Rates Rebate Amendment Bill

I move, That the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I’m going to take a quick call on this bill as it needs to be enacted under urgency so that it can take effect before the next rating year, staring on 1 July. This urgency is justified to remedy the unjustified burden of high rates on those with low incomes. To anyone who says there is no need for urgency and that this change could wait until 2026, I ask “Why wait?”

This Government supports the concept of “ageing in place”, which enables elderly people to continue living in their own homes for as long as they choose. This approach not only respects the preferences of many seniors but also supports their physical and mental wellbeing by maintaining familiar surroundings and community connections. Policies promoting “ageing in place” emphasise the importance of accessible, safe, and affordable housing, as well as proximity to essential services, like public transportation. However, the rising costs associated with homeownership, particularly those of council rates, has meant that this is not a financially viable option for people as they age, stop working, and rely on New Zealand superannuation to cover costs. This is not fair. After a lifetime of contributing to society, seniors deserve the dignity and peace of mind that comes with financial security in retirement.

Ensuring that “ageing in place” remains a viable and affordable option is not just a matter of policy; it is a reflection of our values and respect for the generations that have built our communities and our country. That’s why this bill proposes eligibility changes to the Rates Rebate Scheme that will provide additional financial relief for up to 66,000 SuperGold card holders. By creating a new income abatement threshold to the scheme specifically for SuperGold card holders, we are supporting ratepayers to stay in their homes by lowering the cost to do so. The new abatement threshold will be set at $45,000 per household, which is nearly $13,000 higher than the threshold for the general population. This will allow more people to have the option to stay in their homes they are so comfortable in and remain close to friends, family, and their community they love and rely on for support.

I’d like to take some time in this speech to discuss how the changes will practically affect a low-income SuperGold card-holding couple. I am sure many of you know of just such a couple in your electorate. New Zealand super is, roughly, $49,000 for a retired couple living together in a home they own and paying average rates of around $3,500 per year. They would currently only qualify for a less than $250 debate. With the changes made through this bill, that same couple will now receive $805 off their rates next year. For many of you in this House, that may not sound like a lot of money, but for a low-income elderly couple, that money will allow them to do the things they otherwise could not. They might be able to spend more on groceries, keep their power on for longer, or otherwise live life a little better because of this coalition Government. I am proud to commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I acknowledge the contribution that the Minister of Local Government has just said. It would’ve been helpful if he was able to perhaps even just touch on some of the issues that have been raised by members on this side of the House. Perhaps he is leaving that to committee stage, because I know that we will certainly be having some direct questions that touch on some of the issues that we’ve already raised, and then some.

There has been some reference, by the Minister, actually, about the fact that this needs to be enacted as part of this urgency in order to deliver on the 1 July deadline. Again, this has been well signalled in the coalition agreement by the Government, yet they have decided to bring it to the House under urgency as opposed to doing this sooner—earlier than they had signalled.

Usually, at this particular stage in the process, as we all know, we would have had a select committee process by now, and, actually, I don’t know, maybe this would’ve gone to the Governance and Administration Committee perhaps, but who knows—we won’t know. What we would have in front of us, of course, would be the feedback from the community, from stakeholders. Now, I have no doubt that, actually, probably, the overwhelming level of feedback would be in support of this legislation. That is why we are supporting it tonight, but also because it is the right thing to do.

But it would’ve been none the less helpful to have heard from communities all around the country as to what it would mean for them. It would have been helpful to have heard from senior citizens, who give so much to our community, about what difference it would make as a result of the increased pressures that the Government are placing on their household when it comes to cost of living and other pressures—not just around rates, not just around insurance, not just around actually the choice that seniors and others have to make about whether they can afford a block of cheese or not. These are the real issues and the impacts upon households that we would have had the benefit of hearing and learning from, and what this Government has done is they have stripped that opportunity away from a very, very important sector in our community.

Not only would we have heard from seniors within our country, I’m sure we would have heard from those many NGOs and sector organisations that do a sterling job, both those in Age Concern but also some of those that take quite a political bent. I know in my own electorate, Grey Power is very vocal, and it would’ve—I’m sure—been of benefit to have their views on the record.

I think we definitely would have heard from more than the five councils that, as part of this process, weren’t formally consulted with but did have an opportunity to feed into some sort of process. It’s a little bit unclear around what that process is, and that will be one of the questions that I intend to put to the Minister: those five councils, what was the specific level of engagement? They themselves, as I understand it from the regulatory impact statement (RIS), didn’t know what this proposal was going to be, so they may have given some indication, perhaps, that it would be difficult to implement. In some cases, the RIS identifies that the cost to councils would be $200,000 extra to implement this. Yet another example of the Government putting more mandates, unfunded mandates, on to local government councils.

So there is a question around—well, where is the level of support from the Government to address the additional expenses that councils will undoubtedly incur? Look, I accept that not every council in the land is going to be faced with a $200,000 bill to implement this, but there will be other councils all around the country that would either have to wear that cost themselves or reprioritise existing services in order to deliver on this. Members opposite might think, well, actually, no, you can’t reprioritise something that’s going to cost, I don’t know, $5,000. Well, you do, because this is what local government is all about. So I want to hear from the Minister about what Auckland Council had to say, Tauranga City Council, Christchurch, Manawatū, and Clutha, because those are the only five that are specifically mentioned in the RIS. So we look forward to hearing about it.

I also want to hear from the Minister about this “back to basics” rhetoric that he seems to enjoy. Yes, roads and footpaths, libraries; part of the basic sort of theology of this Government—cemeteries—is community development. These are the sorts of things that the Government is saying, get on with it, get back to basics. These are the very things that councils do, and so for many, and in small rural communities, which have a very small relative ratepayer base, it may be the difference of trading off some of these services in order to meet the additional expenses that this Government are foisting upon councils. So I look forward to hearing from the Minister to clear that one up.

This is a bill that very clearly identifies two tiers, both of them equally valid in my view. One is those that hold SuperGold cards, and my colleague Dr Xu-Nan talked about that definition and I’m sure we’ll delve into that when it comes to the regulations—the two regulations that exist in that particular area. That’s at a higher threshold under this bill. Then the other is the existing lower thresholds that those that choose to or are able to apply for this are able to access.

Now, earlier, we talked about the fact that there are a number of community members and households that do not access this scheme. Well, why is that? Why is it that this scheme, which would provide some alleviation—and, when it goes up on 1 July, for those that have been getting it, the extra 58c a fortnight. But why is it that there is some reason that more than 40 percent of households that are eligible for this don’t get it? That’s not the new ones that are going to come on board for those that hold a SuperGold card; these are the existing households that the department indicate are eligible for whatever reason.

So one of the questions to the Minister is around that particular space: what work has he been doing as part of this suite of work to try and increase the level of awareness, support—whatever it might be—to ensure that households are able to access this support, because it is a bit of support that has been in the pipeline for a wee while?

The other thing is, it’s interesting, from the bill—you know, we would’ve heard from the community as part of the select committee process about whether that $45,000 is an appropriate threshold or not. Whilst those who are earning New Zealand superannuation and are a couple that live in a household are, basically, bang on that particular threshold—slightly over it, actually—there are many circumstances where those in that demographic undertake a little bit of work, not a lot but in many circumstances a little bit of work. So where is the threshold appropriately sitting? The Minister suggests through this bill that it’s $45,000. It would be good to have heard whether that was hammering that home or not.

The other thing I think would have been interesting to hear about—and this does sound a bit reflective, but given the fact that we don’t have a select committee report in front of us, one has to be reflective. There are a lot of “what ifs” and much of it is—well, all of it is unknown at this stage in terms of what community feedback will have been. But the other two areas that I am specifically interested in is whether the Minister received any advice around extending this to the existing tier. It would be helpful—perhaps that would give officials a chance to provide the Minister with advice this evening, if he hasn’t received it already, around whether there was any advice sought or advice forthcoming about the costs around that and what that would look like.

But also, the time frame for implementation—now, I know that 1 July is certainly fast approaching for this Government, but ensuring the time frame for rolling that out is going to be very, very important and making sure that this is going to be manageable.

On this side of the House, we want this regime to be workable, all right? We do not want to have a regime that is not going to be workable. So the points of clarification, the issues that we seek to put to the Minister for his response are actually, believe it or not, in the spirit of ensuring that this is a workable regime for councils, for the department, and for households that will be able to access this, particularly those households who would be new accessees to this particular opportunity.

So, as we move through committee stage, we’ll be looking forward to teasing those out. I agree with the Minister that it is important that seniors in our community do feel as though they are seen and are able to live in our community with dignity. This bill will go some way to assisting that, and some small step to addressing some of the concerns that they’re facing, but there are still some questions that we have to put.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Here we are on the second reading, and I did promise in the second reading we would go into more details about some of the questions that we would like to ask as part of the committee stage.

Hon Todd McClay: This is a promise you’re allowed to break.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: You know what? I want to start by saying that I love the fact that the other side of the House is jeering and heckling about the fact that we are treating this bill seriously and doing our jobs. I think, for those people, they should really think about the contribution that they are making, which would constitute as a partial strike under the current definition of the regulation on partial striking—maybe you should be looking at some pay deductions.

But on to this bill. When we are looking at this, I think the most—again, we think that the context of this bill and about the fact that we are looking at wanting something to help our seniors as we are looking at people who are getting older and older, getting into more precarious situations, as we’re seeing an increase in the number of people who are over 65 and, in response, will be eligible for the SuperGold card and would be eligible for this increase in terms of the rates rebate. But, fundamentally, there is a question that we need to address, and I really want to take up the previous speaker Tangi Utikere’s question to the Government, which is: if this Government is tweeting about the fact they’re going back to basics, why don’t we just increase the superannuation amount? Why don’t we just increase our public housing stock or genuinely sort out the Retirement Villages Act review—which is still being held by the Government despite the fact that it is with the Government, because this is still tied into the whole package we’re looking at here, if this is indeed a bill that is supposed to benefit seniors.

But what we are seeing is that, although we are trying to bring, let’s say, someone who may only be living in their own house, who’s got no other income other than their superannuation—and SuperGold card for all the other amenities one can enjoy as part of the SuperGold card—it nevertheless comes back to the fact that they are still someone who’s able to own a property in the first place. If we are really looking at being serious about the way we look at seniors in this country, why doesn’t this bill look after and also support the most vulnerable seniors in our community: Māori and Pasifika, who proportionately have lower numbers of homeownership; migrants who are not citizens, who are not eligible for super in the first place, or a SuperGold card, are not eligible for something like this?

So it is quite perplexing and confusing when we are looking at, on one side, something that potentially can be really good for our community and our seniors, but, on the other hand, kind of tries to make sure that they’re still really just speaking to the landlords. So it is a little bit confusing.

Hon Casey Costello: What? Landlords?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Well, are you telling me that this bill goes beyond landowners or residents? If it does, please let me know, because that’s actually then quite exciting, if this goes beyond landlords.

Tom Rutherford: What if you just owned one property? You wouldn’t be a landlord.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Hmm. I feel like that would still be considered a landlord, because you are in fact owning that particular piece of land. But semantics; on to the rest of this bill.

I think there are some genuine policy questions—[Interruption] You know what, if all of you have so much to say, I would love to see you actually get up and give a speech that’s longer than 30 seconds.

So when we are looking at this, there are some broader policy questions, and I really like the fact that the previous speaker, Tangi Utikere, really focused on the territorial authorities element and the local council element, and I think all of the questions that he asked are incredibly valid as we’re going into the committee stage. For me, I would really like to drill down on the broader policy questions of why this policy came about and why this policy needed to be under urgency in the first place, because surely we are able to—particularly considering that this only needs to be implemented by 1 July 2025, there is sufficient time for us to tease it out, even with a shortened select committee stage.

But in terms of the broader questions around policy, we also need to read the fine print when we are looking at what income is not included as part of this threshold of $45,000. So if you do look at the original Rates Rebate Act 1972, it does say that capital is not included as part of that, which also means that, yes, you might be a homeowner, owning your own home, in which case you would be struggling, potentially, to try and pay the rates, or if you would like to enjoy the highest rates rebate that you can be eligible for, which is $805 by the time we move up to the new order on 1 July 2025, up from $790. But at the same time, we are looking at—those people who potentially are getting income through capital don’t necessarily need to be considered as part of that income. So you could still be earning money through capital—at least, that’s my reading, and I would love to see the Minister’s explanation around this. So you could still be earning money through capital, but that doesn’t count towards this upper threshold of $45,000.

Then let’s talk about the fact that if we really want to benefit more people, we know, statistically speaking, when we have the data through Stats NZ, through the Retirement Commission, through the Office for Seniors, through Age Concern, all of those organisations—we are seeing a real issue with our seniors not being able to own their own homes. We’re seeing, by next decade, almost 40 percent of the people over the age of 65, or senior-like in name, will not be able to own their own home, which also means that they will not be eligible for this really amazing thing that the Government is trying to do.

That is also, I think, a broader policy question, because going through the regulatory impact statement, it doesn’t necessarily state other policy opportunities and options it was considering. In fact, it specifically states that we didn’t really consider anything else; this is really all we’ve considered. So I think there is definitely scope for us to ask that during the committee stage as we go forward. I also think that it is interesting that as we’re going through the regulatory impact statement, certain departments were considered. For example, the Office for Seniors is expected to support the roll-out of the scheme, but I could not identify them being a party that was consulted on this bill. In fact, if they were consulted on, surely they would have alluded to or informed the Government that by us having this rates rebate—which, again, is not a bad thing, but that’s not the biggest issue and the biggest challenge facing our seniors and our senior population in Aotearoa.

Additionally, when we’re looking at the full package that is being introduced by the Government over this urgency period, we also need to ask the question of the bill that we just passed, the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill, which looks at the inclusion of one or two boarders as part of this—that also begs the question of are they going to now tie into the income of the senior? So if you are grandparents and your grandchild is having to live with you and they pay board, now they’re included as part of that new legislation, and they pay you that, and their board not only affects their student allowance now but it may also in fact affect your income as part of this and potentially push you over the threshold for you to be eligible for the maximum amount of rebate anyway.

So we simply don’t know a lot of these questions just by going through the legislation and also going through the regulatory impact statement. I think, yes, when we are looking at this bill, it is important for us to ensure that our senior population and the concerns that our seniors are raising around the fact that what they have to put up with in the retirement village, and the exploitation they experience in retirement villages—the fact that we have a lot of seniors who are ineligible or still on waiting lists for Kāinga Ora housing and in the precarious situation of having to pay ever-increasing rent to their landlords because they simply do not have the money to buy their own property. But instead of that, we do see $155 million being placed into this particular scheme that may potentially alleviate and address some of the other challenges we are seeing.

So, fundamentally, this is a good thing. It’s good that we are also looking after seniors and actually treating the seniors’ issues seriously for a change. But at the same time, we are not addressing the fundamental discrepancy that we’re seeing within that population through this bill, and I think there is a lot more for us to unpack during the committee stage.

So, finally, the Green Party is, at this stage, supportive of this bill, but we would love to see more engagement and have engagement with the Minister.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This Government is putting in place a Budget that sets the foundations for a growing New Zealand in which the next generation can do better. But, as every party in this House has spoken about tonight, we need to look after the generations that have gone before. That’s why this Budget’s putting forward $150 million over four years for a rebate on rates to help our senior citizens—as the Minister said—“age in place” amongst their community where they’ve built a life; where they feel at home is where they should be. This is what it looks like when you get back to basics.

In response to Tangi Utikere, there are councils around this country, some of which have gone from 650 to 1,150 staff numbers in the last five years. That’s a 73 percent increase. I’ve also heard of spending doubling in five years. That’s the sort of stuff that needs to be taken under control. We can’t have $100,000 spent on a statue; we need to get councils back on basics, just as this Government is. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise with great delight to speak in support of this important bill. This is a great moment for this coalition Government because, to clarify for the members opposite, who are wondering where this policy came from, it’s a unique thing about a coalition agreement that outlines the actions we’re going to take as a Government and, surprise, surprise, we do it. It’s an amazing day for us. This is about doing some good stuff. The fact that we are linking it to the SuperGold card means that—and I can do a plug for the SuperGold card website to ensure that every senior makes sure they have their SuperGold card, that they take advantage of all of the opportunities of discounts, and then, on top of that, they can get all the information that they need about this rates rebate from the website. I can assure the members opposite that the Office for Seniors was fully consulted. They do amazing work ensuring our communities remain connected, and this is one more step to a wonderful life for our seniors in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora. I’m delighted to stand and bring the other parts of the truth to this discussion—so here we go—and, of course, to record that we do support this. But I just want to raise a couple of points that I think might be important—well, they will be important. I guess, to the Minister of Revenue: I noticed that in your opening lines you talked about the urgency of it, which sounded plausible, which is why you’re running an urgency, but it’s been urgent for probably at least 180 to 200 years. So I just wonder where your urgency radar really applies—so a point to be noted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I don’t have one.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: I am interested in the “ageing in place” description. I mean, it’s so new age-ey, to be honest. In 1860-something—the concept of papa kāinga has been around since then. It’s an important thing, and I would invite the Minister to have a look at it, because it’s been around for that long. So “ageing in place”, I think, is cute. It’s very new age-ey, but it does apply—I mean, of course it applies, but it’s kind of new age-ey and trendy.

We would call that “papa kāinga lifestyle”. We would call that “rohe pōtae”. We would call that “ā whakapapa”. So those ideas of growing, living, dying, burying your whānau here, raising them there in your own rohe—those ordinary things. They have been practices that we have had for a very long time, but where were you? I don’t mean you, Madam Chair—not at all. I mean this crew on my left here.

Another point: SuperGold—or “SuperOld”; that’s what I’m hearing in this SuperGold and “SuperOld” kōrero—again, in our context, we talk about kaumātua. We talk about mātua-mokopuna lifestyles. So when I hear the description that is when you’ve got a couple that lives in that home, and there’s a kaumātua or an individual that lives in another home—that is not our reality. So somewhere in this discussion, I look forward to when—and I hope it really comes up.

For our kaumātua, we’d have probably at least one mokopuna, if not three, and that is a typical huānga mokopuna model. Again, if those were known to your people and your writers, you might have understood that when you were designing this—and, again, please, just stay with me. We do support it, but it needs a lot of work and improvement. I’m happy to be that adviser.

The other part of this is important to note: it is about “SuperOld”, and it is about our older generations. The fact is that optimal health is not our privilege; it is your privilege, but it’s certainly not ours. So when we’re dying at least seven years earlier, if not more—10 years earlier—we just won’t get to bloody SuperGold, because we’re all nodding off, all dying, and in a miserable and terrible way, not because we want to, but because the system and its commitment to poverty in paradise—this is what we get. “Live long and prosper” is rare in our reality.

So, though this is a small bill, let’s try to make it bigger, would you? I’m happy to support you to redesign it a bit better. Madam Chair, thank you. Those are my contributions. Good evening, people.

I rise on behalf of Te Rōpu Kākāriki to speak to this legislation. While we do support the progress of this bill, we have questions around unintended consequences—the unintended consequences of the haves and the haves-not: those who will benefit—and recognising the huge investment of $155 million over four years—who are homeowners, those that are lucky enough to have an asset, and then, largely, Māori, Pasifika, and migrant communities who may not own an asset like a home.

So, on behalf of Te Rōpu Kākāriki, I raise concerns over the need for the rush. What is the need for the rush? What is the rush for this legislation to come through so quickly and commence on 1 July? The Department of Internal Affairs shared that “The context within which this RIA has been undertaken is unusual, in that the policy decisions have already been made by Cabinet,”. So there has been no regulatory impact assessment accompanying this because there’s been little analysis conducted. Then, I reflect on the departmental disclosure statement. It says that while there have been no issues identified with the bill and its implications on the rights and interests of Māori and to protect Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the issue is there have been no formal steps taken to determine whether this policy—I’m reading from the report itself—and this bill is consistent with the principles of Te Tiriti. That’s interesting in itself, because if we had a process, there would be an opportunity for the officials—like the Office for Seniors, like the Department of Internal Affairs—to critique and provide that extra analysis that we need, as a House, to fully support this bill.

I absolutely support ageing well. I pay full tribute to our elders, our kaumātua, for what they have contributed to building up New Zealand. But also, I query the need for the rush. Also, where is the space to look at equity? Where is the space for us to look at whenua Māori, and many of those kaumātua who live on whenua Māori, and the ability for whenua Māori land owners to even benefit from this? Is the rates rebate stretching out into whenua Māori land as well—and knowing many of our kaumātua do live in Kāinga Ora homes, or they live in intergenerational homes that they do not own. So maybe, if we had time, we would have the opportunity to really unpack in a fulsome way and understand who are the haves and who are the have-nots in terms of this legislation, and the way that it can stretch out across New Zealand and show benefit for the elders that we cherish and we care for. So that’s some of the concern that I would like to bring, in terms of what we can do, in the committee of the whole House, and ask the Minister of Local Government these pātai.

I think about the admin burden too. Because of the limited, truncated process that we are undertaking, again, there was limited engagement and consultation with councils as to how much of an admin burden they would have to take on board and if they are ready to launch on 1 July. Or will they be in a situation where they’re going to have to catch up because it’s going to be hoisted on them with little engagement—in fact, no engagement—and it’s going to happen at quick pace, with the expectation to implement on 1 July? And then our elders will start turning up, looking to clip it and go, “Yep, we’re ready to go.” So those are questions.

I worry about the size of the investment—$155 million is a great gesture towards our elders, but then if we look at where the powerhouse and the people power of New Zealand is, it’s certainly our young people. Maybe even if we consider the way that we can give a bit of a hand up to those young people that might be in homeownership and might be ratepayers, they might be able to benefit in the space too. These are some of the questions we would love to interrogate—even if there was a select committee process. I mean, just imagine: if we had had a select committee process, the voice of the community would have come and they would have shared—but, unfortunately, this Government shuts out the voice of community. Kia ora tātou.

This is $154 million very, very, very well spent. Again, it’s another example of Budget 2025 delivering practical cost of living relief. You’ll see $154 million invested over four years. It delivers up to $805 off your rates for 66,000 more New Zealanders. It’s great news, it’s a great part of our Budget, and we’re very proud to support it.

I wish to draw the House’s attention to the explanatory note for this bill, and the second paragraph: the Rates Rebate Act 1973. That was the Kirk Government that brought this kaupapa in, in the first place. So this has been a long part of the Labour tradition, a long part of Labour legislation—and Labour legislation that we are proud of that has lasted since 1973. It’s good to see the pretty unanimous support across the House this evening for continuing this Labour kaupapa, so we thank everyone for their support of this, and we agree that this is a good piece of legislation to be brought to the House.

Nevertheless, we do have some questions that we will wish to explore in some detail during the committee stage, and they’re questions that are worth having a look at. Having had this type of legislation around since 1973, it’s always worth looking at whether or not it’s still a good piece of legislation. Now, we do think it is, but our colleagues in Te Pāti Māori and the Green Party have raised some interesting questions. We have some other sorts of questions that we will want to ask.

So the first one is why the particular threshold that has been set for the rates rebate, which this Government—and we support them doing it—is increasing the threshold to $45,000. Now, as it turns out, a couple holding a SuperGold card—a couple on New Zealand superannuation, so that is their income and their only income—their income is about $49,000 a year, give or take, provided they have no other income.

I’m sure you’ve seen it’s the case—and certainly I’ve seen it’s the case as well—that, at present, if an elderly couple is living on just New Zealand super, if that is the only income they have in their old age, it’s pretty tough. It’s pretty tough living on that kind of income. It’s not pretty. We see that often some of our seniors are accessing food parcels, they’re accessing other kinds of support. They really do need a hand to get by on just that amount of income.

So I am interested to understand why the threshold was set at $45,000. Why not just set it at a level that was actually above the couple rate for New Zealand superannuation? It would be worth understanding why that particular $45,000 threshold was chosen. There would have been a few more people who had come into the Rates Rebate Scheme, in that case. I’m hoping that the officials will be able to give us some kind of analysis as to why the threshold was set at that particular level.

Now, don’t get me wrong, we still agree that this is a good thing to do, but why not just that little bit more to take it above the amount of New Zealand superannuation? I’m sure there’s a reason for it, and we’ll hope to elucidate that in the committee stage.

Of course, there’s the concern around the need for it in the first place and it was an issue that was raised by our colleague in the ACT Party, Cameron Luxton, who talked about rates increases in recent years and repeated the mantra of getting “back to the basics” for councils. Actually, rates have been increasing quite dramatically in recent years. Some territorial authorities have had double-digit rates increases year on year, outpacing the cost of inflation. The diagnosis from some people is that local councils are just not good enough at what they do. I think that’s unfair. I know many city and district councillors. I’ve seen how hard they work. I’ve seen how they do try to balance up all the competing concerns of their constituents.

I’ve seen their commitment to things that some people might think are luxuries but I think are absolute necessities—parks, libraries, recreation areas—and that’s without considering the cost of roading and the cost of the decaying infrastructure in some of our cities and towns. Of course, one of the biggest costs that is driving some of the rates increases for cities, for towns, for territorial authorities is the cost of water supply, the cost of dealing with stormwater, drinking water, waste water. Now, we had a solution in place to prevent some of those dramatic rates increases—that solution was taken away.

But one of the reasons that rates have been going up is because of trying to deal with those issues around water. So of course that makes it harder for our senior citizens to pay their rates, because those rates increases have been dramatic. There was—on this side of the House, when we were in Government—an attempt to deal with that. I want to see the Government—certainly, this is a good thing, helping senior citizens pay their rates, but we do need to deal with the issue of local government funding as well. This is a bit of a band-aid. It’s a good band-aid—I’m glad to see it—but there is a serious problem here that we also need to deal with in time.

A third issue, I think—and I want to just sort of canvass in this contribution—is just the amount of consultation with councils. I think my colleague Tangi Utikere is correct when he says that it will increase administration costs for councils. I know there has been some limited consultation with councils, but we’ll want to explore that a little further in the committee stage.

There is another issue that I’d like to look at, and I’m going to direct the members of the House to clause 6 of the bill. What the bill lists is some of the items that one of our senior citizens might list in their application for a rebate. So the sorts of things that, when a person is applying for this rebate, what they’ll put in their application is their income: obviously, because it’s income-tested, the income of any other person who lives with them, because, of course, that matters—it’s a household income that matters here; who’s actually occupying the property—of course, that’s an obvious thing to be concerned about; and the ratepayer’s status as a SuperGold card holder. So a number of items which have to be included in the application.

It lists those, but then in the section it says that “The chief executive of the territorial authority or [any] other authorised officer is not required to verify a statement about any of the following matters”—is not required to verify those matters when processing these rates rebate applications. So it’s a high-trust system. That might well be appropriate—I think it is likely to be appropriate. After all, if a person has applied for a rates rebate year on year on year, some of the details of their situation are unlikely to change, particularly for senior citizens. People get in their homes, they’re set in their ways, things are unlikely to change. This is a good thing—it’s one of the things that surrounds our “ageing in place” policy.

Nevertheless, this is a high-trust system, so I’m going to want to hear from the Minister of Local Government just how exactly we intend to verify those applications. Obviously, the great majority of people respond really, really well to a high-trust system, but there are always a few who try to rort it, so we are going to want to hear from the Minister as to what is going to be done to ensure that the system operates as intended and that it serves the people that it is intended to serve—that is the SuperGold card holders with an income of less than $45,000.

A final thought: this is going through under urgency. It is legislation that we do want to see going through the House. It’s not clear that it needs to be passed tonight, but it does need to be passed soon—so I guess that use of urgency is appropriate, but perhaps the Leader of the House could have considered putting it further up the Order Paper. I fail to see why we had to deal with David Seymour’s vanity bill, the regulatory systems bill, ahead of dealing with this. If this was so time-dependent, this should have been further up the Order Paper. I’m going to invite the Leader of the House to reflect on not just how much he crammed into that urgency order and whether it was all strictly necessary. This one, I can make a case for it, but just hold that thought, Mr Bishop.

Well, the last couple of days have been very exciting. We’ve seen legislation to support business; we’ve seen legislation to support our young people, 16- and 17-year-olds; and tonight, we see legislation to support our seniors. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you so much, Madam Speaker, for the call on the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill. It is always a good feeling, especially for those of us who have been here for a little while, when we come to the House—after so many hours’ lack of sleep last night—and we actually agree on a bill when the bill actually does something good. I do want to reflect on the Hon Casey Costello’s speech, reminding us that this was actually a policy of New Zealand First. I’d like to congratulate them for this bill.

But can I also reiterate that we support meaningful rebate relief, especially for those who need it most: our kaumātua, our pensioners—those who all deserve to be treated with dignity, to have security, and to be supported to continue living for as long as they can in the place that they have worked really hard for most of their life, the place that they call home.

This bill is needed because—and I’ll just cover some of the main issues that the bill covers—older couples living on superannuation in Aotearoa New Zealand: many of them earn just above the general income threshold, but they’re excluded from receiving the full rebate, or any rates rebate, currently.

I also do want to reflect on something that my colleague the Hon Deborah Russell reminded us of earlier on, which was that the original Act was passed under a Labour Government in 1973.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That’s right—Norman Kirk.

Hon JENNY SALESA: Under Norman Kirk. When you actually look at the regulatory impact statement (RIS), we’ve heard a number of times the fact that there’s $155 million over four years for this overall bill, but I do want to remind the House that the current scheme actually invests $82 million, currently. So the new money that’s being added to this legislation is an additional $32.9 million, and my colleague Tangi Utikere covered earlier on that it amounts to several cents. I looked through the RIS, and, actually, $15 is the overall amount when this bill becomes law, so in terms of the scope, it is somewhat limited. So that is one of the concerns that we’ll ask the Minister questions on during the committee of the whole House stage.

But I’ll go back to what the bill actually covers. It proposes to be fairer for older New Zealanders. It will reduce hardship for low-income seniors. Many pensioners, of course, are asset-rich, but many of them are income-poor. It maintains the existing rates of the rebate framework, but it adds the SuperGold card threshold by Order in Council. The reason why it does this is so that it gives it flexibility over time so that we don’t always have to come back to the House to go through a long process—like we are under urgency tonight—and it focuses support where the need is greatest: older people on fixed income who are affected by the rising living costs that many are having right now, including those who live in my electorate in South Auckland, in Panmure-Ōtāhuhu.

However, we still have quite a few concerns. The bill creates a two-tiered system. It sets a threshold based on age and status, which could be seen as inequitable for low-income non-retirees. As I mentioned earlier on, it is limited in scope. The maximum rebate increase is only $15. It only increases it from $790 to $805. Yes, $15 will be a lot of money for some people, but it is still quite modest. Especially when you look at the average rates that people pay in Aotearoa, it is between $3,000 to $4,000 per year. It does not also address the deeper housing cost drivers that we face right throughout Aotearoa. The rates are rising faster than incomes. Homeownership is falling, particularly for Māori and Pacific, and for young people—so many young people are locked out of homeownership, and many New Zealanders are being squeezed from every side.

We have many more questions, but we’ll address it when the Minister takes the chair. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

This is a $150 million initiative support from the Government, supporting 66,000 more seniors. The Opposition asked why we make it so fast: well, we are a Government that delivers, and we deliver fast. I commend the bill to the House.

It’s a pleasure to be able to make another contribution. In my opening contribution, I did elaborate further that as to this side of the House, we will be supporting this bill, but I have some real concerns around the process and the urgency in terms of our community and the consultation. The reason why I raise it again is because when I have read the regulatory impact statement (RIS) and seen the steps that have been taken, and carefully read and understood the primary benefit—the primary benefit is really important for our seniors in our community who are SuperGold card holders. They are entitled to this benefit. They then take the steps to understand the eligibility. The other concern that I have is there were only a small group of councils who actually were consulted, but they weren’t given specific information because of the Budget sensitivity around the Cabinet rules.

What is important is when we see a good piece of legislation that could have gone further by way of public engagement. What is the Government afraid of? It should be, when there is a good piece of legislation that will help our seniors and our community who have worked so hard in their lifetime to contribute—and now some of those households are not eligible. Some of the households have got limited income. It’s all described in here. What is the Government so afraid of in terms of public engagement? The reason why I want to stress public engagement, although some parts of our community have diverse communities by way of Māori, by way of Pasifika, by way of ethnic and our disability communities—their views to be consulted are important. And sometimes, as parliamentarians in the House, we have to consult with our community.

So it’s really important: we can’t just sit here, in the different sides of the House, and then be as arrogant as sometimes we can be, or not listening or not having kōrero. It is important to have engagement—the proper process. There is no select committee process, so we find ourselves in a position where—it’s not that we’re guessing; we know the benefit of this system—but we have to continue to ask the questions to that side of the House, that, whilst we support it, when you have limited engagement with councils who have a number of elected members on the ground who could have gone further and been able to contribute in a process—and I understand, because it’s right here. The limitations and constraints in terms of the analysis that Cabinet agreed with a preferred option and had broader Budget decisions and had agreed on the start date. Those things we have to question, and we look forward to the time with the Minister of Local Government so that we can run it through the committee stage.

But there is an expectation that councils or territorial authorities will just be able to receive a system and then be able just to run with it. [Interruption] Ministers, please, we’ve listened to you. Can you please just listen to us? Thank you.

I want to raise that in the proposals that are now going to be effective with councils, there is the expectation and the intention that council staff will just pick this up and run with it without further income, further administration costs. Are those staff trained? Do the staff have proper processes in place? We don’t know that. The RIS also pointed out, due to the sensitive nature of these proposals, that they did do some consultation. So that has been helpful. However, have we got a proper, comprehensive, and robust system that, when this comes live, it will benefit some of the seniors?

The policy problem that this solution is for is the Rates Rebate Scheme; how will it work—how will it work? What I’ve read in the RIS is that some households—and it says right here, on page 9: 110,000 households will benefit from this scheme in terms of the cost of rebates in 2024-2025. You’ve heard from my colleagues in terms of the dollar sign; that’s going to be a good thing. But still, I have questions around the public engagement.

There is the intention or the assumption that once this is rolled out, everybody will know about it. Well, they won’t. I can tell you that, because in my part of South Auckland, there are still questions around Rates Rebate Schemes. Some of our households—Pasifika, Māori, ethnic—they don’t understand fully the benefit and the eligibility of the scheme. There’s an assumption that is made that council will just roll it out and then council can give the bill to the Department of Internal Affairs to get their money back. There are systems in place that sometimes our public don’t understand, but they need to understand what they are entitled to.

So my plea is to the Ministers. I know they want to get through because they want to go home. I’m asking around the fairness and the design of this scheme. It’s important that the aspects that we raise on the different sides of the House are taken into account, so that feedback is given to the councils and their public officials who can understand the constraints and the limitedness to make and design a better system.

I’m really concerned at the problems that may not always be answered, particularly for the households that are eligible. If I think of some of the seniors in my community, where they’ve got very limited income—they’re only on superannuation; they’ve got increase in insurance, increase in petrol, increase in other household expenses; it’s a real issue if they speak only a Pacific language; they’re quite fearful of public officials; they don’t have the interpretation skills; and they don’t even have digital skills. So they’re quite limited as to how they can access information that is important so that they can understand their responsibilities and obligations. Because we want the seniors to understand their financial security, and if they need help running their households, where do they approach? Who do they approach? Do they approach council? Do they approach Internal Affairs? So those are the issues that I continue to raise.

But it’s important for our parliamentarians that they understand the pressures, and I’m sure some of them do. They understand the pressures that are facing our seniors in the community, particularly with the cost of living, particularly with this Government making different choices around cutting women’s pay equity.

Back to the bill. One of the things that I wanted to raise was that—[Interruption] You’ve had your time in the House, thank you; we’re having our time. So one of the things that I wanted just to highlight—and we will get the time with the Minister to ask questions. It is important to have a full cost-benefit analysis so that we are fully informed that we can make right decisions and give the contribution that is important, because we get lobbied by people in our local communities. It’s important when this scheme, this Rates Rebates Scheme, is for our community, then we’ve got to help people, educate them—you take this path, you take this step, so that you can understand what you are eligible for.

So we will be supporting it, but we will continue to ask those questions to the Minister so that his officials will hear our questions and it will be recorded for those who are at home. We want to help them understand what they are eligible for.

So, just as I finish up in the last seconds, this is a very important scheme that some New Zealanders—senior New Zealanders—are eligible for, and it is my hope that those who are eligible for it will apply for it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

This is a great bill. We respect our seniors. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

This bill is set down for committee stage presently.