough—“There’s enough, so don’t you dare double-dip, you and your family of seven kids. You’re just getting through, so how dare you double-dip?” You can’t double-dip, actually, if you’ve got sweet not-a-lot to work on.

So what you then end up doing is having to work and, at times, absolutely manipulate so you get even the crumbs. So what I hear often and disappointingly—but not surprisingly—is a huge ignorance and misunderstanding. But when you have an already always listening about brown people, when you have an already always listening about “lazy Māori brown people that just can’t get up and get off the couch”, you are fed a terrible, terrible lie. And when you are comfortable in that kind of understanding, you will end up with this kind of rubbish that has got—and let me tell you: there are many a Māori, iwi, marae, hapū that have got their plans, they’ve got their strategy, they’ve got their Whānau Ora plans. But what do you think? You think you know better.

Well, shame on you. You don’t know better today and you won’t know, and I suggest that Māori mā, Māori mā, go back to your marae. Hoki koe ki tō marae, me whakarongo ki ō koutou whānau i ia marae, ia hapū. [You should listen to your families on each marae, each hapū.]

Mēnā—if—you were to do that, you would be better off. Just in the first instance, you would be better off—you would be informed. Don’t depend on the Māori sitting next to you to think that’s enough. Do your own work. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party in opposition to this bill. This bill is about greed. This bill is about stealing from children, from disabled people, and from our elderly—tax-paying New Zealanders. While the changes proposed were described by the Minister for Social Development and Employment as narrow, and they may appear minor or technical, the consequences are serious. What’s being packaged here as an adjustment to housing support policy is a targeted cut to people on the lowest incomes, people already struggling to stay housed and fed in Aotearoa.

This legislation reverses a longstanding and sensible approach taken by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). For over 30 years, MSD has excluded income from one or two boarders when determining eligibility for the accommodation supplement or income-related rent. That approach has helped countless households make ends meet. It has encouraged people to share their homes, ease the living costs, and even reduce the pressure on public housing. But now this bill proposes to treat those boarder contributions as income, resulting in reduced support for those who host even just one or two boarders. The outcome? Less housing assistance for people who are simply trying to manage in an economy where the cost of living is skyrocketing.

Let’s not forget who we are talking about. These people are doing everything they can to stay afloat. It is hard being poor: people with no safety margin, rent, power, groceries—these costs are going up, and this bill chooses to take even more away from those already falling behind. This is not about preventing abuse of the system; it’s about penalising those who open up spare rooms, build community, make ends meet, and support each other. It’s about clawing back entitlements from people living below the poverty line.

In the evidence which we got, the advice we got from MSD, it showed us the people who are going to be the most disproportionately impacted: Māori, Pacific people, our kaumātua, disabled people, young people. It was really telling, the engagement from the Government members, when they got engaged, when they only felt personally offended. Well, I feel offended for the disabled people, for the young people, for Pacific people, for Māori people, and for our kaumātua—people who we should be helping to have everything that they need to live a thriving life. That’s something that we can have in this country. We have enough wealth. We are a country of abundance. But this Government is choosing to choose greed and cruelty over the country that we could be, one that cares for people, one that cares for our environment.

In the Green Party, we believe in supporting people, not punishing them. We believe in a welfare system that enables people to live with dignity, not one that punishes them for finding ways to manage within a broken system. If this Government is genuinely interested in fairness and efficient housing policy, it should begin by lifting support levels that reflect real living costs, not by cutting assistance to the very people this support is meant to help, like children. I hope that the Government members have read their own child poverty report because it is grim, and this is going to affect children. It is going to push more children into poverty and it is just not OK.

We cannot support this bill. It punishes people for sharing their homes. We urge all members of this House to reject this harmful and short-sighted bill.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on this. We’ve heard a lot of hyperbole and, frankly, nonsense from those champagne socialists on the other side of the House. What is this bill about? It’s actually about the Government paying twice for one room in a house. That’s, effectively, what it’s about. And that’s for boarders. It doesn’t do the same for renters. This Government takes taxpayers’ money seriously. We take the responsibility to spend that money wisely. We want to help people in difficult circumstances. We want to give them a hand up; we don’t want to give them a handout. We don’t want people stuck in a cycle of poverty for their entire lives, so we want to help those people. We are not going to triple the debt like the last Government did. We’re going to spend it wisely. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. When I was going to law school, I’d come back from overseas and I went to live in Hamilton because I was at Waikato law school and I lived in a garage of a woman who was a solo mother. She had two kids, she was working, and I don’t know whether she actually had an accommodation supplement, but if she had had one, under the law as it was then, she would’ve been able to have me there as a boarder and not declare it and it would have given her a little bit more money. I got something out of it: I lived in the garage. [Interruption] And, actually, for Joseph Mooney on the other side, that woman today wouldn’t need anyone to be double-dipping to miss out on what she got back then, if that was the case.

The woman who does that now, she’s a caregiver; and she’s earning minimum wage. This Government decided not to give her the raise it should have given her, which would have kept pace with inflation this year. That was the priority of this Government: it didn’t give her the minimum wage. It also took away her pay equity claim—that’s what it did this year. In addition to that, it said, “Oh, you’re getting an accommodation supplement. You’re working. You’re not able to make ends meet because the wages are so low, but we’re going to take that off you to the extent of $98 a week this year when things are this bad, when cheese costs this much, when butter costs $7, $8, sometimes $11 in the shops for butter.”

Carl Bates: Cut to Costco!

HELEN WHITE: And I’m told by the other side, who apparently are connected with human beings, “Costco”. That’s what they scream out: “Costco”—that’s what they scream out. I would like the Government to take this seriously. It is not a case of some glib comment across the room.

Today, we have a debate about taking $98 off someone like the woman I’ve described. There will be thousands of women I’ve described across this country who are in this situation and it is time to take this seriously. It is not a case of screaming out “Costco”, because that is the kind of judgment that has been going on underneath the surface of this Government for a long time. It is always the person’s fault who’s in that situation. I have described to you today a woman who was very real to me. She was a lovely woman. She had instant coffee, she had a microwave, she had a beautiful little puppy dog. All those things are the actual hallmarks of working-class New Zealand—good, solid working-class New Zealand.

Today, we decided that we were going to take off good, solid working New Zealand solo mothers what even in the 1990s they didn’t do. They decided that was a bridge too far, but it isn’t for this Government. Because what’s happened in between is the gap between rich and poor is so extreme that many people on the other side of this House want to talk about tall poppies. They don’t want to talk about battling New Zealand, who are getting on with it and what do they get? A kick in the guts from this Government today.

I hope all the controversy about dragging this bill out and trying to get the most we can out of this situation, the fight that the Opposition put up, I hope it’s seen for what it is. It’s a fight for the working class of this country, who have had a really rough time. This Government promised it was going to help them in a cost of living crisis; instead, it takes $98 off women like that. It takes it off them every week. It makes it harder for them to live and then it blames them and tells them they can go to Costco. That’s what this Government said to people today. And their sniggering continues on the other side.

We are here for those people—we are here. We are not going to say that it is wrong to have a boarder in your house—we wouldn’t do it to ourselves and we’re not going to do it to the rest of New Zealand. That is not the way forward to a decent New Zealand. It is time that we start to see how alienating it is for people. We have people whom a report into this bill calls marginalised. We have people who are really harmed here by this legislation, and we need to take it seriously and we needed to hear from them. Frankly, we needed to hear from those very people because it is our obligation to listen to them before we make stupid laws, and this is a very stupid law.

This law is not going to achieve anything but further pain for people, because, as the report points out, what most people will do in that situation is they’ll just stop having boarders. They won’t be able to afford to have a boarder. Think about the discussion we had in the committee of the whole House stage about the 62 percent that is going to be taken off every boarder situation. When it was suggested by me that some people—bless their cotton socks—might have somebody live with them for other reasons than money and they might say, “Look, you can live here for $50 a week.”, they still lose 62 percent of that because, apparently, the Minister for Social Development and Employment says she’s agnostic, which apparently means heartless, unthinking, and, basically, stupid. It’s not a very good piece of law. It’s a stupid law.

Sam Uffindell: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 45/2, which says, “Members should address each other in a courteous way, and references to the mental prowess, or lack thereof, of a particular member are inappropriate”.

HELEN WHITE: Point taken—point taken, Madam Speaker. And it’s not taken—

Sam Uffindell: Speaking to the point of order. She should withdraw and apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I understand—

HELEN WHITE: I withdraw.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I understand. It is actually OK to call a policy stupid.

HELEN WHITE: And that’s what I was trying to do.

Sam Uffindell: Speaking to the point of order, that was in reference to a member.

HELEN WHITE: I want to make sure that I am clear: I think that this is a stupid policy. I think the mentality that says, when asked a question that is a very valid question—

Todd Stephenson: Point of order. Sorry, Madam Speaker. The member should withdraw and apologise for her reference to the Minister, which was very clear. Then she can criticise the policy.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): OK.

HELEN WHITE: Madam Speaker, I’ll make it absolutely clear: I am talking about the policy and I’m talking about the thinking that gets to the policy and the lack of debate. Let’s just extrapolate. The thinking isn’t just of the Minister; the thinking is of the Government—let’s just be very clear. Now, I think people on the other side of the House know that I do not tend to attack people personally and I’m not doing that here.

Joseph Mooney: You were.

HELEN WHITE: I do not. And what I am talking about—pardon? Sorry, Madam Speaker.

Rachel Boyack: Keep going—keep going.

HELEN WHITE: Thank you. What I am talking about is a way of thinking which the Government is guilty of. Because, when I put a question about—[Interruption] I am getting a lot of heckling, Madam Speaker, and I’m finding it really hard to give my speech because there is a constant barrage.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise to the member; however, this is getting out of hand.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): It is getting out of hand. I’ve only just resumed the Chair and I can see that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I know. This is in no way your fault, Madam Speaker, but this has been building for quite some time. Presiding officers throughout the morning have warned both sides to keep it down a notch and, frankly, some of the comments that have been labelled towards Helen White during that contribution are very much out of order, and it’s building both sides up. I think, given that we’re likely to be here until midnight tonight, some clear expectations set out to the House would be useful.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Excellent. Point noted, thank you.

HELEN WHITE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to come back to the injustice of not bothering to think about the people who will be caught up in this situation and hurt by it. I have given an example to the House: somebody is charging somebody $50 to live in their house—they’re charging them $50. Under this law that we passed today, 62 percent of it goes straight out the door—it goes straight out the door, and yet it’s probably costing them double that in terms of food and electricity, etc. When I have put that matter to the Minister, I was met with complete disinterest. I was told that the policy is agnostic. Well, our job is not to be agnostic. Yes, we have systems to run. Yes, there are hard calls to make. But our job is to listen to our communities and to reflect that in decent, humane policy.

So when a Minister refuses to listen to those things and change them, when we are adopting policies that do not work for ordinary New Zealanders and, in fact, depress them, take them down, make it harder for them to move through into a place of independence—when we do that, we do real harm, and we are responsible for that harm. Today, we put something through which hurts a lot of people that could’ve been made better. It could’ve been made better by a bit of time in a select committee, listening to the people who are impacted; listening to all voices. We could have got it right. But, instead, we’re putting through a law that probably won’t work, because people will simply no longer have boarders because they cannot afford the risk and it is not worth it to them—when who were they hurting?

I absolutely, categorically, totally reject the idea that this is double-dipping. Anyone who gets a subsidy from the Government gets it because they need it. The fact that two subsidies end up in the same household, that is not double-dipping. Double-dipping—as has been pointed out earlier—is when you do something like make sure that landlords have interest deductibility, but don’t tax them when it comes to the profit that they make out of a rental property. That’s double-dipping because you’re giving them two bites at it. You’re letting them have their cake and eat it too. In this situation, there’s no double-dipping. We just have two people who deserve our support who are getting it. But not today. It’s over for them. Shame on this House.

The bill is very straightforward. It addresses the situation where a person who receives boarder payments themselves apply for the accommodation supplement. They are to be assessed for their eligibility and for the rate of accommodation supplement they are to receive. What this bill doesn’t do is mislead the public, and what this bill doesn’t do is encourage and further entrench dependency. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a mean-spirited bill. The Paulo Garcia, member opposite, says it doesn’t entrench—something. What it does entrench is poverty and inequity. It is mean-spirited because it penalises people who are already doing it tough for taking on boarders.

Some members opposite in their contributions have said this is about fairness and about fixing an anomaly in the legislation. It’s not. This policy of disregarding contributions received from one or two boarders when calculating someone’s entitlement for housing subsidies and assistance has been in place since 1992 for a reason. It was designed to be an incentive for people to take in boarders, so it’s not something that people were doing incorrectly or wrongly. It was actually designed to support people to take on boarders to ensure that other people had a home and that the money they were paid would then offset the increase in costs to the person who was taking on those boarders. So let’s not dress this up as something that is fair, which is what members opposite are doing. It is unfair. It is penalising people for doing something that ultimately is good—because there is a difference between renters and boarders, and that is actually acknowledged by other Government agencies, so perhaps members opposite should look at that.

The income that comes from someone who rents is treated very differently already under the law from people who contribute as boarders because that is not just about renting a space; it’s about offsetting the increased costs that the person who rents out or shares their space will incur from that. So this is not an anomaly that needs to be fixed.

This will lead to an increase in homelessness. Let’s not pretend about that. Not one member opposite has mentioned the fact that this will make things harder for a number of groups of people. That is not an opinion; that is in the official analysis of this bill. Disabled people, for example, have limited choice when it comes to accessible housing. Many disabled people have limited choice because their caregivers live with them as boarders. These are the very people that this bill and this Government are punching down on further, so let’s be very clear about that. That is in the politically neutral analysis of this bill.

What is this, ultimately? There’s a line in that analysis that says this policy change was a Budget 2024 cost-saving initiative. That’s ultimately what it is. So it’s clawing back $150 million from people who can least afford it because of the decisions that this Government has made in successive Budgets. That’s what this bill is about. It’s in keeping with what they’ve done so far, which is taking money away from underpaid women to balance their Budget, to make up for their decisions to subsidise landlords and tobacco companies, to pay for their tax cuts that they promised on their campaign when they were campaigning to reduce the cost of living—which they have failed to do. It is to subsidise offshore oil and gas giants, as we’ve seen through Budget 2025.

This is a Government that has failed on their promises that they campaigned for. What are they doing instead? They are clawing back money from the people who can least afford it, whether that’s underpaid women or, in this case, all of the groups: Māori, Pacific, young people, old people, disabled people, those who are already struggling, those who are being given an incentive to take on boarders to make ends meet. Those are the people who will be impacted negatively as a result of this bill, and all we’ve heard from the other side is arrogance, frankly, and it’s been pretty disgusting. We’ve seen the smirks; we’ve heard the laughs coming across the House from those members. They don’t seem to care. Not one person has acknowledged how much harder this bill is going to make life for those who are already struggling with the cost of living.

But keep going because there’s a pattern and everyone can see what this Government is ultimately doing: fail on your promises and then take it from those who are already doing it tough. For all of those reasons, and the reasons that this side of the House has clearly laid out, as this bill has been rushed through all stages under urgency, we do not commend this bill to the House.

I rise in support of this bill. It’s a necessary change. Its purpose is to ensure fairness and to prevent the double-subsidisation of housing costs.

We have heard about penalising renters; let’s talk about that. Under the last Government, there was an increase on average of $180 a week in rent. If we look across the country, that is $5.3 billion that they took out of the pockets of renters. That is a fact. Under this Government, we’ve seen an increase in 40 percent for listings of rental properties, according to TradeMe data. We have seen the highest level as a percentage of first-home buyers for decades. That is what this Government is doing: getting the finances of this country under control.

We don’t suggest titles of bills with “moolah” in them; we take this seriously. We don’t trifle with the House like the Opposition does. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s the first opportunity I’ve had to take a call on this bill and I want to talk to some of the impacts it’s going to have on my community.

The first comment I want to make is that this bill is a mean-spirited little bill that’s been snuck through the House under the cover of darkness during urgency. It hasn’t had the opportunity to go to select committee, which means that people who are actually affected by this bill haven’t had an opportunity to come to the Parliament to put their views to MPs to ensure that a bill like this actually is fair. Because it’s not fair—it’s not a fair bill.

When I was doing my reading of the bill prior to putting my notes together, I did take a look at the explanatory note. I think it’s worth noting to the members over the other side of the House that this policy was actually introduced in 1992. Who was in Government in 1992? The National Party. And here in the bill, it even reads—I’m just going to read it out—“It was intended to encourage better utilisation of State housing (ie, occupation of empty rooms) and encourage beneficiary [houses], particularly sole parent beneficiaries living in larger State houses, to take on a boarder, or boarders, to offset some of their costs.”

In the context of the nation’s housing crisis, it’s important that we actually look at what will be the unintended consequences of a bill like this. What it will lead to is higher costs for those who have a boarder or people not taking a boarder on in the first place.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Unintended consequences—cumulative effect of 25 percent inflation under your Government.

RACHEL BOYACK: At the moment, the situation we’re facing—I mean, I just want to note, Mr Campbell, you did have an opportunity to take a 10-minute call; it was less than a minute.

Dr Hamish Campbell: No, I didn’t.

RACHEL BOYACK: Yes, you did. You had an opportunity to speak for 10 minutes. [Interruption] You’ve obviously got something to say—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Order! We don’t want conversation across the House.

RACHEL BOYACK: I know, but he’s heckling me, so I’m just responding. But he’s obviously got something to say. It is within the rules to respond to a heckler. He took about a minute; he had nine minutes where he could have said all this, that he’s, you know—so—

Dr Hamish Campbell: It was a split call.

RACHEL BOYACK: Oh, it was a five-minute call. OK, it was a split call. So you took one minute of your five minutes—

Joseph Mooney: Point of order.

RACHEL BOYACK: I withdraw and apologise for getting my timings wrong.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Point of order, Joseph Mooney.

Joseph Mooney: No, she just addressed it. She got her timings wrong. It was five minutes; not 10.

RACHEL BOYACK: Basically what I was saying was that he had four minutes that he didn’t use, but instead he’s decided he’s just going to shout at me. If that’s just how you want to behave in the House, it’s up to you.

Hon Member: Tell us about the Nelson Hospital.

RACHEL BOYACK: Just coming back to the bill—oh, I will tell you about Nelson Hospital.

Hon Member: Oh, great announcement!

RACHEL BOYACK: Fewer beds. Fewer beds. Fewer beds. We’ll run out of beds in about five or six years and we’re going to have to come back and build the last building. You cancelled the last building that Nelson needs. It’s a disgrace. So don’t believe the spin that your Ministers have given you, because they’re wrong. It’s a disgrace.

Hon Matt Doocey: Whoever the mayor is, he’s happy.

RACHEL BOYACK: Oh, look, the mayor had 30 years to get their hospital built and he didn’t.

Anyway, I’ll come back to this bill, which is really important for Nelson because we have a policy in Nelson set up by the wonderful people at Nelson Women’s Centre called HomeShare for Her, which runs across the Nelson-Tasman region. HomeShare for Her. What it does is it matches a woman—normally an older woman who is living in their own home or renting a home and often it’s a larger property—and to take on a boarder. One of the things that we find in Nelson is we do have a growing and ageing population, which is why we need more beds than what National have promised. One of the things is that women are often living in their own homes that might have an extra two or three bedrooms. They want to stay living in their own homes for safety, to help reduce costs, for companionship. What HomeShare for Her has done is it allows a matching process between those women, and then women who are single, who might be working, studying, or not able to afford their own home. So it allows—you know, coming back to the purpose of the original policy—greater utilisation of that home. It’s a great scheme and it’s allowed matching between these women.

What this policy will do for any of those women who are receiving the accommodation supplement because they might still be paying their mortgage and be on superannuation or be living in a rental, that’s going to increase the cost for those women. So it actually has an unintended consequence and has a poor impact—

Steve Abel: I think it’s intended.

RACHEL BOYACK: —on those. What was that, sorry?

Steve Abel: I think it’s intended.

RACHEL BOYACK: Yeah, I think it’s intentional too. And—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’ll just remind the member again not to engage across the House.

RACHEL BOYACK: Madam Speaker, I understood under the Standing Orders that you can respond to heckles. I think that was all right.

But one of the issues in Nelson as well as we have seen an increase in our homelessness and we’ve seen through the ending of some of our emergency accommodation provision, a growing number of people living on the streets. We’ve also seen, as part of that, unfortunately, a growing number of women living on the streets. One of the things around how women present through homelessness is it’s often a bit different to how men present. Often, women will end up sleeping rough on someone’s couch, in a garage, potentially with children. They’re not necessarily sleeping on the street, but the homelessness is still there and present.

That’s one of the things I love about this HomeShare for Her policy that was set up by this group of women was: that it both served the older women who were wanting to get greater utilisation of their home, and then it also supported those women who were on a low income, unable to find a home. What this bill is going to do is add costs to those people. It’s going to add costs to those women and it’s potentially going to disincentivise the number of people living in those homes.

The other thing that we face in Nelson which is really specific to this bill is we do have a lot of State houses that do have three to four bedrooms, where we have a really high need for one- and two-bedroom properties in Nelson—and that’s shown on the Housing Register. We had begun building those one- and two-bedroom properties. We had got quite a few built, including the one recently finished on Waimea Road which has 29 one-bedroom units in it, which is fantastic

But some of those future properties have been cancelled—those builds. There was one in the inner city that was going to build another 30 or so one-bedroom homes that would have served particularly our older population, our disabled population, very, very well. That build has been cancelled under this Government and so we’re seeing the latest release of information from the Nelson Tasman Housing Trust saw the highest ever housing need from people who are in that space where they might not qualify to go on to the Housing Register, but they do have a housing need in terms of being on a low income. So they’ve seen a real spike in numbers, unfortunately.

When you have a place like Nelson, which is one of the most unaffordable regions in the country after Queenstown, when you compare income against rent and a real squeeze on housing—because we do have a growing number of people choosing to retire into Nelson—what we see is a real lack of access to housing. It is a real issue in Nelson, it has been for some time. The option to have people boarding is a really, really good solution, and it happens a lot in my community. So my biggest concern here is that we’re going to be penalising people on low incomes who have looked to say, “I’m going to take on a boarder.”

The other area where it can impact is those who are taking on students—they may have a student come to study at Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, for example—take on a boarder because they might be an elderly person who’s looking to supplement the income on their rental property. Making those kinds of decisions is going to become less attractive to those people, and so it’s going to limit the amount of housing supply we have, because in a place like Nelson, we need to look at every single opportunity.

There is going to be, if you look at social housing, around 6,200 households across the country have boarders. Those people will have to find around $132 more each week towards their income-related rent. That’s a significant amount of money for people at a time when, alongside the housing crisis, you actually have a cost of living crisis. The 8,200 households who receive the accommodation supplement are going to be affected, and 7,000 of those people will have a reduction in support from the Ministry of Social Development.

This bill should have gone to select committee. To pass it like this when it had actually been put in place during the Budget in 2024 just shows a Government couldn’t actually line its ducks up properly to have actually got a bill into the House at some point last year and put it through to select committee for those people who are affected, so that the Government members, who have been shouting at everyone but not taking lengthy calls—so they’re choosing to shout instead of listen—could actually hear the real impact of this bill. I do not commend it to the House.

Nōku te maringa nui ki te tū hei tautoko i tēnei pire ki te Whare. Kei te mutunga o tēnei kōrero poto ka pōti tātou i tēnei pire, ā, nā tōku whakapono i te whakaaro nui o te nuinga o ngā mema o tēnei Whare, ka whakamanatia tēnei pire.

[It is my great fortune to stand in support of this bill in the House. Upon the conclusion of this short speech, we will vote on this bill, and as I have faith in the wisdom of the majority of the members of this House, this bill will be enacted.]

Hon Member: Nā te aha?

[Because of what?]

GREG FLEMING: He pire pai, he pire whakaaro nui, he pire atawhai. Nā reira kaua e roa ake tāku whakatātari o tēnei kōrero, o tēnei pōti. Ka tūtohu atu au i tēnei pire ki te Whare.

[It is a good bill, it is a wise bill, it is a caring bill. Therefore, I will not prolong my analysis of this debate and of this vote. I commend this bill to the House.]

Bill read a third time.