Rates Rebate Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill.

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

Hon SIMON WATTS: I move, That the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Madam Speaker, honourable members, I would like to thank you for considering this bill under urgency. We know it’s tough out there for many Kiwis and the cost of living has significantly impacted households over the past years, and that is why this Government is working hard to grow this economy, to reduce the cost of living, and to help Kiwis get ahead. We know things won’t change overnight, but our plan is making a difference. Inflation is under control. Tax relief is putting more money into Kiwi back pockets. Initiatives, like FamilyBoost, are helping with the costs of childcare for families. We recognise rising rates are adding to the challenges faced by some of the most vulnerable citizens, including many seniors living on fixed incomes. These individuals are burdened by rates that they simply cannot afford. These Kiwis deserve better. They deserve peace of mind in retirement, not financial stress. That is why we are considering this bill under urgency, as it will provide that peace of mind to our seniors.

The Rates Rebate Scheme is part of a larger set of tools designed to help and support households in managing their living costs, and to address the impacts of rising rates. This bill proposes eligibility changes to the scheme that will provide additional financial relief for 66,000 more SuperGold card holders. This new threshold will be set at $45,000 per household, which is nearly $13,000 higher than the threshold for the general population. This means that for anyone paying an average level of rates and earning New Zealand superannuation, the Government will reduce your rates bills by $805 next year. Furthermore, thanks to the way the abatement thresholds function, individuals can earn more than $45,000 and still be eligible for partial rebate if they hold a SuperGold card. This allows the Government to provide financial support for some of our most vulnerable ratepayers.

The changes announced today will take effect from 1 July 2025. The Government has allocated over $150 million over the next four years to support this initiative, with more than $30 million budgeted for the first year. Other changes taking effect on 1 July 2025 will increase the maximum rebate for all taxpayers from $790 to $805. Additionally, the income abatement threshold will rise from $31,510 to $32,210 for low-income ratepayers who do not hold a SuperGold card. The Rates Rebate Scheme currently assists over 100,000 low-income ratepayers in managing their living costs, and starting from 1 July 2025, we estimate that the number of individuals eligible for the scheme will increase by nearly 40 percent.

While this may seem like a small change for some, I am proud to be part of a Government that will be introducing legislation that will make the average New Zealand ratepaying couple earning New Zealand superannuation better off by more than $800. It will mean more money in the pockets of Kiwis, especially our seniors, who have worked their entire lives to enjoy their retirement.

This bill is a cost of living solution to a much wider issue the Government wants to address. Kiwis are feeling the impact of dramatic rates increases from their councils, and many feel they aren’t getting better services for those increases. I want to assure Kiwis that this Government does not see this as acceptable. We have made it clear to councils that they must prioritise essential services over the nice-to-haves. Their focus needs to be on ensuring that core services, like waste collection, water infrastructure, and road maintenance are delivered brilliantly. We will also be investigating instituting a rates cap system for councils, and hope to have more to say on this shortly. As we work hard to address these broader issues, I am proud that this bill can offer immediate relief to those most vulnerable to rising rates. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Kia orana, Madam Speaker. Well, it’s interesting listening to the Minister of Local Government talk about and acknowledge the pressures that councils are under, because he himself is directly responsible for many of the expectations that have been placed upon councils around this country without any expectation that there will be any funding that flows from that. So, whilst he’s happy to talk about how this will alleviate pressures on households, at the same time, within the same breath, and by the same sentence, he is, basically, indicating that they need to get back to basics, when they are doing more than that. Everyone around this Chamber should acknowledge the fact that local government do an amazing job in our community and they must be supported by those of us who serve in this Chamber.

The Labour Party will be supporting this piece of legislation today.

Hon Members: Great news. Excellent.

TANGI UTIKERE: Oh, their tune has changed. The Labour Party will be supporting this legislation today. However, given that this is under urgency, there are a number of questions that we will be expecting to put to the Minister for him to address. Now, one of the interesting things—and we’ll get to this later in the debate—is that this is actually a bill that does have a regulatory impact statement (RIS). Often we don’t, but this bill has a RIS. However, the RIS identifies that, given the haste with which this bill has come to the House, there are a number of holes that need to be addressed and looked into. So, as the Opposition, we will be, even though we do support the tenets of this bill, expecting, none the less, to provide some scrutiny and for the Minister and the Government to be able to respond to some of these concerns.

One concern is the inadequate amount of time that officials have had to actually prepare a number of aspects in response. One example is that the sector hasn’t really been consulted around this as to what it will mean for councils and communities. It’s great to have this as an option and an opportunity, but if the Government is going to be setting up councils to fail because it’s not going to be able to be administered or delivered in a way that meets local community needs, we do have some concerns around that.

This is a bill that, effectively, creates an additional tier for the Rates Rebate Scheme. The Rates Rebate Scheme has been around for a wee while, but, unfortunately, just under 60 percent of those who might be eligible are actually able to access it for whatever reason. I look forward to putting that to the Minister around how that could change, moving forward into the future, because it should be more, given that times are tough for folks at the moment.

The Minister talks about how this change is going to deliver real difference. When he talks about the increase that will be proposed—from $790 to $805, which is the full rebate that would be available—what does that actually equate to for those who are on New Zealand superannuation? It equates to an extra 58c per fortnight. So from a Minister talking about taking action to alleviate the pain and suffering that senior citizens are having in this particular community, the actual increase that he himself referred to in his introductory speech—from $790 to $805—equates to an extra 58c for those on New Zealand super. So it’s things like that that we want to tease out. While this is important and it will provide some financial sustenance to some households, it won’t provide all of it. So from a Government that crows about a Budget that is seeking to do certain things, this is certainly not something that is going to make huge inroads, really, when it comes to addressing and tackling the cost of living crisis that households are doing it tough in at the moment.

This is a bill that creates those two tiers: one in terms of those who can currently access the Rates Rebate Scheme, but the other, of course, is setting a new tier or a new opportunity for those that hold a New Zealand SuperGold card, as part of that. It’s interesting that this seems to have been on the cards with the Government in terms of its National and New Zealand First coalition agreement. But we have some questions. Why has it taken so long? Why has it taken so long if the ink is, basically, dry on that agreement and it was signalled? Why has it taken so long, and why have sector organisations and groups actually not had an opportunity to engage with the Government through officials around this?

What we learnt from the RIS is that there are only five councils that had any form of input into this, and we’d be interested to know what that input actually was. Whilst this is the first reading—yes, at this stage, we are happy to support this, but there will be many questions as part of our scrutiny obligations that we will intend to work through as this debate progresses.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, as the Green Party spokesperson for seniors, to speak on this particular bill, the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill. I think one of the key things we are seeing here is that, yes, those people who are SuperGold card holders, which is the majority of people who are over 65, will be eligible for this additional rates rebate, going from $32,000 to $45,000 for SuperGold card holders. However, a couple of things, obviously, we need to follow are that there’s a conception, or misconception, that anyone who is over the age of 65 will be eligible for a SuperGold card. But we must understand that those people who are not residents of Aotearoa New Zealand are not eligible, at this stage, for SuperGold cards, so, therefore, it does create a degree for people who are potentially migrants or on a working visa etc. If you are no longer eligible to buy properties here, for example, you are not actually eligible in this case under the rates rebate, even though you are over the age of 65, purely because of the fact that you are not a SuperGold card holder.

On top of this, one of the other things that we thought was quite interesting—and I wouldn’t want to go into some of the more detailed things that we want to discuss at the committee stage, because, again, we are currently doing this under urgency. We’re not going to have a select committee. Therefore, we’re going to go straight into a second reading, so there’s more things for me to discuss in the second reading of some of the things that we would like to tease out during the committee stage. But, again, painting that broader picture of this particular Rates Rebate Amendment Bill, you know we are looking at that increased threshold from $32,000 to $45,000, but it’s also interesting that we’re looking at it from a household perspective, as opposed to an individual perspective. So that element is also something for us to really consider when we are looking at this bill in greater detail.

Now, on top of all of these things, in terms of what I said, the other thing that I found particularly a bit of an anomaly is that if we’re going to be putting this up to a particular threshold, why have we decided to only expand it to those who are SuperGold card holders? Surely there’s no need for us to create this two-tier system where, if you’re not a SuperGold card holder, you are still on the lower rate of $32,000, but if you are a SuperGold card holder, you are on the higher rate of $45,000. On top of that, there is also the addition that the commencement date is 1 July 2025, but only when we see the passing of the Rates Rebate (Specified Amounts) Order 2025, which then also lifts the other ratepayers from $31,000 to $32,000.

So, even though it’s a reasonably small bill, there’s actually a lot of things in here that we do need to unpack. The previous speaker also mentioned the potential impact that this will have for local government and local councils. We have seen, in the regulatory impact statement, some of the additional administrative cost that’s associated with that. I wonder, again, if part of that is going to be underestimated.

But when we come into this bill, there other things that are also drawing my attention around clause 6 of this bill, “Section 5 amended”, in terms of the things that local authorities can or can’t ask. So this is also quite interesting in the sense of why these four things are specifically limited and what additional things we are also seeing in the context of this bill, in the context of the process that people need to go through in order to require for the verification of this and for the requirement to verify the statement that they will need in order to be eligible for this—or if it’s simply that they are a SuperGold card holder.

I think one of the final things that I want to draw the House’s attention to is some of the things around the definition of “cardholder”, but also in terms of the definition of “SuperGold card”. I think that also warrants some consideration as we are going through the second reading and going through the committee stage, and I’m sure there are more things for me to discuss as a result of that. However, in saying that, we do see that if you are a couple, if you are family, and you are on a superannuation, there is a gap in there in terms of eligibility that allows you to exercise the maximum rate. So because of that, the Green Party will be supporting this.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak in support of this bill on behalf of the ACT Party. What we’re doing here with this piece of legislation is, contrary to some of the comments previously made, removing some of the burden on councils, because the ease in which to verify SuperGold card status is easier than the current situation. We’re going to be getting some money back into the hands of retirees who’ve done their debt to society. They’ve worked their lives and they’ve seen rate rises going up at a very high rate, as we all have in the last few years. Change is coming in New Zealand. It changed in 2023. In October, local government is up for election, and people will be able to vote for more sensible councillors if they feel like their council has been profligate. But in the meantime, we need to do something to make sure that councils—the effects of rate rises are not affecting some of our most vulnerable, who are SuperGold card holders. I commend this bill to the House.

This is a promise that New Zealand First campaigned on. It’s part of the coalition agreement. This is this Government again delivering on what it said it would do. What this does is acknowledge that rapidly rising rates are really hurting people across the board, especially our seniors, who do not have the ability to change their income level.

I just want to pick up one issue that Tangi Utikere raised; he said it was about 58c. No, it’s not about 58c; it’s about the difference between that $31,000 and the $45,000. If you are a married couple, at the moment, you get virtually nothing, depending on what your rates level is. This, for the first time, lifts the income level before the rebate begins, to approximately the level which is paid to a married couple on superannuation. It will make an important difference to those people, but, as the Minister said in introducing this, it is not going to be an excuse for councils to raise rates. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I might have used a similar phrase the other night and I’ll probably use it again. I expect that I’m going to get a similar reaction. I was talking about a shed then, so I’m waiting for the lads to start cheering—

Tom Rutherford: Oh, another one!

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Yes, exactly. But, to this point, to be grateful for small mercies—I mean, the points that I’m making in that regard is that we see the intention and the intention seems good. So we will be supporting this—

Hon Member: Good choice.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —but we will also be looking to—I know. I’m waiting for the applause, people, let’s go—[Applause] But if the intention is true—if it is to provide financial support for those that might be struggling, and right now I’m seeing our kaumātua—that’s a good thing—that’s a good thing. But it is in the detail that we need to examine it and I look forward to doing that at the next stages.

The size of it, when the Minister of Local Government referred to it being a small bill and we don’t need to hold it up in any way, unlike the previous bill—it was small but the regard was flippant. I would like to think that this might be small but it is important. And, despite the size of things, it still requires what I think is a trust and verify process, so I’m looking forward to that. And our kaumātua in Te Tai Tokerau, I think they’ll be very pleased, but they will still expect me to ask the questions and go, “Can you trust them, Meno?” So kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a Government for seniors, and this Rates Rebate Amendment Bill goes further in confirming that. I am very pleased to support it as up to 66,000 more seniors are now eligible for rates support. Superannuation is up as well, following the impact of our tax relief package, and we’re going to fix the Retirement Villages Act next year. This is another great day for seniors in this country, thanks to this Government. I commend the bill.

Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to debate the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill. It is really unusual for a bill that we’re debating under urgency after a Budget that we get all members of Parliament, from all sides of the House, agreeing to a bill. So I would like to actually congratulate the Minister, the Hon Simon Watts, for all of his work on his bill, and his officials as well. As you heard from Tangi Utikere, who is leading us on this side of the House on this bill, we absolutely support this bill. The law that the Minister is proposing has the right intentions, but we will be asking a number of questions at the committee of the whole House stage because we think that there are lots and lots of questions that we still should have answered. From my perspective, although this bill is really great for our seniors, it stops far too short in terms of fairness.

I would also like to acknowledge something that we all know in this House, which is, here in Aotearoa New Zealand, we have an ageing population, and many of our elders, many of our seniors, who have worked hard all their lives, are now struggling, unfortunately, under the rising costs, and this actually affects their ability to stay in the homes that many of them have worked really, really hard for over many, many years—the homes that they love. So this is one of the reasons why we really support the Minister on this bill.

Lifting the income threshold to $45,000 for SuperGold card holders gives real support and assistance to many of our seniors, many of our homeowners—and, for that, I congratulate the Government, and I say thank you, especially on behalf of all of the seniors in my electorate in Panmure-Ōtāhuhu who will qualify for this particular rebate.

But here is where the agreement ends, because this bill, for all of its compassion towards our beloved seniors, it, unfortunately, leaves many others behind. It draws a sharp line between the deserving elderly homeowner, and the invisible battler who doesn’t fit the box. A 68-year-old couple on superannuation and who own their own home gets help when this bill becomes law, and that’s great for our seniors who qualify. But a 40-year-old woman, a hard-working solo mum who works two jobs—many of them—earning $42,000, renting in South Auckland, living in Panmure-Ōtāhuhu, and raising three beautiful children, gets nothing—absolutely nothing; no relief, no rebate, no recognition. And if she is Māori, if she is Pacific, her odds of homeownership are lower—much, much lower. Her experience of poverty is deeper. Her exclusion from this bill is almost guaranteed. That is not just a policy gap; that is a moral failure.

So the question is not whether this bill does something good—because obviously it does; we acknowledge that and we support the bill—the question is: why is this bill so narrow in its kindness and support? Why does one group get the assistance, while so many others who are hurting just as much, and sometimes more, are not getting the relief in terms of rates?

What about the disabled woman who is under 65 years old, on a supported living payment, who owns her own home, but earns less than $40,000? No help for her. What about the single dad in the regions, struggling to afford rising rent? No support for him either. What about the low-income grandparents raising their mokopuna, living in an overcrowded house, priced out of homeownership entirely? No assistance.

So this bill is great but it is narrow. If you’re old enough, this bill says, “We will help you.”, but if you’re not old enough, this bill says, “Tough luck.” Hardship doesn’t always follow a timetable, hunger doesn’t wait for retirement, and stressing out about losing your home doesn’t care about which year you were born.

So, in terms of housing, which I want to touch on because the reality is that beneath this rebate bill in this debate sits a deeper problem: New Zealand’s housing affordability crisis is not age specific. So for a lot of the questions that we’ll be asking the Minister during the committee of the whole House stage, we hope to get some answers about this. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Oh, peace has broken out in the House. I commend this bill to the House.

That was really short-lived, but thank you. We are peaceful people. Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to be able to take a call. This is a very important bill because for our community, whilst the principle is intended to provide financial support or relief for our low-income SuperGold card holders who may otherwise face financial hardship due to high rates bills across the country, we on this side of the House really need to ask some questions around process and procedure.

I just want to draw the attention of the House, because on behalf of the New Zealand public, there is no select committee process. That’s shocking because if we really care about our seniors’ community, then we will give them the opportunity to be able to come and have kōrero with the select committee so that they can bring their contribution. It doesn’t matter how long it takes; what is important [Interruption]—what is important is that they have the opportunity to follow the process. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s enough!

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE: Calm down. I’m just going to go through the regulatory impact statement (RIS) because it was a very useful document to read and to then ask further questions—and I know I don’t have a lot of time.

So without the select committee process that the New Zealand public is entitled to, on page 2 of the regulatory impact statement, “The primary objective of the policy”—and thank goodness I get another contribution—“is to provide financial relief”. One of the things about rates rebates in a previous life that I had in council was there was the rates rebate option that many in my local community didn’t know about. What concerns me is how this bill is being rushed through this process under urgency, which is the Government’s call, but I have to ask the question and that is outlined right here in the RIS. One of the things that I wanted to ask about is how the “Success of this policy will be demonstrated by higher uptake of the Scheme.”

I’ve heard and I’ve listened to some of the contributions from the other side, and yes, we will be supporting. However, I want to ask: what communication will go out to the community at large? I am referring to Māori, Pasifika, ethnic, disabled in terms of the comms, because in the RIS, and I will find it, it doesn’t have a 100 percent uptake. It says it right here in this document. And so my question is, if it’s a great system that is going to benefit 66,000 pensioners who have the SuperGold card, that’s really good, but that’s not enough. Because if we are wanting and supporting this, then the decision made at Cabinet is for lifting the abatement levels of rates rebate for SuperGold card holders; effectively, what does that mean?

So some couples will benefit, there’s no doubt about it, but what about those people where English is their second or their third language and they don’t understand that they are eligible, but if you don’t apply to your territorial local authority, you will not have that benefit. There are questions that I have with regards to the process and the procedures.

The other thing I wanted to raise was on page 3 where the sentence begins, “The Department is aware of a review into local government funding and financing which canvassed local authority and private sector views on the Scheme”. Well, where’s the public sector? I want to ask the question: why? Now, I read further and the RIS states there was not enough time. There were presentations to Cabinet, and Cabinet then approved the process. So it’s wonderful to have a contribution and ask those questions because, for the record, for many of our community listening at home, they need to be aware that this is an option that they may be eligible for. Why? Because they are a holder of the SuperGold card. But what do they do? Where do they go? How do they apply for it when it comes into force, which is 1 July 2025?

So we appreciate on this side that there is going to be relief for our some of our seniors, particularly those where both of them earn retirement pensioner income. It’s really important that they understand that there is an option that’s coming up for them and I look forward to asking questions in the committee stage. Thank you.

This bill is providing higher support to low-income SuperGold card holders. This is fantastic news, and I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

This bill is set down for second reading immediately.

Second Reading