Parliamentary debates: Thursday, 5 June 2025

Good morning members. The committee is resumed on the Invest New Zealand Bill. When we were considering the bill last night, we had just concluded the debate on Part 2. We therefore come to our final debate, clauses 1 and 2, which are the title and commencement.

This bill is named the Invest New Zealand Bill, which I suppose that’s partly what this bill is trying to achieve, but I just wonder if a better title for it might be the “Sell New Zealand Bill”. It’s here to sell, encourage people to come into this country and to buy up our resources—to buy them up—not to the benefit of New Zealanders. We tried to put that into the bill last night in various stages, that the purpose might include ensuring that New Zealanders are better off. But in fact, this is all just about selling New Zealand overseas. Now, of course we want people to come here and enjoy our tourism, enjoy our hospitality, enjoy some of the fine things this country has to offer, but let’s not forget that the purpose of this bill is to bring foreign money in.

When we bring foreign money in, people don’t do it because they have a warm fuzzy feeling about doing it. They don’t do it just for the likes and the jollies. They actually want to get a return out of it. Now, there’s nothing wrong with getting a return; no one minds that. But we have to ask ourselves: why are we trying to send those investment returns offshore to people who live overseas, when we actually have some perfectly good sources of capital here in New Zealand ourselves?

Over many, many years, thanks to the foresight of Sir Michael Cullen, we’ve at last managed to build up a bit of an investment pool in our KiwiSaver funds. Why are we not developing mechanisms to ensure that our KiwiSaver funds can invest in New Zealand? Why are we not trying to develop mechanisms to ensure that New Zealanders themselves can invest in New Zealand? Why are we not trying to ensure that people have decent wages and a decent income so that New Zealanders themselves can invest in New Zealand?

This is not actually about New Zealanders investing in New Zealand. This is about New Zealanders selling our country off to foreign investors and foreign investors who want to return. So I’m going to suggest that instead of calling this the Invest New Zealand Bill, we should be calling this the “Sell New Zealand Bill”. That would be a much more accurate description of what this bill actually sets out to do. I invite this committee to consider that.

If we weren’t going to call it the “Sell New Zealand Bill”, I have another suggestion to offer here, and it goes to some of the issues which we alluded to last night around this bill’s rather naïve hope that we might develop collaborations around science, after we’ve thoroughly decimated our science sector. So we could call it the “Living In Hope But Not Having A Real Plan Bill”.

You see, in order to get something going like serious science collaboration across countries, across sectors, across the world, you probably need to have a decent science system at home. We’ve had a really good science system. We’ve had dedicated scientists. We’ve had people who research and do this because it’s thoroughly interesting. But in the last year or so, we have just slapped those people in the face, told them that we don’t value science any more, totally undermined the institutions, walked away from science in both our universities and in our science research institutions. Yet somehow, this Government thinks that overseas investors, overseas research institutions, having seen the way we’ve treated our own scientists, will actually turn around and decide that they should come and collaborate with us.

A rather more accurate name for this bill might be the—I can’t even remember what I said now, something around the naïve hopes but not actually having the reality to back it up. I think that’s characteristic of this Government. So this bill would be a much more accurately named bill if we reflected what this Government is doing, saying something in the hope that just by saying it over and over again, it will actually happen, but, in the meantime, undermining the reality. So I propose those different names for this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I know there’ll be many people out there watching; they’ve probably waited up and been by their TVs to tune in and follow this bill and they’ll be really interested in the title. There might be others who are not. But the point is it is actually quite critical.

As my colleague Deborah Russell has said, it could be named in different ways. There are two questions I have of the Minister in the chair, really: why not call it “Buy New Zealand 2025” because, clearly, the fairly blunt and crude way that this bill is being constructed with few, if any, qualifications on what kind of investment we will be getting into New Zealand, then why not just call it the “Buy New Zealand Bill”?

And then the question is: 2025—why this year? Why not push it out for a year and provide the business community, New Zealanders, and parliamentarians a greater opportunity to look at this bill and see the implications of it? As I’ve said previously in this debate, we have $575 billion worth of investment in our country already. It’s foreign investment in New Zealand and a lot of it is valuable, but not all of it—not all of it. I think being able to differentiate between good foreign investment and bad foreign investment is critical. That’s why we have the Overseas Investment Office. But, actually, if you constrain them, or you flood them, then you limit their ability to work out what is good and bad investment.

There’s a philosophical issue, as well, that if you bring in money just to inflate asset values but not drive any further productivity across our economy, it further drives us back, because there is a lot of money out around the world, and in spite of the Government saying that it has to set up this real estate agency at a cost of $54 million a year, I think good investment finds its way to New Zealand anyway and with the good work of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise.

So I think “Invest New Zealand Act 2025”, which is the title which we’re currently debating, is somewhat unhelpful, if not misleading, because we could end up with a flood of investment that simply buys our valuable assets and our productivity. The Minister in the chair there might think, well, he’s OK, and the Māori people and the Māori interests he represents are OK because they’re protected and sensible—the same doesn’t apply to the rest of the assets across New Zealand, many of which are already owned by overseas people and may be flicked on to other overseas people through this initiative, and put us in a worse position in terms of productivity.

So the question is: why not have this bill called either, one, “Buy New Zealand 2025”, or, we could call the bill the “Invest New Zealand Act” and make it 2026 and provide this—

This gentleman was the Minister for Trade, what happened?

—House and the rest of the country with another 12 months—

What happened to trade?

—to look at, arguably, what is one of the most critical things? The member’s going on about trade. As a former trade Minister, I know what we have done is negotiated increasing the thresholds to allow more investment into New Zealand, all with qualifications. When we negotiated those agreements, we did not in any way remove or attempt to remove the sovereign rights of individual nations, including ours, to have qualifications, to have checks and balances and, ultimately, the right to say “No” to the investment. Some of those provisions will still remain in place; I accept that. The question is why should we set up, under the title “Invest New Zealand 2025”, a real estate agency costing taxpayers $54 million a year to just go out and welcome in and incentivise people to come and buy New Zealand? Because that’s what’s happening.

If there were provisions in this bill that had an assurance that the money coming in was either for greenfields investment or for additional productivity and for benefit, then I think we might take a different approach. But, in fact, there are none of those qualifications in the legislation.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. Look, the pejorative and scrambled messaging that’s being conspired by the Opposition is not just dank and dark, dark and dank, but it’s opaque and black—opaque and blank.

The purpose of the bill is to establish Invest New Zealand to promote increased overseas investment into New Zealand and provide for Invest New Zealand’s objective functions and operation. It is entirely appropriate, in this brunch and breakfast session in our esteemed Chamber, that the Invest New Zealand Bill turn into the Invest New Zealand Act. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We understand what the purpose is, because we had a discussion about this last night. But just following on from the previous speaker, the Hon Damien O’Connor, who was the previous trade Minister—and he captured it quite nicely—we already have a number of one-stop shop agencies for this. What is unique about this particular one?

I want to go on to the commencement date first, which is 1 July 2025. I want to check with the Minister, the Hon Tama Potaka: we’ve heard from the Minister previously on some of the work that is being done, potentially, in the background. But I think what we haven’t heard, succinctly, is a response to the question that was asked around the transition measures and whether they will be in time for 1 July, particularly from the perspective of collective agreements in terms of the Public Service perspective. So that’s my question in terms of the commencement date—whether 1 July is feasible or whether we should be looking at pushing the 1 July date out further.

But just now coming to the title of the bill, I know that we talk about “Invest New Zealand”, but what we’ve heard from the Minister—and, to be honest, every three questions that we ask, we get maybe one answer and the other two left unanswered; you know, we still haven’t heard exactly what was the advice given from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and we still haven’t really heard why the regulatory impact statement and the Budget had different amounts allocated to Invest New Zealand.

We are really curious as to whether “Invest New Zealand” is actually the best name for this, because there seems to be a half-heartedness when it comes to this particular bill and this particular agency, and there’s going to be a lot of confusion, and, to the Minister’s own words, “opaqueness”, when it comes to the way that agencies can be set up. Fundamentally, when we’re looking at the title of this bill, I wonder if the Minister in the chair would consider, from all of the things we’ve discussed, the lack of reassurance we have received from the Minister that this is indeed something that is going to be good for New Zealanders and for New Zealand in general. We’ve heard things and we’ve heard more concerns and more questions than actual responses, and the previous speaker, the Hon Damien O’Connor, mentioned that this is, essentially, going to be a real estate agency that’s going to sell off New Zealand one bit at a time.

So I wondered if a better title for this bill, rather than “Invest New Zealand”, would be “Divest New Zealand”, because that’s what, fundamentally, the concerns around this agency are going to be. We are actually no longer supporting New Zealand entrepreneurship and also innovation but, instead, we expect overseas companies, carte blanche, without any sort of precautions and provisions—we didn’t hear anything around how they’re going to ensure, from a procedural perspective, from an operational perspective, that there is not going to be any sort of anti-competitive measures, anti - money-laundering measures, or any of those things. Yes, I admit that they’re part of domestic legislation, but the fact is that just because the law is in place does not mean that the agency is well equipped to ensure that they are followed.

So I personally think that “Divest New Zealand” is a better term for us to use. But other ones—to be fair, if the Minister thinks that “Divest New Zealand” is a bit too on the nose and too similar to “Invest New Zealand”, we can look, I think, at changing the title to “Country for Sale”, because that seems kind of appropriate as well, or even just “Selling New Zealand Out”.

I think the other appropriate title, when we’re looking at the title of this—again, although we do see in the departmental report some of the advice that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has undertaken in terms of our Te Tiriti obligations, we’re still not entirely convinced, particularly in light of some of our trade agreements but also in light of some of the current trajectory that the Government is going in. I think if we really want to signal to the world that we are a country that upholds indigenous rights, “Invest Aotearoa” would be a more appropriate title.

So I would like to hear from the Minister as to whether he would consider any of those titles and the change to the commencement date.

There’s been some lopsided and obtuse comments this morning—you know, again, the cursory remarks about Māori interests from individuals who have probably been involved for about half a second in Māori development.

Now, it was wonderful, a couple of weeks ago, to attend, with the colleague from Hamilton East and others, the Ruakura development being led by Tainui Group Holdings and a commitment by an international investor of nearly a billion dollars into a tribally led land development on the eastern flank of Kirikiriroa Hamilton. Yet today, we hear that Māori are scared of doing this—this wasn’t good for our tamariki and mokopuna. Actually, iwi and Māori want to invest with capital, and, to be fair, it doesn’t matter what the colour of that capital is as long as it’s aligned with iwi and tribal development. The agencies are ready to move forward, and I have full confidence in their commitment and enthusiasm and energy to enable this country to fulfil its co-investment potential.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s great to be able to continue this morning the debate around the Invest New Zealand Bill, because last evening when we were discussing through the committee stage aspects of the bill, it was good to see the commitment from the Government parties to sticking around for as long as was required to go through, one by one, the various amendments that we had suggested to try and make this bill better, because there’s a lot of concern around the House that there isn’t the correct governance certainty and structure provided in the bill to give New Zealanders the certainty they deserve. So my suggestion when it comes to the title is that we really ought to be calling this bill what it is.

There was a discussion earlier in this part of the debate around the title—there was a comparison to people tuning in this morning, like they would when we’re playing a big game globally, and New Zealanders want to tune in and watch that big game and see the result. The difference here is that when New Zealand as a nation tunes in to watch our teams compete on the world stage, the hope is that we will bring the cup, the prize, the win back to New Zealand. What viewers are tuning in for this morning is to see the complete opposite of that.

What viewers are tuning in for this morning is to see a bill that takes the cup, the prize, the trophy out of New Zealand. So with this bill, a win is actually a loss for New Zealanders because the loss is that great intellectual property, that great development, that great idea and work and innovation being taken away from New Zealand because the money didn’t come from ourselves; it came externally.

It’s a little like having a garage sale. You have a garage full of goods. You open the door on a Saturday morning, people come along, they buy those items, and then you have a little bit of cash in your hand, but you also have an empty garage. So all of a sudden all those things that you had in your garage that used to be yours are no longer yours, because you’ve sold them off to whoever would pay whatever they would pay for it. So this is all leading to some suggestions here around actually calling this bill, titling this bill, more honestly what it is.

Part of the discussion last night was around the Minister suggesting that this bill needed to be fleet of foot, which I think the consensus was it actually just meant slippery. So a slippery bill like this needs a more honest title. Some of the title suggestions I have are—and I’m really looking forward to some calls from the other side with some of their suggested bill names too. Some of my suggested bill titles—and I’m really interested to hear the Minister’s opinion on these. My question is really which of these the Minister thinks best fits the bill.

The first is to recycle a name that you’ve already paid for, which is “Everyone Must Go Bill”. That was the tourism slogan. It was also the slogan that was repeated to the science sector as the $90 million worth of cuts were rolled out in this year’s Budget. “Everyone must go” is the message that this Government sent to our brightest in the science sector.

Another potential title is the “Sell Out Our Future Invest New Zealand Bill”. Another is the “Briscoes Sale Invest New Zealand Bill” or the “Failing Our Science Sector Investment Bill”—one of my favourites. [Interruption] You’ll need to listen carefully, because I might need to explain it to you, members of the other side of the Chamber—

I am listening carefully.

Not you, Madam Chair. I’m sure you’ll get this immediately. Sorry to bring you into the conversation. It’s the “Buy-bye Invest New Zealand Bill”, and the important distinction here is that the first “buy” is spelt B-U-Y. and the second “buy” is B-Y-E. The message is goodbye, but the message is also that it is simply a fire sale.

But I’m going to use the Minister’s own words and describe possibly the best title as being the “Lopsided Invest New Zealand Bill”, because that’s what this is. It doesn’t favour New Zealanders; it favours foreign multinationals.

The member’s time has expired.

Again, the inventiveness and foxiness in the vernacular that’s being promoted by the Opposition commentariat will not change the intentions and the commitment of this Government to get the economy back on track and to ensure that we enable and expedite and accelerate co-investment, not only with public and local providers but also with Māori and iwi developers. I will retire and allow the other Minister, the Hon Nicola Grigg, to carry on.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I think we’ve got room for one more tranche of ideas. I call the Hon Julie Anne Genter.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Thank you so much. I really am grateful for this opportunity to speak to some of my amendments on this part of the bill, because I think they possibly do need some explanation, particularly for the members opposite.

In my second reading speech on this bill, I brought up Utopia, which is a satirical show. It takes place in Australia. I feel like it just perfectly sums up the energy of this bill and this whole concept, because the Government has already set up a one-stop shop for investment in infrastructure with the National Infrastructure Funding and Financing company; I’m not sure if members are aware of that. That happened less than a year ago and now we have yet another agency being set up at a cost of over—I think it’s going to be about $50 million a year for the next few years to set up another one-stop shop to attract foreign investors into New Zealand.

So I thought this is amazing, because it seems like this policy is really more about PR than it is about substantially addressing the issues with productivity in Aotearoa New Zealand. Particularly when we consider that the majority of the funding for Invest New Zealand is coming from Callaghan Innovation being wrapped up. That was an agency that was actually driving research, employing scientists here in New Zealand, working with businesses, actually achieving genuine innovation. But this concept, Invest New Zealand, is that we don’t have the ability to invest in our own country; we have to rely on rich foreigners to come in and invest so that we can somehow get wealthier. But of course those investors are going to require a return on their investment.

Is that going to stay in New Zealand and benefit New Zealand? Realistically, no. So one of my tabled amendments last night was in clause 1, title, “After ‘Invest New Zealand’, page two, line 3, insert ‘(Utopia As A Satire)’.” It’s not meant to be an example of how we actually govern and come up with things.

My other amendment was a reference to yet another one-stop shopfront for private investors to profiteer. [Interruption]

The interjections are not now being directed at the member speaking, they’re being directed across the Chamber. So we’ll just have a little bit more calm, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also had another tabled amendment. If the Minister didn’t like the “Utopia As A Satire” reference, we have another option, which is “Invest New Zealand (Yet Another One-stop Shopfront For Private Investors To Profit Here) Bill”. Ultimately, this bill just demonstrates, I think, the difference between having genuine ideas about how New Zealand can develop and be a prosperous nation that’s looking after its environment, that’s investing in its people, that’s investing in its own infrastructure by having a fairer tax system—and, instead, the ideas of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and this coalition Government are simply to set up more agencies, multiple agencies directed at trying to get money from overseas, which is going to be looking for a return. So rather than really properly investing in New Zealand, it’s going to be looking to draw profits out of New Zealand.

That is the fundamental difference, I think, between the concept of economic development, between this—well, it’s certainly for the Greens, who proposed an alternative budget and some very realistic costed policies that would actually support innovation, support green industrial development here in Aotearoa New Zealand, would support science. I know people who want to come back and work in New Zealand who have PhDs from some of the top science universities in the world, and they don’t even feel they can come to New Zealand. They’re having to go to Australia or other countries. That’s because as a country, we need investment in public-good science—public-good science—not just things that are already commercially viable. There’s no need to put public money into things that are commercially viable. But we do need public money in public-good science and that has spillover benefits for everyone in the country.

If we look at other small economies, that’s what they’re doing. [Interruption] Yeah. Like Singapore, like Denmark, like Ireland, they actually have substantially more public-good investment. They may have done similar silly things. I mean, Ireland did, that’s for sure. But, actually, they have more progressive tax systems. They have more public investment. That creates jobs. That creates opportunities. Fundamentally, this Invest New Zealand Bill is like a bad joke.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The following tabled amendments are ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill: Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “Invest” with “Divest”, Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “Invest New Zealand” with “Country For Sale”, Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “Invest New Zealand” with “Foreign Profits First”, Scott Willis’ tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “Invest New Zealand” with “Selling New Zealand Out”, the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to clause 1 inserting “Utopia is a Satire”, and the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to clause 1 inserting “Yet Another One-stop Shop Front for Private Investors to Profiteer”.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change “New Zealand” to “Aotearoa” be agreed to.

We now come to the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill. We start with Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 4 to 6, “Amendments about SuperGold Card income abatement threshold”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to put some questions to the Minister around this particular bill. When this was spoken to in Budget urgency, we indicated that we were supportive of this bill. However, we do have some questions, and there may be some amendments that flow from that and an opportunity to make this bill a better one. In terms of Part 1, I want to address clause 6. This is the clause that, basically, seeks to reference the status of a SuperGold card holder. In it, it specifically references the regulations that are contained in the Social Security Regulations 2018. This, in effect, gives the definition as to what a card holder is described as and also the definition of a SuperGold card.

One of the interesting things is around the eligibility criteria—so that those who are able to, effectively, access the scheme, which will be a new opportunity for many New Zealanders, which is a good move for us to be considering and addressing this morning, but the clause references the regulations around eligibility. Now, there is a question around the time frame that would follow for someone to receive a SuperGold card in the post from when they actually apply. The issue may be that for someone who becomes eligible for a SuperGold card towards the end of the rating year, there potentially is going to be a delay in them receiving the SuperGold card.

My question to the Minister is—there are two parts to this, really—the first is the definition of a “card holder”, which is defined in the regulations, and what that actually means. Does it mean that someone who perhaps might be eligible towards the end of June, or if we think about now, someone, on 4 June, who might suddenly turn 65 and, therefore, become eligible for a SuperGold card? They have right through until 30 June before their eligibility runs out, in terms of being able to access the scheme, but they don’t hold a card at that particular point in time. Likewise, it could be someone who perhaps turns 65 on 29 June, yet they don’t have a SuperGold card or are not in physical possession of a SuperGold card.

My question to the Minister is around the time frame through to 30 June and where that sits, but also how someone who is eligible to hold a SuperGold card but who may not physically be in possession of a SuperGold card, or be determined as a card holder under the regulations, would still be able to access the rates rebate, because this is a rebate that is meant to be available to anyone who, effectively, is 65 and, therefore, the age of 65 is the point at which eligibility kicks in. But the regulations are very specific in that it relates to a “card holder”, being “person who holds a valid SuperGold card issued to that person”. So the question is around that descriptor of “holds a valid SuperGold card”. Would it not be perhaps more appropriate to refer to the fact that they have become eligible? So the point at which they would be eligible to access the scheme under the provision of the SuperGold card actually is not that they are a “card holder” as such, but perhaps they become “eligible to hold a SuperGold card”.

The whole point of this is not to try and cut out anyone who is eligible or for us to be, as a Parliament, tripped up on the strict definition of things associated with the fact that you need to be a card holder or someone who holds a valid SuperGold card, but, rather, someone who is eligible and how someone who might be eligible as of, say, 28 June and who, therefore, can access this, aren’t prevented from doing so. I know that some senior citizens are able to apply in advance of that, and they receive that, and it becomes active on a certain day, but that would still provide a limitation perhaps to those that want to, for some reason, get on to it on their birthday, or whatever it might be. So I’ll just start with that question to the Minister.

I thank the member for the question. It’s an important distinction. Fundamentally, I’m very glad that we’re talking about the SuperGold card and ensuring people do apply for it as soon as they become eligible. For clarification, if the applicants apply before they have a SuperGold card, they will be assessed under the lower income abatement threshold. If they apply later in the year, they will be assessed under the higher income abatement threshold and receive the top-up available.

I think the process by which they apply—they are able to apply when they get the card, therefore they would be entitled to the full top-up. I think it’s an important distinction, but I think it’s also worth noting that this is based upon the income assessment as well. So it is important that to get the full entitlement, your income threshold has to be based upon the superannuation as the sole income because that’s the threshold component that we’ve set under this legislation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s great to see this initiative in the Budget. It’s one of the few initiatives that I would say has been useful, and I’m very happy for the seniors, as the Opposition spokesperson for seniors, that there is some rates relief. I guess my questions are, really, about the very broad-brush approach that the Government has taken, with very little nuance. It feels rushed, and I will go into a series of questions over this committee stage that look particularly at the regulatory impact statement (RIS) and the analysis, or lack of analysis, in the RIS that makes it feel like a rushed process.

That’s curious to me because, as the Minister knows, I’ve made quite a number of Official Information Act requests to her office, and what continually has come up around the Rates Rebate Scheme is redacted sections, particularly around costings. It felt like there was a significant amount of work going on, and I can’t reconcile the amount of work that went on with the very broad-brush approach and the lack of nuance in how it is being applied.

So although, on the one hand, it is good that there is some rates rebate for seniors, perhaps if it had been done in a more nuanced way, we would have better value for money for the taxpayers but also probably more significant relief for some of those who really need it. I’m thinking here about constituents in my electorate in Taieri, certainly in the Lawrence area where I’ve done quite a lot of door-knocking, and also in parts of Balclutha, where seniors who are homeowners have been deeply worried about their ability to pay their rates. I have to say that that issue has come about, really, through the affordable water reforms that were swept away by this Government, and then there was a new regime, but, ultimately, the end game is that the councils are being forced to push up the rates, which probably should have been done previously but all the systems errors meant that they couldn’t do that. Now these pensioners are faced with huge rates bills. Some of them have been in their homes for 40, 50 years—they’ve worked very hard to get there, they’ve got some security, and now they are deeply worried. I’ve had people in tears when I’ve door-knocked—so concerned about getting kicked out of their homes.

So to see rates relief is a good thing, but I wonder if, in a more nuanced regime, they would have a higher level of rebate that would take away that angst, and there might be some who would not necessarily benefit—for example, those who might qualify for the Rates Rebate Scheme who are in a relationship, for property purposes, with someone who can actually pay the rates. Those are questions to come later.

For the purposes of this contribution, what I would really like to look at is how this will be evaluated. I am a little bit fixated on monitoring, evaluation, and performance, because I think we do it pretty badly in New Zealand, and when I look at the RIS, the evaluation of it seems to be, on page 2, that the success of this policy will be demonstrated by the higher uptake of this scheme. I wonder if that is the right indicator, because to me it would seem, from an outcomes perspective, that what we’re really trying to do is stop people from getting kicked out of their homes. So perhaps a better measurement would be to ascertain how many people received the rates rebate, and, as a result of that, the change that we’re measuring is whether they are able to stay in their home and they do not lose their home to a mortgagee sale or to some other kind of hardship.

So it does speak, in some ways, to the contribution of my colleague Tangi Utikere, but I think this is very much around the design of the monitoring and evaluation, which seems, again, broad-brush and quite rushed and quite superficial—it’s an outputs measure; it’s not an outcomes measure. Wouldn’t we be better finding a way of actually enabling better access, as Tangi Utikere has said, but also of measuring the scheme in a more profound way so we can see whether it does address the mischief that it is designed to, which is that it is providing real relief to those who might otherwise face some kind of hardship? Instead, in the RIS, we have it that it will be demonstrated by a higher uptake of the scheme. So I am really keen to hear from the Minister and I will have further questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start with clause 4 of this bill in terms of the section 2 amendment, particularly around definitions. I think my first question is around the type of card holders that meant that they were eligible for this scheme in the first place. I know that we have asked the question around the SuperGold card and the previous speaker Tangi Utikere has also mentioned, in terms of some of the eligibility to SuperGold card holders but, also, in terms of people being able to apply and have access to the SuperGold card at the right time when they become eligible.

But I think I’ve got two questions for the Minister that are more broad: one of them is around SuperGold card holders. One of the things that we do see, for example, is that people who are migrants, etc., particularly in terms of the threshold of 10 years eligibility for super, etc.—we still see a lot of migrants who are over the age of 65 not being eligible for a SuperGold card. Is that something that the Minister has considered when designing this particular policy—when using the SuperGold card as a measure or as a threshold for eligibility for this higher-income abatement threshold? That’s my first question.

My second question is around—I will get to clause 5 a little bit later because I want to focus on one clause at a time. In terms of the SuperGold card, there are other card holder types that potentially would benefit from this increased threshold abatement, and that could be things like people who are on a community services card; it could be people who are on various other card holder types. I just wanted to check with the Minister what was the intent there to limit just to SuperGold card holders and not to other card holder types.

Now, when it comes to the overall policy of this—and during the second reading, we indicated to the Minister that we have a lot of questions around this bill. As part of the speeches in the second reading, there were conversations around the fact that there needs to be some sort of easy, manageable things. But I also wanted to check with the Minister on, I guess, a broader question: why the rates rebate was selected as a way of alleviating cost pressures, etc., for seniors when there are other things that are facing the senior population and vulnerable people within our population, such as seniors who are renting, seniors who are from migrant backgrounds, seniors who potentially may not be paying rates in the first place. So, more broadly, I just want to kind of get a sense of the policy intent over here in terms of why the rates rebate was selected as the scheme that we’re looking at.

So those are, I guess, three questions. Two of the questions are around the SuperGold card. One of them is around eligibility to the SuperGold card and whether we are looking at some sort of intention from the Minister on expanding the scope and eligibility criteria of the SuperGold card holders; the second one is whether other card holder types were considered who are also in similar vulnerable situations; and thirdly: why the rates rebate? Why not consider other forms of support for people over the age of 65 such as increasing the super, such as over-65s who are renting—we know that there’s going to be an increasing number of people who do not own their own home over the age of 65 over the next decade, so it just seems like there’s a missed opportunity there. So I will be keen to hear from the Minister.

I’ll first just run through a few questions. With regard to the measure of success that the member Ingrid Leary was talking about, I think it’s important to remember that this rates rebate is an existing system that’s in place that we are enhancing; it’s not a new system.

I take on board the need to ensure that we have good measures in place. At this stage, the measure of uptake is one of the measures in terms of how successful this is in reaching the people that we’re trying to assist. I don’t think it’s an end position, but at this point what we need to do is gather that data, because the SuperGold card introduction is a new measure to be introduced. I think that’s the important component we want to work through, which is ensuring that we are reaching the target demographic. I think it will be important also to see an increase in the uptake of the SuperGold card holders as well, because we want to promote those benefits that are available through the SuperGold card.

In terms of the members’ questions about exploring eligibility for the SuperGold card, there is no work under way at this point to change the eligibility of the SuperGold card. The other card holder types, I think you’ve got to be cognisant of the fact that for the Rates Rebate Scheme, it’s about an income threshold. Those that don’t hold a SuperGold card can still be eligible for the rates rebate under the other income thresholds. So other cardholders still may be eligible if they own a home, they’re paying rates, and their income threshold is below the rebate income threshold.

Why was the rates rebate selected? Well, I might be bragging a wee bit, but it is a New Zealand First coalition agreement commitment to explore options to build on the local government rates rebate scheme for SuperGold card holders, so it is a delivery on the commitment of the coalition agreement.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have just quite a specific question, but I think it’s an important one in terms of this bill, and that’s in relation to the advice that the Minister received when creating what I would consider quite an extraordinary secondary legislation power.

Looking at the existing Act at present, there’s a power under section 3 that allows the creation, by Order in Council—so the Governor-General may amend the provisions of subsection (1) substituting any amount for any amount specified in that section. What that means is that the threshold can, essentially, be set by Order in Council, including the maximum total. What this does is it retains that, but it allows an Order in Council resolution in terms of what the Governor-General can do just for super.

That touches on the human rights discrimination provisions, so I would expect a section 7 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet to address the question of whether there’s a reasonable limitation lever in the legislation, or how this is being reasonably limited. Instead of having a reasonable limitation lever, it looks like we’ve gone the opposite way in that the Order in Council also allows the total maximum to be set at any level. A potential outcome could be that anyone who is not on a SuperGold card has a threshold at a much lower level than a SuperGold card member if at a later date, by Order in Council, those other two thresholds are changed.

The questions are really around whether the Minister received any advice in terms of the engagement with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; if so, what that advice was, and what, in her view, is the reasonable limitation being applied in this case?

It is quite an unusual power to have in any legislation in terms of what we already have. It’s known as a “Henry VIII” power, because you’re giving someone who’s not within the legislature, or making a decision as part of the legislature, the explicit power to override legislation. That’s already quite rare, but what this change does is build on that and it allows that decision to be made in prima facie breach of the Human Rights Act as well. I do think it’s important that this is an issue that’s considered by the Minister, and I look forward to hearing her response.

I think I can allay concerns. In 2008, Cabinet agreed that the maximum rebate and income abatement threshold should be adjusted annually in line with movements to reflect inflation from the previous calendar year. Cabinet adjusts that rate by Order in Council. The extension in section 3(1) will ensure that the additional threshold for SuperGold card holders will also be able to be adjusted annually in line with inflation through an Order in Council, similar to that process.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’m very pleased to—

Māngere.

—make a short contribution—yes, finally, thank you. I appreciate the Minister’s comments in the formation of this and the choice of the rates rebate. I want to raise a couple of aspects in terms of—and I spoke about this to the Minister the last time when we were able to make a contribution—the engagement and the public consultation, because we treat our seniors very much with care. For some of them that have very limited incomes, especially now in their retirement age, every dollar counts in their household, so this is a good system that we will be supporting.

However, when I read the regulatory impact statement (RIS), Minister, I am really concerned about the limitations and the constraints of the analysis, because it says right here that Cabinet had a preferred policy and that the department were constrained in the analysis of risks and benefits. One of the things of the system, when it does become available—because it has been chosen; it is being delivered on a political party promise—is that we want to maximise the number of our seniors in Aotearoa that are able to understand (a) the system, (b) the language, and (c) the assessment.

I just have some questions to the Minister around the transparency and understanding. It says here, Minister, that the department doesn’t hold any demographic information. Why is that, regarding rates rebates recipients? When you don’t have a baseline assessment, then someone’s got to make up some information from somewhere, with regards to our SuperGold card holders, because we want to ensure that when the policy is rolled out—we’re talking about two weeks; 1 July 2025, which is really soon, around the corner. My concern is for those who don’t understand the English language as well as they could—it’s around the accessibility of our Māori, Pacific, and ethnic seniors, particularly when you’ve got a system that is going to assist their weekly bills. So I come back to the analysis. Why wasn’t that done properly, so that Cabinet, when deciding that, could have the intensity, the numbers, and just do a really good cost-benefit analysis? So, whilst we are supporting this bill, I want to ask the Minister that.

The information that the department holds on our seniors is really important because then you can get a really good idea around success rate and how well the system will be rolled out—in particular, the time frame. When the analysis is not presented by the department, why is that? It has said very clearly in the RIS that there is a sensitive nature—we get that—but it is important that when systems are rolled out for the benefit of a particular group, particularly the seniors, you have baseline measurements for the uptake. I’ve heard the Minister talk about “uptake”, which is really important because we want to see the success of this policy and of this initiative, which will be targeted to specific seniors in our population. So those are the points that I wanted to raise.

Also, lastly, I do have a concern around the understanding of this policy in communities across Aotearoa where English is the second or third language. They’re very particular about their households and the money that they receive weekly, because they have to rely on their children or their extended families. So, Minister, that’s my plea—that when the system does come up, the territorial local authorities need help in rolling the system out so that the system is effective, so that it goes to the seniors that deserve it and that have worked hard all their lives, and that the rates rebates uptake is rolled out properly. Thank you.

Madam Chair.

The Hon Celia Costello.

Celia Costello?

Oh, sorry! I went to school with Celia Costello.

I thank the member for her impassioned presentations on advocacy for our seniors. I would, first of all, highlight the fact that, again, this is an existing scheme that we’re adding to, and the challenges that the collection of data—because age was not a component of eligibility under the previous Rates Rebate Scheme, it was only income threshold, so it would have been inappropriate for the department to be gathering data about age, when it wasn’t relevant to the eligibility component of the rates rebate scheme, as it was before. We will be collecting that data, moving forward.

I would also highlight—and you’ve highlighted a really important issue—that we do want many people to take up this opportunity. So there has been a range of communications. We have specifically communicated with the councils. Office for Seniors have sent out communications. But I acknowledge the fact that sending this information doesn’t necessarily mean it is taken up. I know there are a number of local constituent MPs who actually sit with their constituents and help them fill in the forms to assist them, and I’m sure you’d add the same as to ensure that we reach as many people as possible—this is the reason why we’re trying to do this.

The SuperGold card eligibility will also allow that information to be part of the SuperGold card hub information, and, again, directing that information to the other discounts being available through the SuperGold card holders will be useful, as well, so that we can optimise those benefits.

So, yeah, the ability to analyse has been restricted because it wasn’t a criteria for the rates rebate eligibility as it sat previously.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got a few questions for the Minister, and thank you for the hint that you might be going to ask me. I really wanted to start with a couple of questions about the focus for the rebate and then move on to ask some wider questions about what options were and weren’t thought about. I guess I’d like to start by leading on to my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question about whether the Minister actually values seniors who don’t own property, and whether she considers that a senior, whether single or a couple, who pays rent is not also paying rates, in that very few landlords would subsidise their tenants by paying the rates unless it came out of the rental income they received.

I also looked at the question of timing and the Minister just referred a moment ago to the coalition agreement. The coalition agreement of November 2023—you must have been doing a lot of work on this beforehand, but this comes to us with the regulatory impact statement saying that in the time available and given the decisions taken by Cabinet, only one option has been assessed. So I just wonder what the Minister was doing about this proposal, this amendment bill, in the time between November 2023 and the announcement in this Budget that they were only able to look at one item.

Then I’d like to move to questions that would really depend on to what extent the Minister talked to the Minister of Local Government. To me it seems like we’re putting a band-aid on the issue—and a band-aid for only a few people—of affordable rates. Has the Minister talked to the Minister of Local Government, either current or previous, about some of the issues about the national rates postponement scheme. I’ve got a list here from Local Government New Zealand about funding and financing tools, and they’re in three tiers. Number one is ones that are on the Government’s agenda, like congestion charging, potentially sharing GST, a regional deal. There are some like the ratepayer assistance scheme that the Government has apparently shown interest in, and one of those is to end unfunded rules and responsibilities imposed by central government.

I understand that through the Budget the bulk of the cost of this scheme will be from the taxpayer, but surely there is an administrative burden, and I wonder if the Minister or her colleague the Minister of Local Government has actually taken the time to consult with Taituarā, local government officials, Local Government New Zealand, or those councils that are part of the consortium for the rates postponement—there’s a group that do the rates postponement together. And in particular, going back to this list of potential support for local government rather than kicking them, tool 20 looks at having a national rates postponement scheme, because out of the 85 councils, I think only about eight or so have a rates postponement scheme that may or may not be tied to financial hardship.

There are a number of reasons why people might want to temporarily postpone rates. They go on to the title of the building in question so that the other ratepayers are not disadvantaged by this and whether there would be some mileage. Unfortunately, the “2 or 20” national rates postponement scheme here is listed under tier 3, the tools that councils want but the current Government doesn’t have an interest in.

This is quite a narrow bill for a group of people. It’s a bit questionable as to how many will be eligible in the end, but would this Minister take up the issue of a national rates postponement scheme as a rather broader way of solving some of these problems?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to pick up on some of the points that have been made, but with different questions, actually. So in terms of the point made by the previous speaker, I note on page 4 of the regulatory impact statement (RIS) that the benefits of the Minister’s preferred option are not necessarily likely to outweigh the costs. What the RIS actually says is that “Given the short timeframes to consider the regulatory [impact] proposal, no assessment has been made.” And then again at point 44 of the RIS, page 15: “Given the short timeframes to consider the regulatory proposal, and that Cabinet policy decisions have already been made, a full cost benefit analysis has not been conducted.” I also refer to the table, which is table 6, and this goes to the previous speaker’s point. She talked about only one proposal having been looked at but, actually, there were options that were ruled out immediately with no consideration, including delaying the implementation until 1 July, which I think would be eminently sensible, given some of the issues that have been raised. There are a number of other options there as well.

So it comes to the philosophical question, and I have heard the Minister say that this is around the coalition agreement. It seems to me that there is a different philosophy from that side of the House, certainly from New Zealand First, that says that something that’s in a coalition agreement supersedes all else; there is no need for policy development or a rigorous process. I’d like to hear a little bit more about whether the Minister agrees with that. I guess that’s an ideological difference, but, if so, it would be good to have that on the record, because anybody in this place who is looking at policy normally would expect there to be a cost-benefit analysis at the minimum. So not only are we not seeing the CBAx but there hasn’t actually been one done, and for the RIS to say that they can’t even say whether the preferred option, whether the benefits are likely to outweigh the costs, is quite remarkable.

So if the Minister is justifying that based on a philosophical proposition that coalition agreements made through politics, not through policy, supersede all else, then I think it would be good to have that on the record. I think the Auditor-General and various other institutions of democracy would have commentary on that. Certainly, they have before, when we look at things like the Gumboot Friday funding, which went through a non-contestable procurement process, $24 million, no contestability of the funds, very little analysis. Is the Minister suggesting that this kind of system is akin to that? If so, it would be good to have that on the record. Also, why could she not wait at least until 1 July? This could have been an announcement outside of the Budget that could have been done with a bit more rigour and then announced at a later date. So that is the option that was ruled out immediately with no analysis. There were other options as well, including a flat rebate to all SuperGold card holders. Why was that not considered?

Also, providing all SuperGold card holders with a 50 percent discount on rates up to $1,600, and “Detailed analysis of this option was not completed but Manifesto Commitments from New Zealand First estimate the cost of this as $1-$1.2 bn.”—I’m really interested in that proposition, because it looks like some initial costings were done, and it would be really good to hear from the Minister. I realise it’s not ministerial work, but certainly some of the evidence that she has relied on for previous decisions have come from alternative sources, so if they had done some costings, it would be really good to hear about why they ruled that out. Was it purely a costing matter, or was it simply to do with the time and the quick time frames in which she had to deliver this policy? If so, and if the philosophical difference is that coalition agreements supersede everything, then, again, having that on the record would be useful.

There was also the option of raising the income abatement threshold for all ratepayers to $45,000, and that would have exceeded the amount budgeted for according to the reasons for rolling it out, but because we haven’t seen the CBAx or any kind of process, it’s difficult to understand why that was ruled out, so elucidating on that would be very helpful. My last one is the last point on the table. So I’m really trying to get a sense from the Minister about the underlying philosophy and justification for this lack of process.

I’ll just go back to the previous commentary around the recognition of other financial needs—those that are reliant on the pension and renting. For all of those factors there is a range of work, but it sits well outside of this piece of legislation, which is about providing some immediate relief in the rates rebate space.

In terms of the consultation with local government, although there was no direct conversation with local government, Local Government New Zealand have posted a press release saying they support the changes to the scheme, which is encouraging.

In terms of the discussion points broadly about the decisions being made around this Rates Rebate Scheme and how we came to these conclusions, I will highlight yet again that this is an existing system that we knew was successful—we knew it was favourably received by seniors, that they valued the system. Therefore, what we have introduced here is an opportunity to provide some immediate relief, and deferring things and all of that seems counter to the discussion around wanting to give relief as soon as we can to those that are desperately in need. This is targeting those that are completely reliant on superannuation as their sole income. It is one tool in the tool box to provide that rates rebate.

In terms of the commitment, this is a broad commitment to cost of living relief, not just purely a coalition commitment around the rates rebate. It was an opportunity to improve cost of living pressures. This is one demographic and one tool that we’ve been able to deliver some immediate cost relief in some small way for those that are reliant on superannuation.

Now, just before I take the next call, I’m aware this is a relatively small part. I’m aware there hasn’t been a select committee but I will be looking for some fairly targeted presentations henceforth.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do have a question that I don’t believe has been traversed at all, and that is in relation to clause 4, which has a definition of “cardholder” in it. Now, I was interested in looking at this particular definition, and I see that it refers back to the Social Security Regulations 2018, which I also have. The definition in the Social Security Regulations suggests that a cardholder is a person who holds a valid SuperGold card issued to that person. Then there is a definition in section 283 of those regulations.

The question I have for the Minister is: at the moment, SuperGold cards are available to those people who are 65 and over, and I am aware that that Minister’s party, and indeed my party, have a commitment to that particular age of superannuation. But I am also aware that that is not a universally recognised position in this House. In fact, the largest party in Parliament has a policy position—and I’ve just checked their website to make sure that that is correct—of raising the retirement age to 67 by 2044. There are many of us, myself included, who would be affected by that, and I am sure many New Zealanders listening to this today may be impacted by that. So I think it is prudent of this committee—and, I think, the hope of all Ministers when they put forward legislation that they feel will be beneficial to the country, and which we in the Labour Party agree is going to be beneficial to New Zealanders—to make sure that that legislation is sustainable over the long term. I wanted to know: will this definition of someone who’s entitled to a SuperGold card change with the possible superannuation retirement age rising to 67, if the National Party were to have its policy implemented, meaning that those people who would currently be covered, come 2044, may not be in a position to receive the benefits of a rates rebate under this scheme?

I think it’s not clear, from what I’ve read—and I have looked into the regulations, as I said—what the situation would be, but I think it would be really useful for the committee if the Minister could clarify that. Often, we might think that 2044 is a long time away. However, when we look at some of the legislation that we have to change in this House, often it’s to do with those future dates and issues with the legislation not foreseeing possible changes—that issues arise and we need to make changes to that quickly. I have had a quick look through the regulatory impact statement and the departmental disclosure documentation. I think this is something that could have been traversed at select committee, so I am interested to hear what the Minister’s view of that is, in terms of the intersection of the retirement age, eligibility for the SuperGold card, and those definitions being used in this Rates Rebate Scheme, in clause 4.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to have a look at clause 5. This relates to the actual figures that are contained in there. This is the clause that we haven’t actually touched on yet, because it identifies what the actual level of abatement is when it comes to income. I have a number of questions that relate specifically to this section, which actually is the guts of Part 1. Because we’re talking about here what the actual threshold is, what’s appropriate, the costings that are associated with that, the lack of analysis, and what’s contained in the regulatory impact statement (RIS), so there are a number of questions related to this clause.

As for clause 6, which is yet to come, there are a number of questions about what it is that the local authority actually has to take into consideration in discharging their duties, and there has not been any comment made around that—so there are no questions around that. But in relation to clause 5, this is, effectively, the two-tier approach, where the existing low-income abatement threshold is set—it’ll be at $32,210 in the new incoming year—and this bill seeks to basically insert the new level for a SuperGold card holder, which is higher than that, at $45,000, and it does basically cover, on analysis, a couple who are both in one household receiving New Zealand super. It wouldn’t actually give them much discretionary income over and above that, to receive the full abatement level.

My question to the Minister is: what analysis was undertaken and what consultation was undertaken? Because these are the sorts of things that we would be exploring in select committee. We would be hearing from those that held a New Zealand SuperGold card, or those that didn’t, and what difference this would mean. This is a Budget measure that has been slated as alleviating cost of living pressures. We accept that; that’s why we support this. But why $45,000? Why not have it at a slightly higher level that acknowledges that there are some seniors in our community who perhaps undertake a little bit of work, that generate a little bit of additional income, who would not be—under this proposal—able to, effectively, be eligible for the full-abatement level.

Now, I get that this is a reducing amount, so the more that someone earns, in terms of the income levels, then the amount of the rebate that they’re able to claim would reduce over time, as that income increases. But my first question for the Minister is: was there any consideration around increasing the level so that it took into account discretionary income? It doesn’t have to be huge amounts of money. But when we’re looking at people in communities who are SuperGold card holders, who would go about doing, even if it’s five hours a week—some employment opportunity that they might do—this would make a huge difference in terms of their inability to be able to actually activate or achieve the full rebate. That is the first question I have for the Minister.

The other one is around the figures. Nobody has talked about what is being described as “$154 million over four years”. Now, how was that figure arrived at? Because the RIS—and it is good to see a RIS with this this Government, I have to say—identifies that, actually, there is quite a level of uncertainty around the confidence that officials were able to provide with the figures, with the uptake, with the costs that this would place on councils; and we’ll get to that later. But how was that $154 million figure arrived at? The other thing is there are a couple of figures floating around—one says $154 million; one says $155 million. What is the accurate figure here, in terms of the appropriation that has been recorded or is sought to be achieved by the Government?

This is something that has been in the pipeline, and considering that this was a National - New Zealand First coalition agreement opportunity, why were these costings not done sooner to give certainty around how much it’s going to cost? So, really, two questions there. One is the discretionary level of income and those thresholds, and whether there was some thought given to actually increasing it from the $45,000 to take account of that. The second one is around that figure: what is it, $154 million or $155 million—$1 million makes a difference in this Budget—and how was that figure arrived at?

I’d sort of first calculate, in terms of the levels being set and how much discretionary income you would allow in that system—unfortunately, the allocation of limited Government resources in the context of social policy is complex and requires brightline tests to be set. Like, there have to be some limitations on what we’ve done. So this has been based upon the foundation of a couple who are solely reliant on superannuation as their only source of income. That was the decision that had to be made. In the fiscal environment that we’re in, it is important that we are accountable for those taxpayer dollars that we take off New Zealanders and, therefore, we’ve set a threshold in that space.

The other component I think the member has raised is around the certainty of the numbers. As I’ve previously stated, we didn’t collect demographic information on the Rates Rebate Scheme. So, in terms of determining how many seniors were taking this up, it was not a calculation, it wasn’t information that we had, we weren’t asking people’s ages when they—so, therefore, determining how many superannuitants were taking up the Rates Rebate Scheme meant that we had to make some decisions. What we did know was the approximation of 66,000 households that were solely reliant on superannuation as their income, and that is the estimate that’s been driven. So, yes, it’s not an exact science, but that was how we reached the conclusions that we’ve reached.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to thank the Minister for answering my previous questions so concisely. It’s really good to see the level of engagement from the Minister and also her level of expertise. Now, I spoke on clause 4, and those questions have been answered.

I want to move on to clause 5. I know the Minister mentioned before the variation in terms of the threshold between one setting for SuperGold card holders and one setting for other ratepayers. That has been clarified, but I want to check with the Minister: in the regulatory impact statement, it does state that the rate for SuperGold card holders was $47,000 for a couple. As far as I remember from the original Rates Rebate Act, it is in terms of a household, not for individuals. Would that be correct? The $45,000, in terms of what we see in clause 5, which inserts new section 3(1AA)(a), is not for an individual amount?

One of the questions I had was whether, in that case, the Minister then considered, rather than looking at an individual household amount, an individual amount, because we know that, in terms of superannuation as well, there have been complications between considering it as a couple and considering it as an individual. Was that idea ever floated? In which case, then, if we’re looking at individuals, that original amount of $32,000 potentially might be sufficient, as opposed to the higher amount.

I also wanted to check, because the departmental statement doesn’t actually specify that any form of Te Tiriti analysis has been done on this. I appreciate what the Minister has said, in terms of there hasn’t been sufficient information—and I’m hoping there is going to be better information that’s going to be tracked as a result of this—but would the Minister be open to, as we are tracking this now with this legislation, there being adjustments in the future, and balancing, depending on what sort of demographic data we will be receiving as a result of this? Those are my questions for clause 5.

Now, moving on to clause 6, I’m really interested in the fact that, for this clause, there are specific ones where the chief executive (CE) of the territorial authority is not required to verify the statement about the following matters, but I really want to check with the Minister whether the Minister would consider some of my amendments to include additional matters as a part of that list. It’s interesting that there are things like ratepayer’s income, other persons, occupancy of the property, etc., which seems really reasonable, but what isn’t fair and, I think, should be captured—and whether the Minister would consider them—is things like a person’s relationship status, a person’s immigration status, and things like a person’s criminal conviction records. I think those kinds of thing are also important to capture if we are going to be looking at things and the CE has the mandate to authorise and not require those sorts of things. I think the additional amendments that I’ve proposed are reasonable and are also in line with some of the other things that we see here. So I want to check with the Minister whether the Minister would consider those amendments.

Since I have a little bit of time left, just going back to clause 5, one of the things I did ask regarding the threshold was also just to ask the Minister to consider the tabled amendment that I’ve put forward as well, which is to increase the threshold—the Minister may not accept the one to increase the threshold for any other ratepayers—from $45,000 to $56,000 for a ratepayer who, at the time the ratepayer applies for the rebate, is a SuperGold card holder. I think that captures the higher threshold in terms of a couple having a higher superannuation threshold of $47,000—unless there is a reason for keeping it at $45,000? Also, it captures what previous speaker Tangi Utikere mentioned as well, in terms of what happens if there are families who are just adding that additional income.

In answer to the first part, regarding the combined household income, if they weren’t a couple or they were on their own, they would be well below the threshold and therefore fully apply for the full rebate.

In terms of the suggestion that we gather more data, I think we’ve already discussed the fact that we want this process to be as accessible and as encouraging as possible. I think it would be both administratively more difficult, but I think it would also be obstructive to the application process if we were asking such personal information about an applicant. The data that is being recorded is the data by which we assess eligibility and that’s all we’re interested in. The SuperGold card is one of those new eligibility components.

The council to whom they submit the application does not review the accuracy of that information. They accept the information as an accurate account, and it is then evaluated so that the rebate can be forwarded. So I would not be considering any additional requirements to add further information purely for the interests of data gathering.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 to insert definitions of “deserving citizen” and “deserving resident” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 4 regarding a community services card are out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s 10 remaining tabled amendments to clause 4 regarding other forms of card are also out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5(2) to replace “$45,000” with “$56,000” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5(2) to replace “$32,210” with “$56,000” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5(2) to insert new paragraph (aa) be agreed to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5 to insert new subclause (4) is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 to insert “unless they reasonably suspect that the statement is untrue or dishonest” be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 6 to insert new paragraph (e) regarding the ratepayer’s medical history be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 6 to insert new paragraph (e) regarding the ratepayer’s criminal history be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 6 to insert new paragraph (e) regarding the ratepayer’s immigration status be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 6 to insert new paragraph (e) regarding the ratepayer’s relationship status be agreed to.

Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 7 and 8, “Amendments about savings”, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I know that my colleague Tangi Utikere has some questions relating to this short part, mainly because it does have an impact on some of the things that we’ve not been able to cover in Part 1. We did have a number of questions around costings and so on.

This schedule here, I really am just wanting to ask the Minister for Seniors about how she sees this being delivered in a way that’s not going to be a postcode lottery through the transitional impact of it. That is because when we look at the regulatory impact statement (RIS) there are a number of risks that have been identified, particularly around territorial authorities’ ability to be able to actually roll out the legislation. There is a date here and it says that if it hasn’t been enacted by July, then it won’t come into effect. But it will be enacted by then, and therefore we are now contingent upon territorial authorities having the equipment and ability to be able to roll this out effectively and in a way that doesn’t make a difference so that somebody in one part of the country is receiving the full benefit and somebody else may not due to the territorial authority’s capacity to be able to deliver.

That was identified as a risk in the RIS where they have said there are four risks. The baseline measurement has been already referred to. The capacity risk we have not touched on at all. If I look at clause 51 of the RIS there is quite an extensive discussion about the Electronic Request Management System (ERMS) being planned to be retired in 2026—which is only a year away due to security concerns—and that’s to do with the Windows servers in places such as Christchurch City Council and Auckland Council, where they have created software for their administrative staff to process applications in a way that’s integrated. But not all councils are in that position. With a July 2025 implementation date, there’s no time to create a new version of ERMS and allow for territorial authorities to amend their systems to integrate with it. That is actually mentioned in clause 54 of the RIS.

It goes on to say that building a system of this nature and testing it would take between nine to 12 months and require additional funding. Council systems would also then need to be amended to reflect the new data fields and calculations at their cost. I do note that as a result of that the policy has only been able to partially meet the quality assurance. Now, that is a concern, but it’s even more of a concern with such an imminent date of 1 July when this is going to roll out, assuming that this legislation passes.

So what we want to know is that there’s going to be equity in terms of geographical equity. I note that Auckland Council and Christchurch Council have made steps to improve their systems. I don’t know where Dunedin Council is in that picture, but as an electorate MP in Taieri—and also the Clutha Council, which is much smaller, probably has not had the opportunity to update its data systems—I want to know that the seniors in my electorate are not going to be unfairly disadvantaged due to the capacity constraints that have been clearly listed in the RIS as a risk for this policy.

I’m going to truncate my contribution because I know that my colleague has quite pertinent questions, and I’d like to see those ventilated, given that this is the only opportunity that we will get to discuss this.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to just pick up on a couple of the issues that my colleague Ingrid Leary has referred to but not delved into. I thank her for leaving those to me. This is in relation to Schedule 1. It’s the transitional provisions that we are debating at the moment, and this really touches on the operational component for local territorial authorities to be able to deliver things in a timely way. As Ms Leary has identified, there is a definite time frame by which this bill would be stood up. We’ll get to the commencement date later. But in terms of those transitional provisions, in terms of eligibility being continued across through to the new council year, it is important.

One of the concerns that has been expressed, though, is the inability for there to have been any consultation with local councils around what this would mean for them in terms of implementation. However, what the regulatory impact statement (RIS) does identify is that there were five councils who were engaged with to get their views. Those five councils have been identified in the RIS: they are Auckland, Christchurch, Tauranga, Manawatū, and Clutha. My question to the Minister is: why those five? Why were those five selected for some form of consultation? The specific elements of what that consultation looked like have not been divulged. So I’d like to know from the Minister, why those five councils were selected. What was the specific nature of the engagement with those five councils, and what were the specific issues that they raised in relation to the roll-out of this particular proposal?

Now, I understand that they may not have been perhaps specifically told about what the proposal might be, but what the RIS does sort of lend itself to, or infer, is that there was some inkling that this was going to happen. The Minister has talked about this being in the coalition agreement between her party and the National Party, so it’s not as if this would not have been something that they were not able to foreshadow. But it is interesting that there were five councils that were selected. How were they selected?

But I think, more importantly, what some of those issues were that they touched on—because what else is in the RIS is the acknowledgment that there would be some administrative costs that would have to be borne by the council for this. In some cases, the RIS identifies that councils could incur costs of up to $200,000. Now, if we all reflect on what $200,000 would mean in our local communities for councils to do, some would say that, in the bigger scheme of things, it’s a little drop in the pot, but that is a significant amount of money. Is there confidence that the transition provisions are able to and are actually going to be delivered to avoid the geographical inequities that Ms Leary has referred to?

This is very, very important. So I’d like to know about those complexities, in terms of costs. It’s suggested from the RIS that it’s $100 million all up. That infers that some councils—I think it was two; the Minister can correct me on that—might incur up to $200,000 and that there would be a splattering of costs throughout the rest of the country for other authorities. From the Minister, I’d like to know, well, what do those sorts of costs look like, not just across the board but for smaller councils—I mean, there is a little bit of diversion between the five that have been referred to there in the RIS. Although two of them might be quite similar, the other three, I think that many members will accept, are large metropolitan areas or councils in terms of the representation.

So my question, firstly, is around those five councils. They’re the only ones that have had a chance to engage with officials on this particular issue or proposal, so I’d like to know about that.

We’d also like to know about the actual amounts that this would lead to for councils, and why has funding not been made available. In the bigger scheme, if this is $1 million, is this not yet another unfunded mandate that this Government seems to want to pass on to or hoist on to councils? Yes, we are supportive of this scheme, but we’re also supportive of ensuring that councils have the tools to be able to deliver aspects for their community. So those are the two questions that I’d like to start with.

I thank members for their questions in relation to the engagement with councils, as it’s an important component and we want them to be advocates of the system as well. In terms of the engagement, in the regulatory impact statement, as you can see from the councils, it was the larger councils where there was some concern about the technical systems that they operate and whether they would be able to adopt it. That consultation has been ongoing and continues. Those councils have all, along with many others that have been consulted, confirmed that they are happy. As Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) has communicated in their press release, they are happy that they are able to roll this out. That initial engagement with the larger councils we based on that. Since then, the department has continued to engage and the response has been very positive in regard to their capacity to deal with it.

Again, I would highlight that this is an existing system that’s already in place that we were adding a broader threshold—so the issues were really around the numbers. Again, as I’ve mentioned previously, the ability for constituent MPs to offer support to their constituents in terms of assisting and filling out the forms and making the process as easy as possible so that those who haven’t taken advantage of this scheme can optimise it—the objective is, of course, to increase the number of people that are accessing this scheme, and we will do everything we can to broaden that understanding and appreciation.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Again, I really appreciate the Minister’s response. I just want to check—the Minister mentioned that it is an existing system and it’s in the system. One of the things in Schedule 1, Part 1, clause 1 that really stood out to me is: “as if the Rates Rebate Amendment Act 2025 had not been enacted.” These are for rates for the year ending before 1 July 2025.

I want to check with the Minister: for those kind of rates, and then for them to go into the new year—i.e., starting from 1 July 2025—would the Minister know if the council’s internal system is able to easily make those adjustments from the perspective of rates postponement? My colleague Celia Wade-Brown previously mentioned that out of about 80 or so councils, eight of them currently actually allow rates postponement as it is. That includes Auckland Council, for example, and even Wellington City Council. So for those people who are going to be applying for and going to the new system but have traditionally been allowed to have rates postponement, does the system then allow the rates postponement adjustment to tick over, on the basis of what we see in Schedule 1, as of 1 July 2025? I’m assuming that’s an easily adjustable system if it’s already been captured, but I’d be interested to hear from the Minister specifically on those who are currently on rates postponement.

The second question, then, that I have for the Minister is—the Minister also just mentioned that this is, again, something that you apply for. Let’s say a person applies for it after this bill comes into effect, will they then get retrospectivity given the fact that they may apply it in September? We’ve heard that, yes, the bill will be active and will come into effect and people will apply for it—but at various times. Would, again, their higher threshold be on the basis of when they applied or when this bill came into effect? I think those are the two questions I would really like to get some advice from the Minister on.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to pick up on a couple of things that the Minister has, herself, brought into the debate, and also just a supplementary question, which I’ll start with first. From the contribution from Lawrence Xu-Nan, when he talked about the retrospectivity, I guess the supplementary question on that is: if there is some delay to the processing of the SuperGold card at the council end—at the territorial authority end—that would seem to be very unfair to the ratepayer, who would otherwise be entitled to that rebate. I’m wondering if she has considered who should bear that cost. Would that be a Government cost? Would the territorial authority, perhaps, have to pick it up, and, if so, how can we be sure that that’s going to happen?

There is, I think, secondary legislation available but, if not, having this on the Hansard would be really helpful so that if, for a ratepayer, for some reason there is a problem with the equipment at the territorial authority, which we’ve already canvassed, and if the ratepayer is told that, say, in an email from the council, they can then present that to the council—if the Minister can just clarify who bears that cost, I think even having it on the Hansard would be really good, in terms of making the case for that poor superannuant, who would find it incredibly stressful. But also, rates are stressful, if they can then recoup that and say, “Well, actually, I applied on this date and, therefore, as a matter of natural justice, I should be able to get the rebate”—that would be very helpful.

The further matter, though, that the Minister herself brought into the debate was something that just piqued my interest, because I understand it was made in a very sincere and genuine way and, as an elected MP, I certainly would be wanting to help anybody coming to my office who would like to apply for a SuperGold card. But I’m wondering if that is an indication that the Minister is expecting MPs and other agencies to be, sort of, supporting the roll-out of this—and then, how is that going to work? She’s just indicated that now, and for list MPs, who don’t necessarily have a permanent base or are not known to be there at particular times, is she expecting list MPs to do that too?

MPs have a huge workload and normally, for those listening, where we try to help is where people have gone to a Government agency and have fallen through the cracks. It might be a matter of housing, it might be a health matter, perhaps. For example, I’ve been helping a constituent recently who has been on a very long waiting list for hip replacements. It’s costing taxpayers a huge amount of money for home care, and actually, although the squeaky wheel shouldn’t get ahead on the list, with some further investigation and letters from an MP, we are able to step in and be that place of last resort to help constituents.

But what I heard from the Minister was something quite different, which was an invitation, perhaps as a matter of course, to be helping constituents to fill out the paperwork for the SuperGold card. Now, I’ve never done that. I’m not sure if my office have, and I know that my very adept staff would be able to support people to do that—and there is probably going to be a flurry of people now coming to the office to get that done. I would welcome that, because we want them to get the benefit of the rates rebate, but it does seem unusual to me that the Minister would be suggesting that, as a matter of course, people would go to their office.

I’m thinking also about the contribution made earlier by my colleague Lemauga Lydia Sosene, who was talking about some of the barriers for our ethnic communities. For some of them, English is not their first language. If we, as MPs, are going to be helping to support the roll-out of this, it could be really useful to have some additional translation material and paperwork available, perhaps some forms done in Samoan, for example—it is Samoa Language Week—that would be really helpful for those electorate MPs.

Actually, given that we have te reo Māori as an official language, perhaps we could also have some paperwork in our offices for that. Certainly, a lot of the people from Te Tai Tonga come to my electorate office, because there isn’t a permanent office anywhere, I think, in the South Island, given that that electorate stretches all the way up to Pōneke—to Wellington. If we’re going to be serious about taking on this duty, which I’m happy to do—I don’t know what it would entail work wise—is the Minister seeing that as a matter of course, or is this something just more as a backstop? I’m keen to understand.

Just in response to the member’s questions regarding the councils’ systems of managing postponement, the bill won’t affect that. The postponement system that the member talked about, councillors have advised that they can deliver on this work, so we don’t have any concerns in that space at this time. Will there be a retrospective effect? No, we haven’t considered that. There’s no retrospectivity. It will come into effect from 1 July 2025, should the bill pass.

In response to the member from Labour’s questions about the processing, I think there’s a misunderstanding about what I was talking about. I wasn’t suggesting that members assist with SuperGold card applications. What I referred to earlier on was that I know of MPs who have assisted members in filling out their rates rebate applications. I’m not suggesting that is compulsory and I’m not suggesting that that needs to be done. There are systems and information in place. There will be further information continuing to be circulated by the Office for Seniors. Councils, I know, have been helpful in the process. So that is not at all the suggestion that I’m making.

In terms of application dates, there were some concerns about processing applications and who would bear that cost and whether there would be anybody penalised. I can assure you that the application date will determine the eligibility. Regardless of whether there is any delay in processing, it’s the application date which starts the process. So how long it takes to process won’t affect what is paid out.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the Minister for Seniors for that clarification. I think what I’m hearing from her is that it is the application day, but is there any discretion that relates to any other time frames, particularly around when councils would be expected to have to undertake particular tasks? There is, for example, in the bill, the expectation that councils are not required to double-check eligibility criteria. Obviously, if this is Schedule 1, the transitional sort of provisions, is that something that can still be dealt with regardless of when an application is received or not, or is there some thinking around that?

I want to also just pick up on the Minister’s point around her expectation that, no, it wouldn’t be list or constituency MPs who would be, basically, taking on board this backlog of applications to assist with. Like Ms Leary has, we all have wonderful staff. I have wonderful staff in my electorate office that would very happily help anyone who comes and wants some assistance, whether it be for an application for a SuperGold card, Minister, or whether it be that they wanted to access this rebate scheme, either under the existing lower-income threshold or with the new one.

I think there is, though, still the outstanding question around where the costs fall, because the Minister hasn’t actually responded to the $1 million that is anticipated or expected as a cost that would currently fall on councils. Why is the Government not making available the $100 million to meet the costs that would otherwise be going into communities all around the country, and, yes, in some cases it’s the $200,000 mark for larger councils, and the Minister has said that that’s largely, I think, related to IT development or opportunities that exist within a local territorial authority. That is none the less a cost that is being borne by the councils. Why is the Government not footing the bill to do that?

The Minister also talked about, in response to my question to her—and I thank her for it—the fact that there is ongoing consultation with councils. Now, that is news to the committee, because we obviously saw that there was some level of engagement with the five named councils—Auckland, Christchurch, Tauranga, Clutha, and Manawatū. The committee was not aware that there was an ongoing level of consultation, I assume, with those five councils, and it might just be that, yes, they’ve agreed that it is acceptable for all five of those councils and they are able to roll it out and they believe they can absorb the costs or what have you, or no, there are three of them that have IT issues.

What’s not clear still, though, from the Minister is: is it just those five councils? Or since this policy announcement, has there actually been a wider level of engagement with a wider level or range of councils outside of those five to reflect, or in response to, some of the transitional issues that might be faced that perhaps the Minister or officials were not aware of—the Government was not aware of—when this was brought to their attention?

So this is about the fact that, OK, all we know at the moment is that five councils in this country have been involved in feedback around this. That’s better than none; I accept that. But now we hear from the Minister that there has been an ongoing level of consultation. Well, what is that, what does that look like, has that been widened or not? Actually, as some of these issues have come to light and given that this was introduced under Budget urgency, there has been the passage of time and the benefit of time since then and now, so what is the level of consultation? What is some of the stuff that those councils have been raising?

We don’t get an updated regulatory impact statement (RIS). We can only rely on what the RIS is in front of us, but there may very well have been some issues, and they may all be positive. It would be great if they were positive and saying that they don’t have an issue with this. But what are the issues that have been raised with the Minister or with officials as part of this newly found ongoing consultation to ensure that with Schedule 1 that smooth transition through to councils around New Zealand is able to take place?

I think, perhaps, I’m not making myself particularly clear, but, as I’ve said repeatedly, there has been ongoing communication with the councils. I think 57 of the 67 have been engaged with webinars, and they’ve been in Local Government New Zealand and sent out communications that they’re supportive of it. Of the five councils that were mentioned in the regulatory impact statement, they have, again, come through this process and supported it. They are just five of the many councils that have been engaged with; they will continue to be supported through this process.

In terms of around where that cost will sit, this is quantifying what that cost might look like. Most of the councils submit these forms in a batch monthly. How they quantify that cost I’m not quite sure, but in terms of that, ready to roll out—all of the feedback that we’ve had from the councils is that they are generally supportive of the process. Local Government New Zealand has come out publicly and said they’re supportive of the system, and, at this stage, we feel confident that they are ready to engage, and no further issues have been raised at this time.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to follow the same line of questioning. I know, Mr Chair, that you’re saying that new points need to be raised, so I just want to go back to the line of questioning that has been followed by my colleagues, and I thank them for raising points on Part 2.

The Minister has explained clearly that from her understanding there are no issues, but I go back to the issue of those who are eligible to apply. There is an assumption that is made by the department that things will come right in terms of the roll-out date, in terms of the eligibility of the SuperGold card, in terms of the understanding of who will be eligible and who will not, because you’ve got to meet the income threshold, you’ve got to meet also the SuperGold card. But what I want to put on record very clearly is that when the roll-out does happen, because there’s a lot of information that we have asked questions on—what I want to stress is the importance of the public engagement of who will be eligible and at what point. Because the department shows here in the regulatory impact statement that without the cost-benefit analysis and with a new electronic rates management system, there are going to be some issues, Minister, with the roll-out, particularly if only five territorial local authorities have had engagement that they have raised.

But that doesn’t speak for everyone. So I go back to what I earlier said, Minister, on those communities that will be eligible for a SuperGold card, and my question is: will the applicants receive the same amount of engagement, will they have a very clear understanding as to if they are eligible as SuperGold card holders, and at what point will they be eligible for rates rebates?

This is really important, and I want to put on record and stress that those households that are eligible for the Rates Rebate Scheme under the new system—at what point do those details need to be spelt out explicitly by the territorial local authorities, not just the five that have had engagement? What about everybody else? If we’re talking about the fairness of a system for our seniors, I want to stress that. My really quick question, Minister, is: will there be the same level of public engagement?

An earlier comment was made by the member Ingrid Leary that there has been a small assumption that MPs, constituent MPs—and I come from South Auckland, and there’s a lot of diversity, and there’s a misunderstanding of officials. Also, please don’t assume that people can just rock up to a Government office. They can’t. There’s a whole lot of things that come with approaching the Department of Internal Affairs or the Ministry of Social Development. You’ve got to go through a whole system.

So what I want to ask the Minister is: will the same amount of engagement, not just with officials when the system is rolled out, also be for the seniors? I continue to stress that for Māori communities, for Pacific, and for ethnic communities, English is not their first language. There needs to be a very clear system that when people can have the benefit of a rates rebate in their household because they’ve got very limited incomes, they will get the same amount of attention and engagement and clear understanding of the language in terms of what they are eligible for. That is my question to the Minister.

I would say it again, and I’m not sure how many times I can repeat this: we have not just engaged with five councils. All 67 territorial authorities have received information through their ratings officers. Webinars with councils have engaged with 57 of those councils. We have sent out information through Grey Power, through the Office for Seniors. We will continue to work with mayors and chief executives. The information has been sent out. I will say it again: it is not just the five councils that have been receiving information.

My only suggestion—and I’m sorry that I’ve created alarm—is that the constituent MPs may wish to assist this process. I am not trying to overburden hard-working constituent MPs, but I am acknowledging the fact that you may wish to assist. But there are lots of tools and information available. We will continue to engage. There will be further information sent out, and, again, the intention is to ensure the engagement—and any suggestions to improve that engagement, I’m sure, will be welcomingly received.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7 to insert new section 2AB is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

We now come to the debate on clauses 1 to 3, “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I won’t make reference to clause 3; I think that’s very clear in terms of the Act that it seeks to amend. However, I do want to pose some questions to the Minister around clause 1, which relates to the title, and clause 2, which relates to the commencement.

One of the things that I think is really important—and we do hear this quite a lot in this House—is that the name of the bill that is making its way through the House should really, truly reflect what the bill is actually about. I accept that sometimes that can be very difficult to achieve, particularly if there are competing aspects in a bill. That’s not the case with this one. It is a very discrete change around eligibility for the Rates Rebate Scheme.

I have an Amendment Paper which would seek to change the name of this bill to, I think, actually, call it exactly what it is, and that is the “Rates Rebate (SuperGold Card Eligibility) Amendment Bill”. I’d really encourage the Minister to consider the appropriateness of that. I think this is a bill that is purely around a change in eligibility for those that hold or possess a SuperGold card. So anyone that’s looking back at this would just look and say, “OK, well, it’s the Rates Rebate Amendment Act”, and might think, without delving deeply into it and looking at the annotations that would follow an amendment Act and what the changes were specifically about—whereas calling it what it is, the “Rates Rebate (SuperGold Card Eligibility) Amendment Bill”, would go more than some way to identify exactly what this bill seeks to address, and that is to deliver eligibility for this scheme for holders of the SuperGold card.

I’m interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that. It is the only Amendment Paper that is in my name. I think it is a sensible one, but I would be interested in whether the Minister was open, at this late stage—given also, though, that this was an Amendment Paper that was drafted under urgency and was tabled on the exact same day as urgency; none the less, I still think that it does ring true.

On commencement, we’ve had a lot of conversations in committee about the appropriateness of councils being able to deliver on this. My question to the Minister on this clause is very simple, and it’s whether she has confidence in being able to have this bill, which will become an Act, effectively coming into force on 1 July, which is not too far away. My colleague Lemauga Lydia Sosene had identified that. I wonder whether there are any concerns around the time pressures associated with this commencement and whether—look, I get the point that the Minister will probably make, which will be that the Government and Parliament will want this to come into force for the coming rates year; I get that. But is it such that it can’t actually be delayed, albeit slightly beyond 1 July, to allow for councils to get their systems in place to deal with this?

Now, the Minister has said that there appears to be some confidence that—well, councils like this idea, ratepayers like this idea, we like this idea, but we want to make sure that it works. So the question to the Minister is around the level of confidence she has that having this bill, or the Act, as it will be known, commence in a matter of two and a bit weeks is still an appropriate time frame, particularly given that there are a number of over-burdened administrative systems that councils around the country are more happy to contend with. It doesn’t have to be smaller councils that will only fit this bill when it comes to some difficulties with systems; there are larger ones as well, and I think that lends itself to what the Minister has said around those councils that are looking at a $200,000 cost which is not funded by this Government. That is an important distinction to make; yet another unfunded mandate that is being put on to councils around New Zealand.

So is the 1 July date still appropriate, or would she be open to amending that so that it is somewhat—just slightly—further out?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start with clause 2, “Commencement”, and then move on to clause 1, “Title”. In terms of the clause 2 and the commencement date, the previous speaker, Tangi Utikere, mentioned some of the viability of the implementation date of 1 July, but I kind of want to hone in on the complementary order that is coming into force at the same time as named here in the commencement date, which is the Rates Rebate (Specified Amounts) Order 2025.

Now, my understanding in terms of that particular order is that this is where it comes into effect for other ratepayers—we’re increasing the threshold to $32,210 from $31,510, which is in that particular order as well as the maximum rebate amount from $790 to $805. But what I’m curious about in this is: what does the Minister for Seniors mean by “immediately after”? Should immediately after, essentially, be interpreted as at the same time, like a few seconds after, or in quick succession? It’s a new thing for a commencement date that I’ve never seen previously on any of the other bills. If it just means a few seconds after, an hour after, it’d be good to know, because I genuinely have never come across that term before, and whether it’d be easier just to say, “at the same time as”.

On to the title, I take note of what the previous speaker, Tangi Utikere, mentioned in terms of his amendment, and I think his rationale is a really important one where through this bill, we’re not looking at a complete system change of rates rebate, but instead we’re looking at some minor adjustments. We are in support of Tangi Utikere’s amendment as well, but we also propose something else here which is that it is best to look at it maybe from a SuperGold card holder perspective or even simply a threshold adjustment, which is what we have here. So our proposal is: after “Rates Rebate” insert “(Threshold Adjustment)” just to again specify that this is looking at a very small portion of it.

I’m still a little bit puzzled, and we hear from the Minister that this came about as part of a coalition Government agreement in terms of looking at adjustments to the rates rebate for citizens, for seniors over the age of 65. But what we haven’t seen—and the Minister has continuously ruled things out outside the scope—in terms of this bill and in terms of the regulatory impact statement is how it benefits more vulnerable communities and vulnerable seniors than other members, and particularly that other members from the Labour Party have mentioned consistently as barriers for access to either SuperGold card or access to this.

So I wondered if the Minister would consider other title amendments that actually, again, more accurately capture the fact that while this is something that is going to benefit, it’s only going to benefit seniors who—to be honest—are eligible to a rates rebate in the first place, who are only going to be homeowners or landlords, but does not consider people who rent, does not consider the broader spectrum of, honestly, people over the age of 65 who are in more vulnerable situations. So I really think that there’s a missed opportunity here—whether the Minister will then consider “Rates Rebate (Great but a Missed Opportunity) Amendment Bill”. I’ll be keen to hear from the Minister in terms of my question on what does “immediately after” refer to in terms of the commencement date and whether the Minister would consider my title amendment.

Just to confirm: the 1 July date is the start of the new rates year. As you know, the rates year is up to 30 June, so this is to come into effect from the start of a new rates year—immediately upon the start of a new rates year.

In reference to the title, I think it is a very small piece of legislation. It is amending the current Rates Rebate Scheme. I think the title accurately reflects that.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendment to clause 1, to insert “SuperGold Card eligibility”, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to insert “(Threshold Adjustment)” be agreed to.

Members, we come now to the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1, “Amendments to principal Act”, which is clauses 4 to 9, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to start by giving an indication of how I see this debate and what we will be doing on this side of the Chamber around how we’re going to frame our debate over the next wee while. First of all, it’s well-known that we absolutely oppose this piece of legislation, so very much for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, I’ve got some big-picture, umbrella questions on where her thinking was around this legislation, what led to this, and the evidence that supported it, and then I’ve got some questions relating to individual clauses. We have a number of amendments that we will table or have tabled that will speak to those individual amendments as well that we are proposing.

On that, I want to just set the scene a little bit. Going through the bill itself and going through the regulatory impact statement (RIS), it seems to me that as it says in the RIS, the Minister has proposed this legislation change to—and it quotes—restore the “balance to collective bargaining situations.” In there, it argued that employers are disadvantaged because they cannot make proportionate responses to partial strikes undertaken by employees during bargaining. What it fails to recognise, in my opinion and the opinion of quite a number of people who work within this area, is the inherent imbalance between employees and employers in the industrial situation, and the fact that employees are inherently in a lesser situation in an industrial situation with that power imbalance.

What this bill does is it takes away many of their rights and much of their ability to be able to bring their position forward in that industrial situation, particularly when it gets to a point that there’s a bit of an impasse, and the fact is that they have nowhere to go other than to full industrial strikes. That was the reason why the partial strike provision was introduced in the first place, so that it would alleviate the need to have the full-on strike and the full-on industrial action.

Just going on from that, the RIS shows that there was no robust evidence on the effectiveness of the bill. Clear evidence of the impacts of these measures should be available—and they absolutely should be available because these amendments have previously been enacted and then repealed—but the effectiveness of these proposals towards the Minister’s aims has not been provided. So my first question to the Minister is: what evidence does she have—and not reckons, but evidence—that this wouldn’t result in a more full-on industrial situation, because rights have been taken away from those particular employees and from those particular workers. So what evidence does show that?

What evidence does she have that employers have been marginalised in this situation, as well? I’ve been through and, as a previous Minister, have overseen a couple of rather big industrial situations, and at no point was it ever the case in either of those situations—and I’m talking about the firefighters and the teachers—that the employers were marginalised in those situations at all, as has been said here in this rationale. What evidence does she have that employers have been marginalised?

So the two questions are both around evidence, as far as her rationale goes, for this bill being enacted in the way that it has been. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Here we are again at the committee stage, discussing another bill brought by this Minister that would take away the rights of workers and put them in unfair situations. Unfortunately, it’s no longer a surprise as there appears to be a continued attack on the rights of workers, and this particular one is in relation to their right to take industrial action.

This bill is a bill that allows employers to, for any action that might breach an employment agreement, deduct 10 percent of that worker’s pay with impunity, and that does not protect those workers from not being paid the minimum wage and it does not protect those workers for their employer unfairly deducting a larger amount of their wages than the proportion of work that they haven’t done. I think these are aspects of this bill which are inherently unfair. There are amendments on the Table which I look forward to asking the Minister about because I think there is an opportunity here for her to look beyond the arbitrary punishment of working people in New Zealand and look to what is actually fair and reasonable legislation, which will fulfil the purported aims as outlined in the introduction statement of this bill. So I do have a number of amendments that I would like to discuss with her.

The first one that I will discuss is in relation to clause 5. This provision in the bill was originally repealed due to the fact that employers were using this in a way which was deemed to be unjustified and unfair in relation to the action taken by employees. That is the reason that this provision was repealed. That aspect was specifically in relation to something which will be put back into law under this particular piece of legislation—that is, allowing partial strikes to be considered for deductions of wages.

I have put in front of the Minister an amendment which will not get away from the inherent unfairness, I don’t feel, of this bill, but it will go some way to alleviating the extreme unfairness that was seen in the prior legislation which was repealed, and it would, in fact, improve this legislation to make it slightly more beneficial to all working New Zealanders. That is specifically looking at the extreme unfairness and pettiness that had been in place, where employers had looked to clothing that people were wearing and badges that people were wearing as part of a partial strike and industrial action, and they had, in fact, deducted wages from those people, despite the fact that they had completed all of the tasks in their job description and all of the tasks in their employment agreement and had, perhaps, gone above and beyond in relation to their effective duties.

Now, this could be something that the Minister could carve out; I implore her to do just that. It is not fair to state that just because someone wears a badge—and it has been noted, with some irony, the particular predilection of that Minister’s particular political party towards doing just that—or an item of clothing, that is, therefore, enough to deduct wages from an employee. The Minister could change this bill to specifically exclude technical breaches of employment contracts that might be associated with items of clothing or adornments like a badge or a brooch that state a political message.

I know my colleagues on the other side won’t be taking a call on this, but I’m sure that if they would, they would say that that is fair enough because that might affect the business. Now, this is something we can discuss later in relation to the public sector, but this doesn’t just apply to private businesses. This applies to every single worker in New Zealand, whether they’re public facing or not, and so that overall statement that it might impact on the reputation of that business is not borne out by the fact that this particular bill goes so far as to allow any technical breach of an employment agreement, like wearing an item of clothing, to be considered a partial strike. So I don’t think that that particular excuse holds water. I think that any reasonable person would not think that not adhering strictly to a uniform policy during a period of industrial action by wearing an item of clothing should mean that you’d take home less wages.

In this bill, as I’ve said before, there is a specific section that allows workers in New Zealand to be paid less than the minimum wage. This is for people that have done their job. What kind of country are we that we do not want workers who do their job—adult workers entitled to, at the bare minimum, the minimum wage—to receive that simply because of something that they wear? I think that that is abhorrent, I think that it is absolutely contrary to our values as a country, and I have a specific amendment around that, which I will talk to later, that would remove that particular item from the legislation.

My question to the Minister is: will she accept my amendment to insert in the definition of “partial strike” in new section 82AA in clause 5 a new paragraph (c) that states “despite paragraph (b), this does not include actions such as wearing clothing or badges that are solely meant as a silent or visual protest while the employee otherwise conducts their normal performance of work as outlined in their employment agreement”? I haven’t put this forward to waste the Minister’s time. I have put this forward because I think this is a well-thought-out, practical solution that would actually strengthen this piece of legislation and make sure that the worst situations of unfairness that we did see when this was previously the law—and then it was repealed—would not occur under this Minister’s legislation.

My colleague Jan Tinetti has specifically asked for the evidence that has been used in formulating this particular piece of legislation, and if the Minister has had evidence to suggest that there are some inherent issues with these very minor, technical breaches of employment contracts that may constitute a partial strike, has she had any evidence to suggest that that is actually going to improve the lot of workers in New Zealand? I don’t think she has. I would be interested to know if she has, and I would be very interested to know if she would consider implementing my very pragmatic, very sensible carve-out that would improve the fairness of this legislation for all New Zealanders and get rid of what is a terrible, terrible injustice that we have. It’s not just scaremongering; it actually happened under the prior legislation.

I genuinely want to know from the Minister: will she consider that amendment or a similarly worded amendment to the same effect, and, if not, why not, and how does she justify that? Is that justification based on advice or evidence that she has received, and, if she has received that, what is it?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will respond to the contributions made so far, and through the contributions, I’ve been hearing about fairness. That is at the heart of why this Government is passing this legislation—it’s about a rebalance of fairness across industrial action. At the moment, the status quo is that in response to a partial strike or partial withdrawal of labour, an employer can either suck up the costs and not do anything, or have a full strike. There is no balance in the middle about ensuring that the parties get back to the negotiating table, but there is also nothing in here about the fairness of the actions on others.

When we’ve been talking about what evidence there may be, over the last few years there has been a number of partial strikes, and I’ll just list a couple. In 2024, hospital-based MRI and nuclear medicine technologists undertook partial strike action, including limits on the number of scans completed each day. This resulted in a reduction of around 50 percent of scans, delays in early cancer treatment resulting in increased waiting lists and increased outsourcing costs, and it required additional front-line staff to cover the striking workers’ radiology work, and so there is an inherent unfairness that the employer’s response is either to accept this or to ask for a full withdrawal of labour, and the people who miss out are the Kiwis who are waiting for their cancer scans.

The second point is that in 2023, teachers undertook strike action which was a partial strike, refusing to teach certain year groups on different days. This seriously disrupted student learning and families, who, at quite short notice sometimes, needed to find other places to have their kids for a day, or who had to give up work for a day to look after their children. There is an inherent unfairness that the response for the employer is either just to accept it, or to ask for a full withdrawal of labour, and so this incentivises getting people back around the bargaining table and not having to have a disproportionate response to the action of a partial strike.

When it comes to the issue of whether or not the items of clothing that Camilla Belich has put forward in her amendment could be excluded, look, that’s not something that the Government will progress with. But I also want to put on record some of the concern that I think it’s been borne out of, which is that in 2017, some St John Ambulance officers took a partial strike action, which was that they had worn their union T-shirts. The concern here was not the union T-shirt; the concern was that they refused to wear a high-vis vest on top of the union T-shirt, which was something that the employer, understandably, wished to uphold in the employment contract because of the nature of the work that they were doing as St John Ambulance officers.

It’s safety.

You’re right—it comes down to health and safety and the obligations of the employer to uphold that health and safety in the community. So, for that reason, I will not be supporting Camilla Belich’s amendment, but this actually does come down to the rebalancing of fairness for employees—yes, the right to strike—but for the right of the employer not just to have to accept it or to ask for a full withdrawal of labour, which is disproportionate, and also for the fairness of the Kiwis who have been missing out on cancer treatments and schooling.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have some questions in relation to clause 5 and the new section 95A, which is in clause 6. But, parking aside the fact that this is a rubbish piece of legislation that will hurt our workers, I have some questions in relation to unintended fiscal consequences that may arise as a result of the provisions in clause 5.

One of the reasons why I ask this is that in the Social Security Act, for example, there’s a definition of “strike”, which in and of itself impacts on people’s eligibility to access, for example, jobseeker support, or other types of assistance. Right now, we have provisions that allow low-income workers who may be facing hardship to apply for things like hardship grants, or special needs grants, as they’re called, but while there is a definition in clause 5 of the meaning of “partial strike”, it seems like the Minister hasn’t changed the definitions in, for example, the Social Security Act to add “partial strike” to that in terms of the provisions of who can access assistance. The interpretation, therefore, that I’m getting is that based on the language in new section 82AA in clause 5, people who are undertaking partial strikes could, in theory—some of them—be able to access financial support from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) if the deduction in pay puts them in hardship.

Now, if that is to be the case, has the Minister accounted for any unintended fiscal consequences that may arise from having a definition of “partial strike” in this bill, but not then, for example, translating that to the Social Security Act, because what we could see is people who have a pay deduction being put in hardship? Particularly, we’re talking about low-income workers then having to access hardship assistance and facing rent arrears, and then having to ask for rent arrears assistance, which is something that low-wage workers could access via MSD. So I just wanted to ask whether MSD was consulted around these potential unintended fiscal consequences that her bill may have as a result of people who are being put in hardship still being able to access assistance from Work and Income due to the language, very specifically, that is found in clause 5 around “partial strike”, and then subsequently in the new section 95A, which allows for that amount to be variable.

I think, to me, this is a really important consideration, because if we take away all the discourse that the Minister just presented around the notion of fairness, the real-life impacts of this bill is that some people could actually be placed in hardship as a result of this. It could include—as Camilla Belich and others have noted—changes in the attire that people wear, and that could result in, say, for example, lower pay. So if the Government hasn’t accounted for potential fiscal impacts that, particularly, the provisions in clause 5 in Part 1 may have, does she think that it was being responsible to not have consulted with MSD about the potential impacts and the contradictions in definitions found in this bill versus those in the Social Security Act? There’s no definition in the Social Security Act of “partial strike”, and the way that “strike” is defined in that Act seems like it would not encompass everything that is in here. Does she think that that is problematic, and, if not, why not? If she does have information about unintended physical consequences, would she be able to front up to the House and reveal what those are so that the general public understands what additional pressures may be put on MSD as a result of people needing assistance from them?

Lastly, I did want to just seek clarification—and I think it would be good to put it on the Hansard—about what happens to KiwiSaver contributions as a result of those pay deductions. Would those be affected or not, because, obviously, that’s been a feature in those changes in the Budget. So I think it could just be useful for the Hansard for the Minister to clarify to the committee what happens in relation to them.

To recap, I do think that the way that she has decided to add a definition of “partial strike” in here while perhaps not looking at how that is defined in other pieces of legislation does feel problematic, mostly because they’ll have a fiscal consequence. That fiscal consequence is real, and that’s why we’ve been concerned in the House. What we’ve been concerned about is the real fiscal consequences for low-wage workers that this bill is punching down on, so any clarification on unintended fiscal consequences as a result of the provisions in clause 5 would be great, and also on any consultation that she may have had with MSD in relation to this potentially being a gap that we’ve identified. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It was clear to anyone listening to this debate that we on this side of the House consider this to be an odious bill. Rather than rebalancing employment relations, it’s yet another example of tipping the balance in favour of employers and undermining the rights of workers to collectively bargain for a fair share of the wealth that they generate.

I wanted to add to the list of questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety to consider that the big contradiction that lies at the heart of this bill that was kind of illuminated at select committee, but not really properly explained or resolved, and that is what this means in terms of the place of the contract in employment relations, which of course is central to all of the way that we think about workplace relations and how we govern them. What this bill, effectively, allows is for people to have their pay deducted for abiding by the terms of their employment contract. Now, on the face of it, that seems bizarre, but that is, in fact, what this bill does.

I’d point people to new section 82AA in clause 5, in Part 1, which is, essentially, the definition of a “partial strike”, which includes “a reduction in the employee’s normal performance at work, normal output, or normal rate of work:”. Now, as everybody knows, an employment contract sets out and specifies the details of what an employee is required to do—the rights and responsibilities—but in every example, I would argue, there is always a range of kind of informal and flexible arrangements that develop between an employee and an employer. It might be the understanding, for example—it might not be in their contract, but it might be that in certain circumstances—that an employee will stay behind a bit later to help clean up after some event or some activity. It might be an understanding based on a quid pro quo with the employer that an employee may backstop another employee in the team when something needs to be done. It’s not in the employment contract, but it’s just one of those things that you’d do to make sure that the team works effectively and that a workplace is efficiently run.

The example that we talked about a lot in select committee was teachers who coach sports teams, and that’s a very common example. There wouldn’t be a school in the country where teachers don’t routinely do things that are outside the explicit terms of their employment agreement, but they do it out of a sense of pastoral care and commitment to the students and a desire to make sure that the school is successful and works well and provides a great environment for the students.

All of those little flexible kind of arrangements that develop in an employment relationship would arguably, I think, come to be seen to be the normal output of an employee, but it appears, under this bill, that if someone stops coaching that sports team, they stop backstopping another employee, or they stop staying back behind to help clean up after some kind of event, which are things that aren’t in their employment agreement—

But are not paid.

—yeah—but that could be considered to be part of the normal output, then that can be deemed and construed to be a partial strike. Is that right? Is that fair? Is it consistent?

I think it’s a total contradiction at the heart of this bill, and I invite the Minister to explain what her thinking about this is. Does she accept that it’s a contradiction, and what about the practical consequences of doing this? What are employees going to do? Are they going to say, “Well, I’m going to stop doing all those things.”? I would really like to hear some answers to that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start by focusing on clause 5 and new section 82AA around the definition of “partial strike”. We’ve heard what the Minister said before and some of the examples, and I’ll come to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety’s example in a bit, but just picking up on Camilla Belich’s question around items of clothing, I really want to unpack the exact wording of the definition of “partial strike”. I want to test a few scenarios with the Minister on the applicability of that definition and who that burden of proof is then on.

So in terms of the definition of “partial strike”, paragraph (a) of that definition talks about “perform some work” and in paragraph (b) it talks about a break in terms of “normal duties, normal performance … normal output,” or a “break their employment agreement,”. Now, can I just check: if the employment agreement doesn’t specify anything about items of clothing, is it a break of the employment agreement and what would be the determining factor on that? Would that be a mutual decision made by the employer and the employee, or does that decision making solely rest with the employer, because under any good contractual agreement, the benefit of the doubt and also the interpretation and any changes in the interpretation rests on the party that did not draft the agreement in the first place. So would there, again, be more case load or challenges through the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) not only on a matter of interpretation of the legislation but also in terms of the employee’s employment agreement?

I also want to check, again, in considering having an employee perform some work—because I remember this, possibly, as part of the select committee stage, when questioning one of the submitters—whether working to rule is considered to be a partial strike, because in some cases, working to rule has been interpreted as a partial strike. However, if a person is working to rule, it is not considered to be a partial strike under the definition in this. So if an employee was striking in a form of working to rule and they’re being slapped by this, would they then have probable cause to challenge that with the ERA? That is my second question.

My third question is: what data does the Minister have when it comes to there being a genuine change—or what then would the employer need to produce to suggest that there is a genuine change in productivity? In terms of the regulatory impact statement—and the Minister has mentioned the instance with, let’s say, St John Ambulance officers and the instance with Health New Zealand—that is data that possibly we could track, but most of these sorts of things possibly happen in the private sector. So what data does the Minister have that is genuinely from the private sector that a partial strike has led to a reduction of productivity, which means a reduction in the normal performance of work, because if an employer cannot prove that there’s a genuine reduction, rather than just saying “We think there’s a reduction in productivity.”, how would that be upheld when things like this get challenged? That’s my third question.

My fourth question is around what the Minister has said in terms of the backlog in the Health New Zealand example. I reject the Minister’s trivialisation of why employees would conduct partial strikes in the first place as a way of—do you know what? In general, people don’t do that for fun; people do that because of a genuine fundamental issue that they cannot have agreement on with the employer, and I particularly reject the notion that the Minister proposes of pitting parents and patients against teachers and health staff as a way of saying, “Oh look, what about this?” As a matter of fact, most people would agree that teachers and health staff and nurses should have the best workplace conditions possible, and so I would just like to consider the Minister to reflect on her example.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to ask a very quick question, and then go on to the question around the amendment that I have tabled in my name on new section 82AA in clause 5. My first question is just in relation to an answer that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety gave around the question about clothing that my colleague Camilla Belich asked her. She talked about whether, considering that partial strikes are intended to include non-compliance with an employer’s policies and procedures that do not give rise to loss of productivity—and my colleague talked about the clothing side of things and that definition in new section 82AA. Just as that question was being asked and the Minister was giving her answer and gave the example of the St John Ambulance officers, I wanted to ask whether she considered the likes of Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s (FENZ’s) industrial action, and what the firefighters did with their industrial action with FENZ in 2022, I think it was, when they used—

Was that when you had internal affairs?

Yes, actually, Sam, that was when I was the Minister, and I’ve already said that. You weren’t in the Chamber when I said that, so just for clarification, I’ve already mentioned it before. You should keep up with the debate maybe, which would be really good.

It would be better if the member used full names and referred to the member not hearing it—

Oh, thank you—Sam Uffindell.

—and not the member not being in the Chamber, OK?

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

What I wanted to ask about in that case is when they used their fire engines as a little bit of a billboard to let the public know what their issues were—which was a very creative way of getting that out there as part of their industrial action—it was very similar to the uniform policy that the Minister answered before about St John. So does the Minister see something like that as being a partial strike, because if that’s the case, it seems to me that anything that is deemed to be a partial strike is taking away every single bit of industrial action that employees have open to them, in which case, this isn’t rebalancing; this is absolutely taking the balance well out of the employees’ ability to be able to actually get their messages across.

I’d really like to know the answer to that one, but what I wanted to talk about—and my colleague Phil Twyford mentioned it—is that I have an amendment around new section 82AA in clause 5, and actually giving some definition around “normal performance”, because I feel that that is a very generic term that can be misused by any employer and it is likely to be misused around that. We talk about working to rule, and my colleague talked about teachers and their ability to be able to take sports outside of their normal time. I really would like to know whether the Minister thinks that that is the same as a partial strike. It’s not in their employment agreement that they take those things, but they have volunteered to do that, and, as part of their industrial action, they have then said, “Well, we’re not going to go down the route of only having certain year groups or teaching certain year groups, but we are going to work to rule. We are going to keep to that employment agreement, and we will not be taking any extracurricular activities.” Is that seen as a partial strike?

The reason that I ask that is because those roles are volunteer roles—I mean, I’ve done those myself. They’re usually given to the last person to put their hand up, or it is usually given to the youngest and newest teacher in the staffroom to take those. I know, because I have been one of those people and I earned my stripes not to teach certain sports at certain times when I got a little bit older, but I think that that would be very, very unfair if that was deemed to be a partial strike, so I have put forward an amendment that would clarify that. I wonder whether the Minister is open to that but also does she think that that would constitute as a partial strike—so there were two questions there.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking to a number of the contributions, the member Ricardo Menéndez March asked specifically about interactions with the Social Security Act. The definition of “strike” in the Social Security Act connects to the definition of a “strike” in the sections of the Employment Relations Act. The definition of a “partial strike” in the bill must be a strike as per section 81 of the Employment Relations Act, so a partial strike is a subset of a strike, and there is no need to change either of these Acts.

Ricardo Menéndez March also asked about the Ministry of Social Development. They were consulted as part of the usual agency consultation, ahead of taking the paper to Cabinet. But when it comes to specific fiscal consequences, there wasn’t, I believe, a necessary need to try and model this in any way, because it’s very difficult to know what will happen in the future. But there are some kind of fiscal implications that you could infer. For one, when we’re rebalancing the ability for business owners to respond, this has an implication that the business owner doesn’t have to either accept the full costs of the partial strike with the lowering of normal work, or go to a full withdrawal of labour and a complete withdrawal of that pay.

So the next question, then, was: how does it impact KiwiSaver? The standard approach for how KiwiSaver applies when a deduction is made to an employee’s wage will apply as normal, so there is no need to amend the KiwiSaver Act.

Phil Twyford, as well as Jan Tinetti, raised the issue of teachers and extra duties. Whether an action is considered a partial strike will be quite case-specific, but when it comes to being in relation to things like coaching, which was raised by both members, if the employment agreement explicitly includes coaching as part of the role, then refusing to coach would be a breach of that agreement and that could be a partial strike. If coaching is not explicitly included but was considered to be part of the teachers’ duties that they received renumeration for based on past practice and employment conversations, it may be that refusing to coach could be considered a breach of their employment agreement, or considered to reduce their normal output and, therefore, it could be a partial strike. But I want to reiterate that this is very case-specific, and I can’t talk to any specifics of cases in the future that would be considered those.

The next question, then, from Lawrence Xu-Nan was: if the employment agreement does not require a uniform—once again, that’s very case-specific, as some employment agreements might include a requirement to comply with the company’s policies, so it could depend on what is covered by other company policies as part of that contract. The employer would determine if they consider that they can make a deduction, but if there is any disagreement, you can use the dispute resolution available.

The previous answer I gave is also attached to Jan Tinetti’s amendment. The Government will not be supporting that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. While we’re still on clause 5, I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank the Minister for her response to some of my earlier comments, and also ask some follow-up questions. I also just wanted to spend a tiny bit of time looking at—as we are on Part 1 now—the reasoning in the departmental disclosure statement and the regulatory impact statement (RIS) that has been used by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety in determining this course of action in relation to this bill.

The first thing I just wanted to follow up with the Minister on is this: in response to my question around my amendment that would prevent this bill being used unfairly, in my view, when people are simply wearing an item of clothing, she cited an example where she had noted health and safety requirements associated with that item of clothing. I accept that it is correct in some instances that there are items of clothing that need to be worn for health and safety reasons, and another example might be a helmet or protective wear. So a follow-up question to the Minister is: given that she has used that example as a justification as to why the Government would not be considering an amendment of this nature—which I do think is a sensible amendment, and it would actually get around a lot of the fundamental, overt unfairness that is being brought into the House by this bill—would she consider an amendment that disallowed deductions for items of clothing or other adornments that are worn, except where it is a requirement that that particular items of clothing be worn for health and safety reasons? I think that’s a reasonable question, and it would be something that I would be happy to amend my proposed amendment to allow to happen. I think that would be a really sensible way forward.

I also wanted to ask the Minister about this. There is reference in the departmental disclosure statement for advice provided by the Ministry of Justice on this particular bill. I haven’t seen that advice and I couldn’t see that in the regulatory impact statement, and I wanted to ask her what that was.

The other thing that I noted that was redacted in the regulatory impact statement was the international relations section. Was it redacted for the reason of international relations? I wanted to ask the Minister, given that redaction and given that we are now discussing this in the committee stage, is she able to provide advice as to whether the proposals that she has outlined will undermine our international obligations under our fair-trade agreements—notably, our fair-trade agreements with the UK and the EU, which specifically provide that there should not be a reduction in labour standards—and whether she has considered that?

I do have a point which I won’t speak to now, but it is in relation to clause 6, which I do want to talk about in relation to comparable jurisdictions. But this is a separate point. This is about our international obligations that we do have, and also our obligations to the International Labour Organization, which, I understand, is meeting at the moment, so I wanted to ask the Minister about that.

The other thing I wanted to ask while we are still on clause 5—and it is related to my other questions—is whether she considered that we do have a definitional section in clause 5, which is what we’re talking about at the moment. We have got a definition of “partial strike” and we do have a lot of discussion around normal duties. Did she consider putting in a definition of “normal duties”? I think that if she did put in a definition of “normal duties” that was more consistent with the minimum required to complete one’s work, that would, potentially, get around the concerns around a work to rule, which would be considered a partial strike under this bill, and it would get around the concerns raised by my colleague Phil Twyford. So did she consider putting that in this?

Just while I am still asking questions around this consultation, the Minister has in the departmental disclosure statement and in the RIS talked about and mentioned public sector consultation. Was there any consultation with the private sector? I cannot see that in this particular bill, and it is particularly pertinent because there are a lot of justifications which relate to the private sector. So I want to know that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just tick off a few more items. Lawrence Xu-Nan had a question about the private sector and the impact of partial strikes there. Look, I have seen private sector partial strikes. This was apparent with the train operators in Wellington. It is also important to note that this is not actually a very radical bill. This is going back to the 2017 era, before Labour changed the law in 2018. Public sector productivity is important and private sector productivity is important, but there are other jurisdictions around the world that have regimes for partial strikes, including Australia and the UK, which are countries that we quite often compare ourselves to—and so I see that as a response also to Camilla Belich.

Jan Tinetti had a question about firefighter strike action and billboards. The particular case that she has referenced would be very case-specific and would depend on what the employees’ agreement and company policies involved.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also asked about whether a disagreement over productivity and output has occurred, or whether that has gone up or gone down, and how that would be resolved. There is a dispute resolution process provided in the bill, using the usual employment processes like mediation and the authority.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have got a point I’d like to make in relation to the information made available in the regulatory impact statement around clause 5. But I would just like to highlight that we on this side have been trying to ascertain how this is going to play out.

We’ve given the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety some very different scenarios, and each time we have heard that that’s case-specific. Well, that’s the point we would like to kind of understand, and the workers of New Zealand would also like to understand how this is going to work and play out. So the Minister’s response to these questions by saying that that’s case-specific and, therefore, not responding to them is not an adequate answer for us on this side or for the workers impacted by this legislation.

I would encourage the Minister to consult with officials and maybe be able to give some further consideration to some of the instances that this side of the House have offered in order to understand the practicalities that this bill will have. That comes back to the main problem that we have, which is that the bill specifies that a partial strike can be defined as “a reduction in the employee’s normal performance of work, normal output of work,” and yet the bill allows sanctions for actions undertaken as part of a partial strike that cannot be reasonably construed as impacting upon the workers’ normal performance of work.

When we look into the bill itself, there is no explanation as to what this bill is aiming to achieve. What is the output?

The Prime Minister is big on outputs. When I read the commentary of this bill, it simply repeals what was put in place under the Labour Government in 2018, without stipulating whether it is increased productivity, whether it is more jobs, or whether it is higher employment. What is the outcome that these changes make, because when we look at the regulatory impact statement, the officials have stipulated that they have tried to identify data on the use of partial strikes and any correlation with the length of bargaining, but they state that there have been significant data limitations. So there is no analysis of what the solution is that this Minister is providing via this legislation, or as to what the problem is.

I would really love to hear from the Minister what the problem is that this legislation is responding to, because the officials themselves state that “We have concerns … regarding the quality of data as it is self-reported by the employer and therefore reliant on the employer accurately providing information regarding the strike. MBIE does not have any mechanisms under the legislation to compel employers to comply in reporting strikes to MBIE. In addition, prior to 2014 not all work stoppages were included in reporting. Work stoppages were only included in the report if they involved more than five person-days of work lost.”

I would like to understand on what analysis and on what evidence the Minister has concluded that this legislative change is required. The problem in that is that the regulatory impact statement relies on absolutely nothing to put this forward. The regulatory impact statement lacks qualitative data in any way to support the recommended option that has been put forward via this legislation. The lack of qualitative data, to a limited extent, is just compensated through the use of qualitative evidence, and that has actually resulted in reliance on historical evidence, the use of anecdotal evidence, and untested assumptions being made. There is absolutely no evidence that consultation has been undertaken in arriving at this course of action, and, furthermore, it raises real concerns as to how this legislation will impact workers in New Zealand.

I would like to acknowledge that my colleague Camilla Belich has pointed out the redacted sections in the regulatory impact statement regarding international obligations. This is the second piece of legislation that this Minister has brought to the House which could potentially breach our international obligations, with the previous one being the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women with regard to pay equity.

When we have our local laws, there is a real concern with the general direction of workers’ rights in this country when we are contravening international agreements. It is our domestic legislation that is being eroded to such a point that we now look to international human rights and international obligations to try and pull this Government back into line when they are contravening what are very fundamental human rights. So I believe it is absolutely unacceptable that the regulatory impact statement of this bill is simply redacted in relation to those international conventions for labour and workers’ rights. This Minister has an obligation to tell all of those workers in New Zealand who are impacted by this bill whether or not she has received advice that has contravened their rights in terms of the international agreements that we have signed up to as a country.

I’ll start with the contribution made by Ginny Andersen, in part because Ginny Andersen has been a Minister before and will be well aware of the role of being a Minister, as opposed to being a lawyer. I want to make it very clear that I’m not a lawyer, nor would anybody expect me to be giving legal advice on specific cases. I am a Minister. I’m not a member of the Employment Relations Authority. I’m not a member of the court. I don’t have purview to look into individual employment agreements and individual company policies to have an in-depth understanding of every collective agreement and whether or not every single action that could be underneath an individual or collective agreement or the variety of different employer company policies across this country would interact with the partial strikes legislation, and it’s odd to me that anyone would expect a Minister, who sets the laws, to have that level of detail of every individual or collective agreement and every company policy, or to be providing legal advice.

Now, the next question that she raised was the problem in regards to the bill: what are we actually trying to address? It’s quite clear—it’s in the purpose statement and it’s been through the select committee—that the purpose of the bill is to provide for a more effective and efficient bargaining environment where rights and consequences are more balanced and which minimises undue impacts on consumers and the public.

Camilla Belich wanted to refer again to the high-vis example, and why not limit it to those cases. Well, look, this is a good illustration of how it’s not possible to legislate for all circumstances. Like I have referred to in my contribution to Ginny Andersen, I’m confident that allowing employers, employees, and the employment institutions to make those judgments is the right approach.

Camilla Belich also asked about whether or not the bill complies with our international obligations. The Government has a range of international obligations, and I’ve taken these into account in my decision making.

Camilla Belich also asked what advice I had received from the Ministry of Justice. The advice from Justice was that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet that occurs for all bills—this is available on the Ministry of Justice website, and they concluded that it is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

There was also a question from Camilla Belich about consultation with the private sector. Stakeholders from any walk of life have had the opportunity to provide their views through the select committee process.

There was also a question about whether I considered including a definition of “normal duties”—no. What is considered to be normal duties is, once again, very case-specific, and that would be far too detailed for this type of law.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also a little while ago asked about work to rule. There is a misconception that all work-to-rule measures will be affected by this change. Once again, this is case-specific and it depends on employees’ employment agreements.

I’m going to call Ricardo Menéndez March. But what I do want to say is we’ve been having some very full answers from the Minister and we’ve progressed a number of issues, and I’m listening for new questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair—I appreciate it. I just wanted to follow up on an answer that she gave in relation to my question, and I’m just trying to clarify. The Minister spoke about how there was consultation with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) in relationship to potential unintended fiscal consequences. I heard that the feedback that she had received was that there was no need to model, but if I look at the regulatory impact statement (RIS) and at the list of entities that were consulted, MSD is not named.

There’s nothing in the regulatory impact statement that actually talks about consultation with the Ministry of Social Development, and so I just wanted to give the Minister the chance to clarify to the committee whether they were actually consulted and what the scope of the consultation with the Ministry of Social Development was. I’m just surprised that she was able to tell us that, apparently, to her recollection, there was no need to model those potential consequences, or that it would have been difficult to model the consequences around, for example, the increased need for special needs grants. But it’s not reflected in the RIS, so was that just omitted? Did that consultation happen later down the line after the RIS was produced, or when did that consultation happen?

That takes me to clause 6, around the ability to, I guess, have some flexibility for the employer in terms of the level of pay deduction. One of the other areas that hasn’t been touched upon is the interaction around that and the accommodation supplement—which I didn’t touch on earlier—when, for example, it comes to the calculations of the accommodation supplement, which we haven’t raised before. I’m interested to know, for example, if there’s an ongoing partial strike where there’s an ongoing pay deduction, whether she expects—while I can accept that maybe she did seek consultation with MSD that perhaps there is no modelling, but I ask whether she is aware that this could result in an increase of those on the accommodation supplement, even though she may not have the exact number.

This is because with the way that that is modelled, due to an interaction between the base income with your rent, the need for the accommodation supplement could be increased, and I raise this in relation to clause 6, because I think that that’s the most appropriate way to raise it. I’m just really perplexed. If she is saying that there was engagement with MSD, why don’t we have that anywhere in the RIS and the departmental report, or in anywhere else?

I just want to seek clarification from the Minister as to what was the extent of consultation with the Ministry of Social Development and why is there no paper trail of an acknowledgment of that level of consultation. I wonder whether this is in the redacted stuff around the anecdotal pieces in the RIS, but I would think that that would not relate to the anecdotal components that were redacted in the regulatory impact statement. So if the Minister would like to point out exactly when and how she consulted with MSD and why that’s not anywhere in the documents, that would be great.

Now, finally, I’m also seeking clarification from the Minister because she spoke about how section 81 of the Employment Relations Act relates to the definition of “strike”. But she’s adding a completely new section called section 82AA, and that’s a separate section, right? So I just want to, once again, try to seek clarification from the Minister in giving her the opportunity to potentially clarify, because it’s a new section. It’s not like section 81A, but she’s adding section 82AA. The Social Security Act does not refer to section 82, but it refers only to section 81 of the Employment Relations Act. So I just want to test out whether the Minister was correct in making the assumption that the definition of “strike” actually flows on to this new section 82AA that is being added in this bill.

Just following on from that, I acknowledge that she did engage with my initial questions. But that’s now opened up a whole raft of questions because there’s nowhere here where we can see that there’s been engagement with MSD, and I’m really concerned that we did not have access to that information if it did actually occur at some point during the legislative process. Thank you.

I call Camilla Belich. Now, the member referred before to looking to some new questions, so that would be appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I do believe we’ve traversed clause 5, and now I would like to move on to clause 6.

I also am aware that we’ve got into a bit of urgency mode lately. This has had a select committee stage, and so I’d like the questions to really home in now. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for that guidance. I just would also note that the substantive sections of this bill are in clause 6. There’s actually several, I think—it’s these two pages and half of the other pages are on clause 6, so it is quite a big clause. I’ve got two amendments to clause 6 and I want to speak to the first one of those amendments now, if I may, Madam Chair.

Yes, you may.

I think I have about eight amendments, so I don’t have as many as I would in urgency, if Madam Chair is concerned about that.

My second amendment is, again, made in good faith, and it is, I think, a sensible and reasonable suggestion that the Minister should consider in relation to this piece of legislation. It talks to new section 95C in clause 6, which looks at the way pay deductions are calculated. I have suggested that the Minister looks at a different way of implementing partial strikes through this amendment, and that is to use a proportionate approach based on the actual work that is not undertaken by the employee.

Now, this is a really important point because in the regulatory impact statement, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials provided the Minister with a number of different options in order to proceed with this legislation, and one of the options put to the Minister as a credible option—and that’s what I’m suggesting today in the Chamber—is to enable employers to make only a proportionate pay deduction for partial strikes. I think that it’s important to note that particular section as it relates to my amendment to clause 6, which is this particular option, which the Minister didn’t take, but I’m suggesting that maybe she should revisit it. It is that employers would be able to deduct the amount that is proportionate to the amount of work not being performed, so that for so the amount of work you don’t do, you don’t get paid for.

That is actually the rhetoric that has surrounded this legislation, which is that people shouldn’t be paid for work that they don’t do. This amendment and this option—had the Minister gone ahead with it—would actually implement that rhetoric into law much more fully than the legislation that we see before us.

The regulatory impact statement states that “This could be considered the fairer approach for employees and employers, as the amount deducted [would] never be … over the value of the work … being performed.” Notably, this is the situation in two of the jurisdictions that the Minister has mentioned, both today in relation to the UK and in select committee in relation to Australia. That is the situation undertaken in the UK and Australia. In the UK and Australia, they have a proportionate approach to partial strikes. What the Minister has determined to do in this instance, under this bill, is not to implement a proportionate approach. She has decided to implement an approach that would have one option of a proportionate approach, or a second option of a blanket, instant 10 percent reduction in wages.

My amendment to clause 6 would look to the advice of MBIE, look to our international partners and what they think is reasonable in relation to addressing a partial strike, look to general reasonableness and to, of course, why you should have a higher amount deducted from your wages. For example, if you did a partial strike of only 2 percent of your job, you would get a 10 percent reduction—that is what this allows. So my amendment is to change that by deleting new section 95C(3) and to actually implement a proportionate system similar to that of Australia and the UK in New Zealand.

Just a further point while I have the call: the Minister said private businesses were able to submit through the select committee process. She should note that out of the 620 submissions that the Education and Workforce Committee received, 606 opposed the bill, and so that should be taken into account. If you’re looking at what the select committee said, it was that this bill should be binned.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll start with a response to Ricardo Menéndez March. Look, in repeating myself, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) was consulted as part of the usual agency consultation ahead of taking my paper to Cabinet. I don’t believe it was necessary to ask specifically about fiscal and financial consequences, so that’s my view. He asked why the regulatory impact statement (RIS) then doesn’t actually state that MSD was consulted. The RIS doesn’t list which agencies were consulted, as it’s not normal for a RIS to have that. The agencies that were consulted are listed in the Cabinet paper, which has been proactively released on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s website, and it includes MSD.

Camilla Belich was also asking about the ability to make a fixed deduction of 10 percent in relation to her tabled amendment. I’m not supporting her tabled amendment, because removing the ability to make a fixed deduction of 10 percent would impact employers’ ability to make a deduction in situations where it’s difficult to calculate a proportionate pay deduction.

I move that debate on this question—

Sorry, I’ve just got a point of order—just a moment.

Point of order, Madam Chairperson. The Minister has just stated that it’s not appropriate for the agencies who were consulted to be included in the regulatory impact statement. The regulatory impact statement states that the Public Service Commission, the Ministry of Health, Health New Zealand, and the Ministry of Education were consulted, so I think that that is incorrect and the Minister may want to reflect on that statement.

It is a debating point, I’ve just been advised, and not a point of order. It’s actually a debating point.

I’ve just consulted with my officials, and they’ve told me I was correct.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 262 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 5 to amend paragraph (a)(i) of the definition of “partial strike” in new section 82AA by inserting the words “as outlined in the employment agreement” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 5 to amend paragraph (a)(ii) of the definition of “partial strike” in new section 82AA by inserting the words “as outlined in the employment agreement” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 5 deleting paragraph (a)(ii) in the definition of “partial strike” set out in new section 82AA be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 5 replacing paragraph (b) in the definition of “partial strike” set out in new section 82AA with words beginning with “break their employment where it is a breach of contract and not a withdrawal of goodwill;” be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new paragraph (c) into the definition of “partial strike” relating to the wearing of clothing or badges be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 6 inserting paragraph (e) into new section 95A(2) preventing pay deductions for an employee earning minimum wage be agreed to.

The Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 6 replacing 95B(3)(c)(i) is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 6 inserting paragraph (d) into new section 95B(3) requiring notices to specify a deduction amount be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 6, replacing subparagraph (ii) of new section 95B(3)(c) requiring at least 10 working days’ notice before a first deduction is made be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 6 replacing subparagraph (ii) of new section 95B(3)(c) requiring at least 15 working days’ notice before the first deduction is made be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 6 replacing subparagraph (ii) of new section 95B(3)(c) requiring at least 20 working days’ notice before a first deduction is made be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 6 inserting subsection (5) into new section 95C requiring an independent arbitrator to oversee deductions be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 6 deleting subsection (3) of new section 95C be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 6 replacing subsection (3) of new section 95C providing for employers, unions, and individuals to apply to the Employment Relations Authority or Employment Court be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 6 deleting new section 95D be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 6 replacing subsections (1) and (2) of section 95D with subsection (1) setting out that employers may only deduct pay to the minimum wage be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 7 inserting paragraph (d) into new section 100(4), relating to issues of unfairness in the granting of injunctions be agreed to.

Point of order, Madam Chair. Kia ora, Madam Chair. I’m just wanting to seek some clarity from you in terms of your decision, and we understand it is your decision to make in terms of closure motions. The challenge from the Labour Party members, who were heavily engaged in this, is that clause 6 is the meat of this legislation and we’ve spent more time on previous clauses, but clause 6 actually is the real guts of what this is all about. The other part of this is, in looking at the regulatory impact statement, it also had the officials saying that they had had little time to prepare this, and so I guess being able to prosecute it in this space was something that we’re frustrated about, and we wanted some understanding about why you chose to close the debate.

I do understand the frustration, and there always will be more questions that need to be asked. But how I’ve based my judgment here is that there had been a select committee process, we did have a Minister who was engaging in answering the questions, and I did feel that sometimes the questions needed to home in a bit more, and maybe we could have spent less time and repetition on some questions and saved some more time for others. That’s how I’ve based my judgment, and I think that where we’ve had a select committee stage, there are opportunities to ask questions there, as well.

Speaking to your clarity there, we did have a number of amendments. I know that there’s not a rule that they all have to be addressed, but I know that, particularly, Camilla Belich has indicated that she had, I think, at least eight that she was going to speak to and didn’t get to.

Yes, and I will say to that that you’re correct in that not all amendments do need to be spoken to. But I would suggest that if members want to speak to their amendments, they move quite quickly into that process of speaking to the amendments in a committee stage. Thank you.

Members, the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

Mr Speaker, the committee has further considered the Invest New Zealand Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. I move, That the report be adopted.

The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12.57 p.m. (Thursday)

Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.

Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 24 June. That week, the House will consider the second readings of the Appropriation (2024/25 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the imprest supply bill, as well as the third readings of the Invest New Zealand Bill, the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill, the Racing Industry Amendment Bill, and the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill.

There is one petition.

Petition of Suzanne Cook requesting that the House ban the private sale of fireworks to the public and restrict fireworks to licensed operators running organised public events in town centres only.

Papers have been presented to the House.

Ministry for Pacific Peoples Strategic Intentions 2025-2029.

Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports.

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the review briefing on the 2023-24 annual review of Kiwi Group Capital Limited

report of the Health Committee on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill.

Introduction of bills: no bills have been introduced for presentation.

to the Minister of Transport

What announcements has he made about increasing the speed limit on State Highway 1?

Last week, I announced what many New Zealanders, I know, have been looking forward to: the start of public consultation on increasing the speed limits to 110 kilometres per hour on Transmission Gully and the Raumati Straights—22,000 vehicles using this relatively new road daily; important regional connector; safe, modern, reliable route for all road users. It’s the main gateway into Wellington and I’m very pleased that the Government is taking this important step to further enhance the road.

Why is the Government considering this change now?

Delivering better quality infrastructure is part of the Government’s plan to grow the economy, reduce travel times, and increase the productivity of our transport network. We’re committed to providing State highways that get people where they need to go quickly and safely. Transmission Gully is designed and constructed to a very high safety standard, has very low crash numbers on the road since its opening in 2022, and safety features that greatly reduce the risk of death or serious injury in a crash.

How can New Zealanders have their say on this proposal?

Consultation on raising the speed limits opened last Friday and will last for six weeks. People can submit on this consultation via the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) website as well as find more information on this proposal. I’m looking forward to the strong support of the local MP for the area it connects to, Tim Costley.

Does he stand by Simeon Brown’s pledge to build the Ōtaki to north of Levin highway “no matter the cost”, and, if so, why has the project now been scaled back, despite there having been a toll consultation process based on the original proposal?

NZTA is consulting on a range of measures in order to make the project more affordable, because, like many projects we inherited from the previous Government in which the costings were almost literally done on the back of the envelope, the project is experiencing cost pressures.

We’re not going to start with swipes at the Opposition.

to the Minister of Finance

Malo le soifua manuia lau afioga Fetalai. Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: In context, yes.

What does she say to a library worker, in relation to the pay equity changes, who says, “The end of our claim is devastating to myself and my colleagues. We were so close to a result, and to see that stripped away is incredibly painful. We will go on providing for our community. It’s just that now we will do it knowing that our Government does not value our work, and in the knowledge that we will have to start our long fight for fair wages all over again.”?

On behalf of the Minister, I’d say to her the same thing that the Minister of Finance said in response to previous questions along similar lines yesterday and indeed the day before that, which is that the Government strongly values the work that these workers do, and that the pay equity regime that has been legislated by Parliament allows for pay equity claims. I would encourage her to participate in that process.

What does she say to Marianne Bishop, a retired residential aged-care worker, who says, “Why would you want to work in aged care when you can get the same amount at a supermarket or McDonald’s?”; if so, how does he expect to maintain essential care workers under those kinds of conditions?

Well, the first thing I’d say to Miss Bishop is probably to ask whether or not we’re related! And then the second thing I would say is exactly what I said in relation to the last answer.

Does she agree with a tertiary library worker who says, “My colleagues are on extremely low pay and deserve better. They deserve to be able to afford their rent, groceries, and be able to top up their Snapper cards that enable them to get to work.”?

No, I don’t agree with that.

Will she take up the challenge from Tamara Baddeley, a home support worker who says, “I challenge every single one of them to come and work with us. On our wages. Getting assaulted at work, paying for travel out of your own pocket. Then tell us why cutting off our pay equity claim is a good idea.”?

No.

Does the Minister stand by her action to increase the rate of depreciation of new assets by 20 percent, as announced in the Budget; and all the many messages of support that he’s had from small businesses up and down the country, supporting that and recognising that he’ll be investing more to grow the economy?

On behalf of the Minister of Finance, yes indeed I do. One of the most striking things about the response to the Budget has been the number of businesses who have proactively contacted Government Ministers in order to say to them, “We are now going to invest because of what you have done.” The Government welcomes that.

When will she stop dismissing the many low-paid women workers across this country who are disappointed and angry about the changes to the pay equity regime?

On behalf of the Minister of Finance, the Government is not dismissing those workers. The Government values the work that they do, and the Government supports pay equity in the same way the Government supports equal pay. What we have done—as has been litigated in the Parliament for many weeks now—is make the scheme fairer and more affordable.

to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality

What recent reports has she seen on tourism growth and international visitor spending?

I was pleased to see that the International Visitor Survey results for the year ending March 2025 show that international tourism contributed $12.2 billion to our economy. This is up 9.2 percent compared to the previous year, and international visitor arrivals are up 4.3 percent. This means more bookings in our restaurants, more reservations at local accommodation, and more people visiting our regions and attractions. We know how important tourism is to unleashing economic growth in New Zealand, and we know we need to get our tourism numbers back to 2019 levels.

What actions is she undertaking to get tourism numbers back to 2019 levels?

I have announced a range of initiatives to boost tourism across New Zealand. I’ve been engaging with many tourism stakeholders, who are telling me that there is more capacity for many more tourists and that they welcome all visitors. I haven’t met a business who has said that they don’t want more customers. I’m also soon to announce my Tourism Growth Roadmap, so stay tuned for our plan to boost tourism further.

How will more international visitors support economic growth?

In the March quarter alone, spend by international visitors totalled $4.5 billion. This is more money invested into our cities and regions. Every time that a tourist comes to New Zealand and spends money at a local shop, buys a meal in a local cafe, and stays in our accommodation, it’s good for jobs, it’s good for growth, and it’s good for the incomes of New Zealanders. Economic growth from tourism enables the Government to invest more in public services like health and education. So our message is clear: New Zealand is open for business and we welcome visitors from anywhere at any time to come to New Zealand.

What other announcements has she made to show that New Zealand is open for business?

Yesterday, I was pleased to announce, alongside my fantastic colleague the Hon Minister Potaka, that cruise ships and aircraft will continue to have access to Milford Sound, rejecting a proposal to ban them. We know that Milford Sound is a major drawcard for international visitors, and the Sound will play a key role in helping the country’s tourism sector bounce back from the COVID hangover. Encouraging cruise ships and continuing access to the aerodrome will boost the local economy and support more local jobs.

to the Associate Minister for the Environment

What recent announcements has he made about reforming freshwater rules?

Last week, the Minister of Agriculture and I announced the opening of consultation on sweeping changes to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. We are seeking views on proposals which will cut the red tape for farmers so they can get back to feeding New Zealand and the world. Proposals include making sure that council planning balances community objectives, including economic and social benefits with environmental protection; introducing flexibility to councils to set their own bottom lines according to what their people want; making provision for on-farm water storage; and ensuring that we can continue to have domestic vegetable production.

Why is it important that vegetable production is covered in the new freshwater rules?

Local council rules have made it harder and harder to grow fresh, healthy vegetables in New Zealand, and some of the stories I’ve heard almost from day one of being a Minister are pretty silly. For example, the rules say you can’t rotate crops within a catchment even though there is no increase in total production—you’ve just shifted it to another block. If we want Kiwis to access fresh vegetables at affordable prices, we have to be able to grow them. I don’t want to be in a situation where we have to import all of our vegetables in cans or frozen because of overly strict freshwater rules. The consultation asks the public what they think about in terms of the best way to make sure we can keep growing veggies here in New Zealand.

How are the proposals a return to localism in freshwater management?

We are proposing on giving more power back to local communities through their councils by giving them the flexibility to set their own bottom line for contaminants. It is clear that setting bottom lines nationally, which was massively expanded under the previous Government, has failed in a way to help people manage fresh water. It can’t be right that for catchments even dominated by native bush, they can’t always meet these national bottom lines for some contaminants. It’s high time that Wellington gets out of the way so local communities can achieve the best environmental outcomes that they want.

How will the proposals rebalance freshwater management in the interests of all water users?

Good regulation often requires policy makers to balance competing objectives in a way that makes people’s lives better. The previous Government’s freshwater rules are bad regulation because what they do establish is a vague spiritual concept called Te Mana o te Wai as the fundamental objective of the rules that must be addressed before all other community needs. This has led to the rules being applied in such a way that has strangled agricultural growth and bound farmers in compliance. We’ll hold consultation to gather public feedback and encourage everyone to share their thoughts. [Interruption] I can keep talking if you want?

That was a long enough answer. Thank you.

to the Minister for Women

Does she stand by all her statements and actions regarding pay equity?

on behalf of the Minister for Women: Yes, in the context in which they’re made.

Why, when the Minister of Finance first informed her of pay equity changes via a phone call on 9 November 2024, did she not tell the Ministry for Women?

Well, I don’t have detailed information on that, but I can say that the Minister and other Ministers discuss matters a lot of the time about a range of things, and not all of them are the sort, and to the level, that we need to advise the ministries of.

Why, when she first received a copy of Minister van Velden’s Cabinet paper on pay equity on 14 March 2025, did she not provide a copy to the Ministry for Women?

Well, I don’t have any information on that, and I have no indication that what the member’s just said is correct.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. This was actually in response to written parliamentary question 24163, which absolutely says that that happened on that date, and it’s a follow-up question to that particular written parliamentary question.

Thank you. So that’s confirmed the member’s question, but the Minister has said that she didn’t have an answer. I think that’s still—

Yes, I think it’s very important that I don’t try and make things up, because in this Government we try and be absolutely spot on. So I would much rather that that member asked either the Minister directly or she did another written parliamentary question.

Why did she not inform the Ministry for Women on pay equity changes the day prior to the announcement, instead leaving it to the Deputy Public Service Commissioner to inform her ministry?

It’s exactly the same answer as before. The other thing is, of course, that the Public Service Commission has been deeply involved in this, and perhaps you’d like to ask the Minister for the Public Service, who’d be happy to tell her exactly what’s what, including what a woman is.

Is it correct that the Ministry for Women employs some of New Zealand’s experts on pay equity, and, if so, why did she not once consult with them on the Government’s pay equity changes?

Well, it’s exactly the same answer as before, and I really do think that the member should also consider that the Minister herself is an expert on women’s issues—again, knowing exactly what a woman is.

Was her statement to the House that changes to pay equity and cancelling 33 pay equity claims “can only be a good thing for women” based on official advice; if so, who provided that advice?

On behalf of the Minister, I’m thrilled to say that the Minister is capable of thinking for herself, and one of the things that she knows is that any plan and scheme for pay equity has to be fair, it has to be sustainable, it has to be realistic, and it cannot be in a situation where it removes all ability for the Government to be able to fund health or education or anything else that women also care about. Actually, the other thing is it cannot have a ridiculous situation where admin workers are compared to civil engineers, which is the nonsense that we inherited from that lot.

How is it possible that she knew about pay equity changes six months before they were announced and yet never consulted with, met with, or even told the Ministry for Women about the changes?

Well, I imagine that until we’ve actually got something to talk to, then it is difficult to go and have discussions with ministries.

There was a Cabinet paper!

When it comes to Cabinet papers, Cabinet papers are themselves something that are kept very close to us, because we do not go round like the previous Government and just throw them around. But I do think it’s important the ministry—[Interruption] Do you want an answer or not? You don’t want an answer? OK.

I think the member’s interjected to the point where that question is now over.

to the Minister of Transport

Are local road controlling authorities required to increase speed limits under the Government’s policy if one of the reasons for a speed limit reduction since 2020 was proximity to a school, and are impacts on road safety a factor that allows local road controlling authorities to retain safe speeds?

I’m advised that under the land transport setting of speed limits rule, road-controlling authorities are required to reverse permanent speed limits of 30 kilometres an hour on residential or neighbourhood streets from 1 January 2020, where a reason for setting that speed limit was because there is a school in the area. In these cases, road-controlling authorities are required to implement variable speed limits of 30 kilometres an hour outside the school gates of urban schools, during pick up and drop offs, by 1 July 2025, with the remaining roads reversing to their previous speed limit. To the second part of the member’s question: after 1 July 2025, road-controlling authorities can set speed limits on the local roads in accordance with the new rule, which requires them to consider the estimated safety impacts of any proposed speed limit change.

Point of order. I left it to you to decide this, but when a question is framed in that way, the questioner is required to follow—strictly—the words that have been written on that page, and that questioner did not.

I’m sorry—I didn’t pick that up at the time, Rt Hon Winston Peters, but I think the question has been asked and clearly answered, in a way that I think we’ve had an answer to the question. So I’d invite Julie Anne Genter to ask her next supplementary question.

Point of order. That’s not the way standards go in this House. If you get it wrong, you don’t benefit from that mistake. You’re required to put it right, and that’s what I ask you to do.

Look—I understand. If it’s the wish of the House that the member repeats that question again and reads the words correctly—but at the end of the day, I feel like the question has been put and understood by the Minister. Is it the wish of the House that the question be repeated?

No.

No. Carry on, Julie Anne—

This is not—

No—I’m sorry, Mr Peters—

—for the House to decide. There are Standing Orders. There are Speakers’ rulings. You’re required to follow what’s written down there.

Mr Peters, I’ve made a ruling. I’d invite the Hon Julie Anne Genter to ask her supplementary question.

Why is the Government forcing local councils to increase speed limits on residential streets around schools, and what will the impact on deaths and serious injuries be of that change?

Well, we’re requiring road-controlling authorities to go back to the speed limits they were before the last Government’s changes forced them to be reduced. We are preserving the ability for variable speeds around school drop off and pick up, because we have a simple view, which is that you should go slowly when there might be kids around, but at 3 a.m. in the morning, when there aren’t any children around—in fact, there’s no one around—you should be able to go at 50 kilometres an hour.

Why has he not allowed councils to retain safer speed limits that have been accepted by their communities, such as in New Plymouth, where councillor Amanda Clinton-Gohdes said, “My stomach turns at the thought of having to roll back the changes we made with 89 percent community support. I resent that a Government which campaigned on localism is making us go against the wishes of the vast majority of our community.”?

Well, as I said in response to the second part of the member’s primary question, there is the ability for road-controlling authorities—after 1 July—to set speed limits in accordance with the new rule, which requires them to consider the estimated safety impacts. In fact, some councils are doing that right now.

How is it fair to force variable speed limits on to communities who have made it clear they want to retain permanent safer speed limits, like the principal of Inglewood Primary, Juliet Vickers, who has said, “A fixed 30 kilometre an hour limit provides clear, consistent messaging crucial for student safety. Variable limits create confusion and uncertainty, increasing the likelihood of drivers exceeding safe speeds and putting children at greater risk of [harmful] accidents.”?

The answer is the same as I gave in the earlier supplementary, which is that we just take a common-sense view, which is that when there are kids around and it’s busy, you should go slowly, which is why we’re requiring variable speed limit signs—

Have you seen the signs?

Yes—I know how to read, and they’re not that complicated. It means that when you drive past the school, there will be a sign that says, in a particular time zone, for that particular school, the speed limit is 30 kilometres an hour. It’s not that complicated. It means that when you drive past it at 4 a.m. or 6 a.m. or whenever, when it is safe to do so because there’s no one on the streets, you shouldn’t have to artificially lower down your speed limit, when it is perfectly safe to drive at 50 kilometres an hour. That’s our view.

Can the Minister tell me, at 3 p.m. on a Wednesday—[Interruption]

Quiet, please. Quiet. There’s a question being asked.

Looking at this sign—[Holds up image of road sign]—can the Minister tell me, at 3 p.m. on a Wednesday, if he drives past the school, what speed should he be driving at?

Well, no, because I need my glasses. But the point is that it will vary depending on the school and the local road-controlling authority. But it’s not that complicated: at pick-up and drop-off times, relevant to the local school, relevant to the local council, the speed limit will be 30 kilometres an hour; at other times it won’t be. The Greens might find it hard to understand, but I think most Kiwis can get their heads around it. [Interruption]

Quiet.

Will he amend the rule to allow common-sense speed limits to be kept where there is evidence of a clear safety benefit, and, if he won’t, will he take responsibility for any increase in deaths as a result of automatic speed reversals, required under the rule his Government implemented and forced councils and communities to comply with?

In relation to the first part of that member’s question, the answer is no, because we think the balance we have struck is the right one. Our changes are common sense, and I think Kiwis agree with us.

to the Minister of Conservation

What recent announcements has he made about Milford Sound?

Yesterday, the erudite Minister for Tourism and Hospitality, Louise Upston, and I announced a $15 million investment into sustaining tourism and conservation in the iconic Milford Sound / Piopiotahi. Manuhiri to Milford Sound / Piopiotahi will continue to enjoy a world-class experience, thanks to improved amenities, assurance for local business, and enhanced conservation. Minister Upston has also noted that decisions to enable cruise ship access and aerodrome use are key to growing tourism and local businesses and to help get the economy back on track.

Why is the Government investing in Milford Sound?

This majestic UNESCO World Heritage site in Fiordland / Te Rua-o-te-Moko attracts more than a million visitors per year and pumps about $200 million into the regional economy, creating jobs and boosting incomes. Milford Sound / Piopiotahi had, and has, a key role to play in keeping the country’s tourism sector recovery after recent challenging years. The Milford Opportunities Project put forward a range of advice on how to enhance the future of this wonderous place, and so it was essential that we took it onboard, came to decisions, and got on with the mahi.

How will this benefit the local economy?

We are supporting the local economy, providing certainty for tourism and concession operators, and rejecting previous interesting ideas to close the use of the aerodrome and to deny cruises access to the fiord. Tourism creates jobs and incomes, which are especially important for the livelihoods of whānau in our regional and local communities. Te Papa Atawhai / Department of Conservation is also giving local operators more certainty by cutting through concessions processes and making it easier for businesses to get on with their mahi to create jobs for Kiwis and to get the economy moving again.

How will this announcement protect the nature and heritage of Milford Sound / Piopiotahi?

Toitū te taiao. We are investing in better infrastructure to enhance protection for nature with sustainable tourism. We’re investing $15 million: $7 million from Te Papa Atawhai’s capital works programme and $8 million of international visitor levy funding. Manuhiri accessing the fiord and Milford Road will soon enjoy new, enhanced short stops, including an alpine nature walk at Gertrude and better facilities and amenities at Hinepipiwai / Lake Marian. The Little Tahiti Landfill will also be cleaned up, as well as an improved boat ramp at Deepwater Basin. Future work will involve the Department of Conservation / Te Papa Atawhai engaging with Ngāi Tahu stakeholders such as local government and the tourism sector on further initiatives.

to the Minister of Conservation

Has he received any advice on the impact of Conservation funding cuts on jobs and communities; if so, how many jobs have been identified as at risk?