Parliamentary debates: Saturday, 24 May 2025

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendments to clause 25, new section 118A(3)(a) and (b), replacing “must” with “may” be agreed to.

I’m just going to pause for a second. [Pause in proceedings] The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to delete clause 26 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to delete clause 27 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to delete clause 28 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘family income’ ” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘whānau income’ ” be agreed to.

The amendment in the name of the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan—the tabled amendment to clause 23(1)—is inconsistent with a previous decision that has already been taken, so is out of scope.

The next amendment—“The question is, That the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1)”—is also inconsistent with a previous decision, so is also ruled out of scope.

The question “That the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words ‘household income’, insert ‘and replace it with “household stipend” ’ ” is also inconsistent with a previous decision and is out of scope.

The question “That the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words ‘household income’, insert ‘and replace it with “household earnings” ’ ” is also inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “10 working days” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment by Helen White.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “12 working days” be agreed to.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘3 working days’…” is inconsistent with a previous decision and ruled out of scope.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘5 calendar days’ be agreed to.” is inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘1 month’…” is also inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘2 months’…” is also inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘9 weeks’…” is also inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “a sensible time period” be agreed to.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘a time to be agreed with the boarder’…” is inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “a time to be determined by Order in Council on or before 1 January 2026” be agreed to.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘60 hours’…” is inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘48 hours’…” is inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘6 calendar days’…” is inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question—for those of you who have fallen asleep—“That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘1 working week’…” is inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “6 days or 12 days at the election of the agency” be agreed to.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘17 days’…” is inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘3,264 minutes’…” is inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘6,478 minutes’…” is ruled as inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘3 Mondays in a row’…” is ruled inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘14 calendar days’…” is ruled inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 20, section 73(4), “after the word ‘rent’, inserting ‘that appropriate consideration is given to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi’ ” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “1 day of work” is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

The Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “1 day outside the weekend” is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

The Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “2 days of employment” is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

The Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “2 days of paid activity” is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

The Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “1 day of paid activity” is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

The Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “20 days of paid activity” is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

The Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “30 working days” is out of order as being the same in substance as another amendment.

The Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “30 days of paid activity” is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

The Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “30 days of paid activity” is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “145 calendar days” be agreed to.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “3 Mondays in a row or consecutively” is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

The question “That Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘2 working days’…” is ruled as inconsistent with a previous a decision and is out of scope. There will be a brief pause while we wait for more amendments. [Pause in proceedings]

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “3,264 hours” be agreed to.

Point of order.

Did I hear a point of order?

Rachel’s being unruly.

Look, the evening is, at the moment, unique. It’s not going to be assisted by any calls from the floor. Thank you, members.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “21 days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision.

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “6 days or 12 days at the election of the agency or its delegated authority” be agreed to.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “2 working weeks” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “7 calendar days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “48.5 hours” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “48 hours” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “a time to be determined by Order in Council no later than 1 January 2026” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Ingrid Leary’s six tabled amendments to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments amending clause 23, new section 107, are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “8 working days” be agreed to.

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “11 working days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “1 working work” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “2 working days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “7 working days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “15 working days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “20 working days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “10 working days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “12 working days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “14 working days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “1 week” be agreed to.

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “3 months” be agreed to.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), to replace “1 working day” with “1 week” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), to replace “1 working day” with “4 calendar days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), to replace “1 working day” with “13 working days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), to replace “1 working day” with “11 working days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), to replace “1 working day” with “11 working days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), to replace “1 working day” with “a reasonable period of time” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), to replace “1 working day” with “a time to be agreed with the boarders and their aunt or uncle” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(3), to replace “10 working days” with “a reasonable time given all the circumstances of A and B” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1), to delete subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) be agreed to.

The Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1), to deleted subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1), to delete subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1), to delete subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b) is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1), to delete subparagraph (i) of paragraph (c) is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1), to delete subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (c) is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1), in subparagraph (i) of paragraph (c), to replace “agency” with “Crown” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(2), to replace “reasonable” with “is considered fairly in the circumstances and” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(3), to replace “first working day” with “next practical opportunity” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, subsection (3) of new section 118A, to replace “registered community housing provider” with “housing agency whether public or community” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A paragraph (b) of subsection (3), be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, subsection (4) of new section 118A, be agreed to.

The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(a), inserting new subparagraph (iii) be agreed to.

We come now to Schedule 1. The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1 replacing references to “March 2026” with “March 2027” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to Schedule 1, new clauses 104 and 105, replacing “2 March 2026” with “1 January 2027” be agreed to.

Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendments to Schedule 1, new clauses 104 and 105, replacing “2 March 2026” with “1 January 2027” are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendments to Schedule 1, new clauses 104 and 105, replacing “2 March 2026” with “1 January 2028” are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2 replacing references to “March 2026” with “March 2027” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to Schedule 2, new clauses 25 to 27, replacing “2 March 2026” with “1 February 2027” be agreed to.

Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendments to Schedule 2, new clauses 25 to 27, replacing “2 March 2026” with “1 August 2027” are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendments to Schedule 2, new clauses 25 to 27, replacing “2 March 2026” with “1 February 2028” are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

We now come to Schedule 3. The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to Schedule 3 replacing references to “March 2026” with “March 2027” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to Schedule 3, new clauses 6 to 8, replacing “2 March 2026” with “1 March 2027” be agreed to.

Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendments to Schedule 3, new clauses 6 to 8, replacing “2 March 2026” with “1 September 2027” are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendments to Schedule 3, new clauses 6 to 8, replacing “2 March 2026” with “1 March 2028” are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Members, before I leave the Chair, I’d just like to thank the committee for its forbearance tonight, but especially to the Clerk’s team. [Applause] It’s been an absolute sterling effort behind the scenes and is very much appreciated, and I think that applause will be appreciated. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Members, when we were debating the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill, we completed the debate on Part 2. We come now to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to take some time to ask you about the commencement date, because this is actually a really important issue, and to ask you whether you are prepared to look at a much later commencement date for this piece of legislation. What we’ve heard about this bill—as we’ve discovered what it will do in urgency—is it will take money from people that have previously, by policy decision in law, been allowed to take in boarders. That actually sustained a lot of families in New Zealand. These are our poorest families by the nature of the fact that the Government recognises what is going on and gives them a subsidy. It gives them a subsidy for accommodation, even though they might be working, because they’re earning so little that they cannot make ends meet. It gives them a subsidy if they’re not working because rents are so high in this country.

These are the reasons why we support these people. What happened in the 1990s was there was a plunge in the benefits and the support that we gave people, at the same time as wages in this country fell in real terms and house prices skyrocketed. That’s the economy we now live in and it’s a result of those times. But even in the 1990s, they saw the benefit. This legislature saw the benefit of at least letting people try by bringing in boarders into their accommodation situation. They saw that as a win because it had the benefit of allowing people to make ends meet a little bit by having boarders. So it was a way of them taking control of their situation, like I would if I was suddenly out of here and I had to pay the mortgage and I hadn’t re-established myself as a lawyer, I would take boarders in—that’s what I’d do, because I could.

Ms White, this is not a general debate speech; this is a very tight part of the bill.

It does absolutely relate to the timing of it because I’m talking about a time in history where there’s a cost of living crisis and, actually, these are the very people we need to extend out. So I’m asking the Minister for Social Development and Employment: would she consider extending this out to a time, maybe two years out, when the Government promises at the present time that it’s going to restore the balance here? It’s going to restore the situation in terms of cost of living, because so far what we’ve seen is we’ve seen cost of living crises for the very people who we are taking $100 on average a week off. Will the Minister consider a movement and an absolute change in the words so that we have this 2 March much later? I suggest we do it two years from then, and that’ll give things time to settle down.

That’s what I’d like to ask the Minister: is she prepared to recognise the cost of living crisis for this group and allow that time to be much later—two years later? Thank you, Minister. I’d really like an answer to that question.

I did explain, yesterday, that this was a measure that was in Budget 2024, so it’s been signalled for quite some time. It does not prevent anyone at all from having boarders; all it means is that if you do have a boarder, the income from that boarder is taken into account in terms of your accommodation supplement assistance, which is funded by other taxpayers. So, no, we will not be changing the commencement date. There are technical requirements and IT changes so that this piece of legislation comes into effect on 2 March 2026, and it was first raised in Budget 2024, which is a whole 12 months ago.

Thank you. The Minister for Social Development and Employment just talked about clause 2, the commencement on 2 March 2026. She just mentioned the IT changes that she thinks will be required in order to make this possible. I did want to ask the Minister—because this, again, would have been the kind of stuff we could have been evaluating at the select committee stage. I notice this is coming in just before the changes to benefit indexations that happen in April, and it did seem like an arbitrary date to create. There’s not much analysis given to us as to why that specific change was given.

I wanted to ask about the fiscal implications of the number of staff that will be working on these IT changes and the costs to, for example, change anything on different platforms—for instance, whether it’s MyMSD, whether it’s to develop new training guidelines. These members might be thinking it’s funny, but I do think there are genuine fiscal implications to the choice of 2 March 2026. If the members think this is too broad, they are just out of their depth, because the reality is that the Ministry of Social Development is really busy.

I did want to ask: what are the measures the Government is taking between now and 2 March 2026 to ensure that those IT changes are adequately resourced? And how many staff—how many fulltime-equivalents (FTEs) will be working on those changes? I think the people deserve some transparency around this, particularly the thousands of families who will be left without the accommodation supplement after these changes. So I want to ask: how many FTEs, what’s the fiscal implication around the IT changes, and whether she will need to be developing any new platforms as a result of this, and particularly in relationship to the community housing providers that will now be left with discretionary options around how they change trends in relationship to this? I am seeking genuine engagement around the date, and so I hope the Minister gets this done.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to talk about the title of this bill and I’d like to suggest that we change the title to something more reflective of what this is. I would like to change this title to the “Contribution of Those on Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent to the Tax Cuts for Landlords”. I think that’s a pretty good title for this bill, because what has happened here is that the Government has decided to take $150 million off the very people who are hurting the most, because they need to make ends meet. This is a Budget measure. That is what it’s been assessed as—saving the Government—and it was done as a measure to make money which needed to go back into the kitty because it had been spent.

One of those items that it had been spent on was tax cuts for landlords. We had a measure in place where landlords would actually have to pay for—they wouldn’t get the same interest deduction. It was something that was controversial. It was something that National went in and said it was going to give back to landlords, and it did that at enormous cost—enormous cost; I think it was $2.9 billion. This is a drop in the bucket that is being taken out of the pockets of our poorest people, recognised to be our poorest people because they are on the accommodation supplement, because they are in income-related rents. That’s who is going to pay for this.

So I think that is a lot more accurate title. If the Minister for Social Development and Employment does not agree that that is the most accurate title, then I would like to know why she doesn’t, given that it’s a measure that is there to make money. There were other ways that the legislation could go, because it says so in the documents that we have, but they didn’t make as much money for the Government. There were other ways that this could have been done, but it’s been done with an automated decision-making system bringing everybody into the office—which we’ll talk about in the next bill—specifically because the cash grab has to happen by the date in this legislation. That’s when it kicks in. So it’s been built in.

The reason that there is a need for a cash grab is because of the Government’s books and because of the money and the choices it’s made, and it made that choice to give money to the very people who have got the rental properties in this country that are too expensive for people to live in, so we have to give them the accommodation supplement.

Now, interestingly, the accommodation supplement is criticised as hiking up those rents because it actually goes into the pockets of the landlords. Again, surprise, surprise. The one subsidy we haven’t talked about—we’ve talked about double-dipping, but we haven’t talked about the huge subsidy that we give landlords by a mechanism that could have been addressed; there could have been some brave work done, but no brave work was done.

I want to talk about the title reflecting the reality, because New Zealanders in this country need to understand that the reality of this is they are paying for the decisions made by this Government. So I’d ask: could you please address that issue? Why are we not reflecting it in our title? Because this title that we’ve got here, which says the Act is the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Act 2025, it really doesn’t tell people anything, does it? It sounds innocuous. It sounds like a small technical change. And, at the same time, we’re helping people up. Well, we’re not helping people up, are we? Let’s call it what it is, because our job as legislators is to be actually really clear about what we’re doing and reflect what we’re doing. Please, can I know why we’re calling it something which nobody would look twice at, wouldn’t know anything, wouldn’t know what it really did. Why are we doing that when we could be honest? Because if the National Party believes in this stuff, they better say it. Why don’t we tell them the way it is? Thank you. I’d love an answer to that question.

Just before I take another call, I’m hearing some reasonably disrespectful commentary coming from my right. So I just wonder whether members might reflect on whether that’s really adding not only to the order of the House but to the dignity of the House. I’ll just ask them to reflect on that, without pointing out anyone in particular.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I intend to move an amendment to the title of this bill. I think it’s incredibly important in any time when the House is considering a bill at committee stage, but particularly under urgency when the public of New Zealand in the first instance has not had an opportunity to have their say at the select committee stage, but by virtue of this being urgency after a Budget and this being on Saturday morning, the likelihood of this bill getting media coverage is far less than it would do if it were going through a full parliamentary process. On that point, it is especially important that the title reflects the contents of the bill accurately.

Now, my concern about the title of this bill, the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill, any reasonable person that hasn’t been following this debate or isn’t aware of the contents of the bill could make a reasonable assumption that this bill increases the accommodation supplement and income-related rent. Why wouldn’t they? It’s called “social assistance”. If you were looking at this title, you would assume that this actually increases the assistance provided by the State, but we know that it doesn’t. My amendment would be to change the title of this bill to the “Social Assistance (Reducing Accommodation Supplement in Certain Circumstances) Amendment Bill”.

Now, there are rules around proposals for the change of a title in the bill. We all know that—not all of us follow it, but we all know it—and a proposal for a change in the title cannot be a commentary on the content of the bill. My proposal is not that; it is a very clear description of what is in the bill. There is no suggestion in that as to whether that is a wrong thing or a right thing. It’s not providing commentary on the proposals; it is simply describing the proposals: “(Reducing Accommodation Supplement in Certain Circumstances) Amendment Bill”.

Now, I would wonder why the Government wouldn’t support this, because it is an accurate and objective reflection of what this bill proposes to do. Under certain circumstances, this bill will reduce the accommodation supplement paid to some people. That is a fact. It’s indisputable. It is quite clear in the information that was provided to this bill—which is not full amount of information that would have been provided if it had gone through a full select committee process, but nevertheless it is quite clear—that roughly 7,000 people will have their accommodation supplement reduced on average by $100.

Now, the points have been made about whether that is a good thing or not and the Government have made their views. I’m not doing that in this contribution; I’m simply saying that that is what the bill does. Now, if we look at what the bill does—that 7,000 people will have their accommodation supplement reduced depending on their circumstances—and you look at this title of the bill, Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill, I think there is a mismatch. That’s why my amendment will propose that this title accurately reflects what this bill does.

It reduces the accommodation supplement in certain circumstances. And I don’t think any Government member will take a call to counter that point, because it does. In fact, all of their contributions have been to justify that fact—no one’s disputing it; it is a fact. The Government views that it is justifiable in certain circumstances that people who rely on accommodation supplement should have that supplement reduced. So it is our very clear proposal to the committee that the title should simply reflect that.

It would be interesting to hear the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s response to that. Regardless of whether she likes the idea of changing the title, it is a legitimate question to pose: does she believe that the title should accurately reflect the contents of the bill? Does she believe that it is incorrect to state that this bill reduces accommodation supplement in certain circumstances, and, if not, why won’t she support a title change?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, I couldn’t say too much after that last contribution, but I will because the Hon Kieran McAnulty couldn’t have been more on the mark—he was right on the mark. All the way through this argument in terms of this kaupapa, we have been talking about the pressures on whānau and the pressures on communities, so I’m just adding to and complementing what my colleagues have said. I think there’s no doubt that this is about a reduction.

If the Minister for Social Development and Employment could grasp that, we might all be able to go home a bit earlier—we just change the title and on we go. I also suggest that we change the title to the “Accommodation Assistance and Income-related Rent Reduction Act”. Why? For the very people who need it most—for the very, very people who need it most—we’ve got a cost of living crisis. Many people are taking on boarders to help with the crisis, not to get rich. No one gets rich doing this sort of stuff.

I heard my colleague Helen White talking about how tough it is in terms of Auckland in particular. You’ve got rentals with a minimum of two bedrooms at $600 to $700 a week. Young couples go in—I know; I have had my own family members going out and renting. You don’t get much for two bedrooms. You don’t get much—[Interruption]—and it’s not rubbish. You can come to Auckland if you don’t believe me. If you’re lucky you get a $600 place, but there are young couples around Helen White’s area, around Mount Eden and so on, who see places at $800 a week for a basic, three-room place—not a flash set-up, just an average place. So what do they do? They get a flatmate in just to help with that rent—and we’re taking away that opportunity. We’re looking at people losing an average of $100 a week; $143 for two boarders.

We’re calculating the impact on up to around 20,000 people—[Interruption] Yeah, the numbers may well be better. Do we want to do this to good Kiwis? I have to ask that question of the Government today. Why do you want to take away that opportunity? These are not the big landlords that the National Government is interested in. A lot of these are aunties and uncles and mums and dads and young couples who are just trying to get by, and it’s a travesty that we’re going down this track.

We’re talking about a reduction. in terms of what’s happening here. So I have to ask the Minister why she would consider going down that track, given the cost of living is such a high priority—so we hear from this Government. It just seems mean-spirited when you consider these changes and what’s happening that the Government would not consider a title change. It would help so many people along the way. We’ve got people in fear at the coalface now, in fear of whether they can pay their rent, in fear now that they’re going to lose that opportunity to look after their whānau, look after their home, and look after their kids.

Does the National Government want to be aligned with that? They’ve had the worst headlines of any Government in history that’s just put out a Budget.

Oh! Ha, ha!

I’m not sure if they read the media, but I have to say I enjoyed watching the news and watching them squirming over the last couple of days—and I might be going off track a little bit, Mr Chair. I wouldn’t want to upset you, of course, Mr Chair. This title is an incredibly important title because it reflects the pain and suffering that our people are going through, and we just have to be upfront that the Government wants to reduce and continue to penalise good Kiwis at the coalface. The title “Accommodation Assistance and Income-related Rent Reduction Act” better reflects what’s in the legislation.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’ll indicate—we’ve had some pretty good contextual contributions and policy contributions; we’re now looking for very targeted contributions speaking to amendments.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s amazing—we’re back already. It hasn’t been so long overnight. I am seeking to get engagement, particularly in the supplementary analysis report. We know that we didn’t get some other reports because this is being rushed through under urgency, so we’re really using this analysis here to scrutinise the bill, which would have been done through a select committee process. I want to talk to section three—

No. We’re not scrutinising the bill. We’re on the title and commencement.

Yes—scrutinising the title, thank you.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

This better be a serious point of order and not—

It is a serious point of order.

Well—point of order, Ricardo Menéndez March.

I totally hear you, Mr Chair. I also want to understand where in the debate in a bill that’s rushed under urgency, do we, for example, adequately scrutinise and get engagement from the Minister—because we haven’t gotten engagement on this—on, for example, the cost, the fiscal implications, of the choice of a commencement date.

There’s genuinely no other part of the debate to get engagement from the Minister on the genuine fiscal and staffing implications of this. So if it’s not on the commencement, where? Where would the Chair want us to actually ask about the real money implications of the choice of the commencement date?

Well, it’s not in the title and commencement.

Thank you, Mr Chair. [Interruption]

I’ll just say that if it relates to title and commencement and it’s contextual—however, it will be very clearly related to that.

Thank you. My contribution, my questions, are directly related to the commencement of this bill, particularly phase two, which is in this analysis, saying that from 2 March 2026—and I want to point to it. This is “Section 3: Delivering an option” “How will the new [amendments] be implemented.” This is looking at how, with this commencement date that is coming, we will actually implement this for people who will be affected.

I’m looking at the increased front-line capacity section, bullet point two: “MSD will increase its front-line resource to update boarder information prior to the beginning of phase two. Some additional resource will also be required on an ongoing basis for the administration policy.” This is from the supplementary analysis report, talking about commencement.

I’m seeking engagement on how this particularly will impact rural communities, and I’m talking about rural communities who do not have a Ministry of Social Development (MSD) office there. What is the Minister for Social Development and Employment doing to increase that capacity for rural communities?

For the commencement date.

For the commencement date. We’re talking about 2 March 2026. It’s coming quickly. We know MSD is already overwrought and having unmanageable caseloads, so we really want to understand what is being done on this commencement date of 2 March 2026. I would suggest that we could move this to 2027, 2028, or 2029.

When those areas, these rural areas, do not have an office: what is being done to ensure that geographical distance, that other factors—last night we heard about how this is going to impact disabled people disproportionately; they’re already struggling to get services. So I think that rural communities deserve servicing. And we know that the nature of boarding means that household circumstances can change frequently, so I’m really seeking clarification on this commencement date.

Just going back to Speakers’ rulings, where it says that we can expect engagement on our questions from the Minister. That goes hand in hand with the members here acting in a way that makes this House proud of us. We’re really earnestly trying to scrutinise this bill and to see how it affects the people of Aotearoa. It’s really important that we talk about this, and I’m seeking that engagement on the commencement, which is 2 March—[Time expired]

I’m sorry.

I’ve got a very genuine question about commencement for the Minister for Social Development and Employment. We haven’t actually had any engagement from the Minister on this part. The question I have is: why is the commencement date what it is? Because I have put some propositions to you, but I’ve put them as this is how I think it is. So I just want to make sure that you get—and I would like an answer from you as to why you’ve picked that particular date. Now, I have suggested to you that—

To the Minister.

Yes, sorry. I’ve suggested to the Minister that the reason for doing this is because there needs to be savings by a particular time. And obviously we have an election next year. But I’ve also seen in what I’ve read that there’s an issue over actually knowing who it is who is out there who have boarders, because we don’t have that information.

What we will be going on to in the next bill is something that is complementary to this. We have to drag every person who’s getting a benefit or an accommodation supplement—

It’s not this bill.

—all those working people, we’re dragging them in for review.

It’s not this bill.

I’m talking—

It’s not this bill.

Sorry?

It’s not this bill.

I’m absolutely talking about this bill, because I’m asking about the commencement and why it is. And what there seems to be—and I’m putting a proposition to you. You can tell me if it’s wrong, but I’d like you to stand up and tell the whole world. So I want to know: am I right that what you are doing is you’re bringing in the next law that we’ll look at and that will bring in automated—

Point of order. I’ve just been trying to make the point by interjections, but I don’t think the member’s picked it up, but “you” is it means the Chair.

Yeah, if you’d been listening, you’d see I have been correcting her.

Absolutely. I apologise. I’ve just recognised that and I definitely will attempt to not do that again.

The Minister is bringing in a bill that comes with this one—it’s complementary—and it means that everybody gets dragged into the Ministry of Social Development for a review. And because that would be huge, they can’t do that, so it has to have time. So we are having an automated system—so a much more faceless system—do that. People will come in and then they will be advised on this date next year that their benefits or their accommodation supplement is going to be reduced in that way. Is that why we’ve got this particular date—because that’s the first date the Government can actually get organised enough to make a money grab?

When we are hearing that this is all about equity; that’s not really correct, is it? Because the date itself tells the story. This isn’t about equity; this is about getting ducks in a row in time to be able to calculate how much money the Minister and the Government can take off the people who are getting accommodation supplement because they don’t currently have information about who has boarders, because up until now, it’s been OK to have a boarder. We’ve all seen the point.

Am I right in that? I would really like an answer, because, so far, the Minister has not answered a single question in these parts. These are important parts, because they go to the purpose and they go to the actual implementation and effect on people. So I would like the Minister to answer those questions, not from her seat—not from her seat in a way that nobody can hear—but for the record, on Hansard. Tell us why this commencement date is actually where it is and please justify that fact.

Let me repeat it, because the member Helen White clearly didn’t listen when I took my opening address on the title and commencement. I said it was a Budget 2024 measure. This is a 22-month lead time between Budget 2024 and 2 March 2026, so 22 months is a significant period of time for people to understand this.

The other point that I would make, in terms of the title of this bill, which is the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill: taxpayers fund all housing support. This bill doesn’t mean you can’t take boarders—I said that before; I’ll repeat it again. The member doesn’t seem to understand that. People can have boarders, but the income from those boarders must be taken into account for the housing support. That’s what hard-working New Zealanders, when they pay tax, would expect. They would also expect that two people are not claiming housing assistance for the same house.

I’m not changing the title of the bill; it is very clear. I’m not changing the commencement date; there’s a 22-month lead-in time and the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development is very clear about what is required to operationalise this decision. There’s 22 months to do it.

Thank you, Mr Chair. My questions do relate to the commencement date. I want to—

Welcome back, Barbara. Mōrena!

Whatever, everybody. It’s really great to see everybody this morning. I heard you had a very long voting capacity last night. Going back to the actual bill—

Members, I know those first early morning coffees are starting to hit home, but can we just keep the noise down? It’s very difficult to hear down here, in what’s becoming a mosh pit.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m always grateful to be welcomed into the committee. I just actually want to ask some questions based off the response that was given by the Minister for Social Development and Employment, because she did say that this was a Budget 2024 initiative; I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge that the Minister said that the advice that she received from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) needed a 22-month lead-in time in order to get to that 2 March 2026 policy effect date.

The question I have, really, in relation to the commencement date, because it is an odd date, you know—it’s not a year end, it’s not a financial date like 31 March or 1 April or any other time frame in relation to other particular dates that you can find within legislation—2 March 2026. The question I had is in response to the Minister’s comments, when she said it was a Budget 2024 initiative, when I’m looking at the supplementary analysis report, because there was no regulatory impact statement that was put in for this. Officials said that tight time frames also constrained the development of policy advice, including consultation, so “the decision to fully implement”—I’m quoting from that supplementary analysis report—“policy changes by early 2026 has meant that advice on the detailed policy design has been subject to tight time constraints. As a result, there has been limited time for the analysis of existing and potential new settings, international comparisons, as well as analysis of operational impacts.”

I acknowledge, again, the Minister did spend a lot of time in the chair yesterday—or at least there were many questions from different members of the committee on different parts, as to around that consultation aspect. But the question—which relates back to Helen White’s contribution a little bit earlier—about why this particular date, I’m just trying to understand the different phases which officials also set out in that supplementary paper. Members, it’s on page 34. There’s quite a big table in there, and it talks about the different phasing that is needed through that particular implementation, which is why, again, I don’t quite understand the 2 March date. Yes, it is from Budget 2024. There was a limited consultation. There have been various time constraints, which officials have set out in their supplementary analysis report.

Officials, at least in this report, in the absence of a regulatory impact statement, did set up those operational implementation dates: phase one, 22 May 2025. From mid-2025, it goes through all the different policy changes: sending correspondence out to clients, sending out general communications to raise awareness of the changes, enabling clients to declare their board payments through our online and paper channels, link those receiving board with those paying board with the same household in the system to prevent double subsidisation. I do want to acknowledge MSD for their work on that, because they’ve tried to—in the time constraints that they’ve been given, even though this was a decision made in 2024—think about how do they communicate this to affected clients in order for their operational changes to their text system to be ready from 2 March.

Minister, I do want to ask the question again, and I know you’ve said it’s to allow for that 22-month lead-in time, but why 2 March? It is a very, very odd date. Is that the first date that MSD has said to you that they believe that that is when this could be implemented fully, or had they suggested another date, perhaps even of 1 April 2026? I mean, I totally respect the fact that officials have had time constraints, even though this was a Budget decision made last year. There is a 22-month lead-in time, but my concern is just that misalignment with other key sort of dates for a lot of people, particularly when it comes to financial years. Why 2 March, which is quite odd? Then when you go to the way officials set it out in the supplementary analysis report, about that phase two from 2 March, it says they’ll begin the IRR reviews—income-related rents reviews—of social housing tenants. That begins to include the housing contributions for boarders from 2 March 2026.

It then goes on: “If a social housing tenant has boarders, their IRR will change at the time of their annual review.” Is it the annual review which is why it’s 2 March? It doesn’t really matter that it’s an odd date. Is that why, because the annual review could be at any date within a calendar year? Then: “The implementation ensures IRR clients do not receive multiple rent increases in 12 months and other changes are implemented as soon as possible.” So my understanding through the supplementary analysis report—and, again, I know the Minister has acknowledged around consultation; we are in urgency, which is the really sad thing about it, because it’s quite clear there are little elements of this bill which would have actually possibly helped having some public consultation, which is why members on this side of the Chamber are going through it step by step.

Just wanting to understand, again: is 2 March—it’s because of all the reasons that Minister has talked about? It is an odd date. Is that because the annual reviews for these clients can be any particular date of the year? This is the start date in which, after all the letters and the communications, which I acknowledge MSD will be trying to do from mid-2025—why 2 March? Because it is, again, a very odd date.

Grant McCallum—

Miles Anderson.

Oh, sorry. Miles Anderson.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Members, we’re going to be speaking directly to amendments. We’re going to be speaking to the title and commencement and the third part of that, obviously, is ministerial involvement.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just also noting that the previous speaker, the Hon Barbara Edmonds, asked some really good questions on the commencement date of 2 March from the perspective of what is in the document. But on the commencement date, one of my amendments is around changing the commencement date. It’s to adjust the commencement date to push it back a little bit, because, yes, I do hear from the Minister for Social Development and Employment that this is something from Budget 2024, but we have seen some of the things that’ve been implemented in Budget 2024 not having had the intended expectation, from an agency perspective, throughout the year. So I guess, for this particular date, whether the Minister didn’t have other confidence that 2 March 2026 is doable.

One of the things we do notice—particularly from a personnel and from an application perspective when we’re looking at new assessment and assessment of changing circumstances—is the way that the transitional elements are going to work when applicants make those kinds of adjustments from here and to 2 March and what goes beyond from 2 March 2026. So my question to the Minister is: if the Minister has confidence in the fact that the Ministry of Social Development is able to do this, what sort of staffing expectations and restructuring and reallocation of resources would be expected as a result of this particular date, and, if those are not feasible, whether the Minister would consider our amendments around moving the date back. I think I myself have an amendment which moves the date to 2 March 2027 just to give it a little more time, and I know my colleagues Kahurangi Carter and Ricardo Menéndez March also have amendments to a similar effect of adjusting the time.

Now, in terms of the title of this, I do wonder whether the Minister, in the bracketed title “Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent”—whether that accurately captures, because a lot of the context of what they’re talking about here is boarders, yet boarders are not a part of the title. So I wondered if the Minister would consider some of the titles that we have proposed, alternative titles that specifically make references to boarders as part of that.

So my two questions around clause 2 and clause 1: from a clause 2 perspective, in terms of 2 March, we’re still waiting to hear the Minister’s response to the previous speaker, the Hon Barbara Edmonds. But my question was around the staffing, more in terms of the transitional measures from now until 2 March when we are looking at assessment of new applications and how that’s going to work, and whether, despite the fact it’s a Budget 2024 initiative, this is going to be something that is viable and the Minister has confidence in that—if not, will the Minister consider my amendment, and, alternatively, in terms of the title, whether the Minister would consider including the word “boarder” in that to capture the bill more accurately?

One last small request is that if the Minister were to respond to any of these questions, if the Minister wouldn’t mind looking at the people who are asking those questions as well to make a little bit of eye contact. Thank you so much.

As I said in answer to my previous question, the chief executive is the one responsible for operationalising this policy. Part of that is taking into account their other workload and other significant Ministry of Social Development activities. One of the other members has mentioned the annual general adjustment, which is of course why March has been chosen, not April. One of the other members read through the whole timeline for the implementation to allow clients plenty of time to understand.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Adjustments to Boarders’ Contributions)” be agreed to.

Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve had a look at these tabled amendments, and just before we go through any more voting on them, can I just point to Speakers’ ruling 130/2 on page 130, which says, “An amendment to the title of a bill must be a serious or objective description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise its contents.” I’ve looked through at least 12 of those in the tabled amendments lodged by the Green Party. And the second point—

Well, if I may, Mr Mooney—if you could wait, you’ll see just how they will be ruled on. It may well be that you might be surprised to find there may be some agreement with your observations on some of them.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Prevention of Double Subsidisation)” is ruled out of order as being contrary to a previous decision of the committee.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(National Loves Cars So Much That They Want More People to Live in Them)” is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Accommodation Adjustments and Additional Acclimitisations)” is ruled out of order as being contrary to a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Changes to Eligibility of Accommodation Supplement and Income Related Rent Subsidies)” be agreed to.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Reduction in Accommodation Supplement and Other Matters)” is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Inclusion of All Boarders’ Contributions and Other Matters)” be agreed to.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Punishing Boarders in Order to Pay for Landlord Tax Cuts)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Automated Decision Making for the Purposes of Accommodation Supplement Eligibility and Other Matters)” is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Adjustments to the Administration of Accommodation Supplement and Income Related Rent Subsidies and Other Matters)” be agreed to.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Pushing People who Board into More Precarious Housing)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Higher Threshold to Receive Accommodation Supplement and Income Related Rent Subsidies and Other Matters)” be agreed to.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(More People in Hardship)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Make Life Harder for Disabled People)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Disabled People Can’t Live with Their Support Workers)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Solo Mums Get Left in the Cold)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Isolate Disabled People)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Lonely Kaumātua)” is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Social Security Act, Public and Community Housing Management Act, Public and Community Housing Regulations 2018)” be agreed to.

Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(We Hate Beneficiaries)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Boarder Restriction)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Subsidisation Limitation)” be agreed to.

Scott Willis’ tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Except for Our Most at Risk)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Reduced Household Moolah)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Reducing the Accommodation Supplement in Certain Circumstances)” be agreed to.

Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Let Them Eat Cake)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Loss of Accommodation Supplement for No Good Reason)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Reducing Accommodation Supplement As Soon As There Is A Boarder)” be agreed to.

Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Kick Them When They Try To Get Ahead)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Reduced Whānau Income)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Removing Pūtea from the Vulnerable)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Banning Boarders)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

The Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Kick the Maoris in the Guts)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Penalising People for Taking on Boarders)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to replace “2026” with “2028” be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to replace “2026” with “2027” be agreed to.

The Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 2 is out of order being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2 replacing “2 March 2026” with “1 January 2027” be agreed to.

Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Point of order. I apologise to the Minister; however, this is the first opportunity we’ve had to raise this point of order, given that we’ve just come out of committee. We would have had the opportunity to raise this if our motion to recall the Speaker was approved by the committee. It was not, which is regrettable. Nevertheless, this is the appropriate opportunity to do so.

There are two matters that I wish to raise. One is regarding closure motions and the other is regarding calling for party votes. Specifically, I’m referring to Standing Order 137(1). Now, in that Standing Order, it specifically prescribes what is required when a question is being put around—or should be considered around—the closure motion. And in Standing Orders, it quotes what is required.

Now, last evening, the presiding officer at the time indicated that it doesn’t need to be exactly accurate as outlined in Standing Orders, but it just needs to be there or thereabouts in so far as the presiding officer understands the intent of the motion and therefore can proceed. Now, that is a significant departure from what is outlined in Standing Orders. Now, sir, I’m not asking for you to rule on that now, but what I am asking for is a commitment to report back to the House to provide absolute clarity. In the absence of that, it is possible that a new Speaker’s ruling would be created that is counter to Standing Orders, which I don’t think is in the interest of anyone in this House.

The second point is in regard to calling for party votes when there is a motion to recall the Speaker. It’s not my intention to dispute the decision that was made around the Speaker. I think there’s a fair bit of reflection being made around the House at the moment. There was one instance in the previous Parliament where that was voted against; that was wrong, it should not have happened. There was one in the previous Parliament; there’s now been one in this Parliament. I’m hoping that the House can decide that, “OK, we’ll call it even. We’ll go back to the convention in regard to motions to recall the Speaker.”

However, what is of concern is the decision that was made in committee that a party vote would not be put. The motion was made to recall the Speaker, the Government members voted No, a party vote was called, and the presiding officer did not allow that to happen. Now, that is actually also counter to Standing Orders. The process for dealing with a motion to recall the Speaker—Standing Order 179 doesn’t indicate that there isn’t to be a party vote. In the absence of any specified information about that, the only option that we’ve got is to go back to Standing Orders 142(1), which quite clearly outlines the process for a party vote to be considered when it is called for. There is nothing else in Standing Orders around that—that is the only thing that we can go for. All I’m asking for is a commitment for both of those points to be reflected on by the Speaker’s office alongside the Clerk’s Office, and a report back so that the House is very clear around the process on both those things.

Speaking to the point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. All of the points that were just made are actually irrelevant because the Clerk—

I’ll decide if they’re relevant.

Certainly. Well, I just sort of wanted to make the point—I accept absolutely it’s your decision, Mr Speaker, but the point of order was raised by the Opposition after the Chair had decided to commence voting. Voting had commenced and the Opposition disrupted that not once but twice. They disrupted it first when they were of the view that the question hadn’t been completely put. It had been mostly put, but not completely. There were two words, from recollection, that were missing. The Chair then put the vote again, accepted a full closure motion with full wording, and then the Opposition disrupted that again with a point of order. They disrupted the vote twice, so everything that followed, I would suggest, is irrelevant.

I actually agree with that description of events. I’ve got three points here and the rest of the points we can go back and reflect on. Just to the points from the Hon Kieran McAnulty: he is correct, but in the heat of the moment the exact words might not have been gotten right. But nothing has changed: the exact words of Standing Order 137 should be used. And just to acknowledge that there is a longstanding custom of the committee agreeing to recall the Speaker—Speaker’s ruling 81/2; it is not an absolute right, but it would be unfortunate if it was opposed and would likely slow down committee stages. So just to note that as well.

There should also be no need for a party vote because the recall should be agreed to. Where it’s not, a party vote is the way to decide it. And, also, to note that the presiding officer who was here in the Chair is at the moment having discussions with parties as well. In terms of the points that I have talked about just before, that has taken care of some of the issues. If there are other prevailing issues outside of that, we will get back to you. I now call the Hon Louise Upston.

Speaking to the point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify one particular point that the previous person, Joseph Mooney, has mentioned in terms of the voting process. I wanted to get clarification from you, Mr Speaker, that in the context of that, when a vote is called but prior to the vote being called a point of order was raised but then because the mic wasn’t on and the presiding officer couldn’t hear it, in those circumstances would a point of order that was raised be considered before or after a vote has been triggered? Because I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to say that—if we go back and look at the video from last night, when that was done we deliberately and explicitly mentioned to the presiding officer at the time that the point of order was raised prior to the vote being called. But the presiding officer couldn’t hear properly because there was a lot of other noise around the presiding officer at the time. I just want to get clarification from you, Mr Speaker: in that particular context, when the point of order is raised, would that be considered prior to a vote or do we assume it’s after a vote has commenced?

I’ll just take some advice on that.

Speaking to the point of order.

Sit down. Look, just to note for the House that these issues are done. I have made a ruling. There are extra things that may be addressed, but that can happen outside of this Chamber. If you do have extra points that need to be revisited, we can do that, but it’s not enough to actually hold up the business of the House.

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.

Oh, who was in charge then?