Thursday, 22 May 2025

THURSDAY, 22 MAY 2025

THURSDAY, 22 MAY 2025

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

TEANAU TUIONO (Assistant Speaker): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.

[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 and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Petition of Shane Clarke Witehira requesting the House urge the Government to decline Fast Track Application 229 to build a 200-250 berth marina at Waipiro Bay.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the briefing on the 2023/24 performance, current operations, and strategic intentions of Immigration New Zealand.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of four bills.

CLERK:

Appropriation (2024/25 Supplementary Estimates) Bill, introduction

Military Decorations and Distinctive Badges (Modernisation) Amendment Bill, introduction

Financial Markets (International Money Transfers) Amendment Bill, introduction

Local Government (Port Companies Accountability) Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Supplementary Estimates Documents

Supplementary Estimates Documents

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I present the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the Year Ending 30 June 2025.

SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House.

Budget Documents

Budget Documents

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I present the 2025 Budget speech, the Budget at a Glance 2025, the Fiscal Strategy Report 2025, the Child Poverty Report 2025, the Summary of Initiatives 2025, the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 2025, and the Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the Year Ending 30 June 2026.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.

Bills

Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill

Introduction

CLERK: Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: The Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill is set down for first reading immediately.

First Reading

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Budget Statement

Second Reading

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill be now read a second time.

Ahumairangi, Tangi-te-keo, tū te ao, tū te pō. Te Whanganui-a-Tara, te karu waitai, piata mai nā. Kei ōku nui kei ōku rahi, nōku te hōnore ki te whakamāunu i te Tahua mō te tau nei. Tēnā koutou katoa.

[Ahumairangi Hill, Mount Victoria, stand strong by day and by night. The Wellington Harbour, the marine oculus, glitter before us. To the great and noble personages, it is my honour to launch the Budget for this year. Greetings to you all.]

As I said in te reo Māori, it is an honour to announce this year’s Budget. This is a responsible Budget to secure New Zealand’s future. It supports the economic recovery now under way. It also takes a longer-term view, with initiatives to boost future investment, savings, and growth. It continues this Government’s investment in health, in education, and in law and order. And, in a challenging global environment, it provides funding to boost New Zealand’s defence capability. It does all of this with an expenditure track that reduces Government spending as a share of the economy, returns the Government’s books to balance, and bends the debt curve down—from going up to going down.

The economic outlook presented alongside this Budget is a bright one. After a tough few years, growth, jobs, and wages are set to rise. The Government is not promising that today’s Budget will solve all New Zealanders’ problems. But we do promise that the decisions we are taking now will set our country up for a better future.

The creation and delivery of an annual Budget is at the heart of strong and stable Government. This Budget is a team effort. I want to acknowledge and thank the Associate Ministers of Finance, David Seymour, Shane Jones, and Chris Bishop, for their ideas and advice. They were heavily involved in putting this Budget together, as was the Prime Minister, whose leadership and wise counsel was invaluable. Thank you, Prime Minister.

In recent years, New Zealanders have battled through an extended period of high inflation, high interest rates, and low growth. We know that times remain tough for many Kiwis. The good news today is that, with strong economic and fiscal management, a recovery is under way. The recovery is being supported by lower interest rates and strong export performance, and, over the next few years, the Government’s new Investment Boost policy—which I will come to shortly—will have a positive impact on growth.

Recent tariff announcements have created uncertainty and volatility around the world. For a small trading nation like New Zealand, the global situation is concerning. It doesn’t threaten the recovery, but it does threaten the pace of the recovery. The Treasury has pegged its forecasts back, and downside risks remain. Despite this, Budget forecasts show economic growth picking up to healthy levels once again. Real GDP growth is expected to accelerate to 2.9 percent in the next fiscal year, and to 3 percent in the year after.

Growth matters. It means more jobs, higher incomes, and opportunities for families to get ahead. Over the forecast period, wages are expected to grow faster than inflation, and, at the end of that period, there are expected to be 240,000 more people in jobs.

The Government’s books have taken a hammering over the past six years or so. Spending has risen sharply. So has Government debt. The Budget deficit left by the previous Government is structural—it is not simply due to the state of the economy. In other words, the last Government was living beyond its means, loading up the credit card to pay for things New Zealand couldn’t afford. This did real damage to our economy, as a massive spike in the cost of living led to high interest rates and low growth. This Government is taking responsibility for cleaning up the mess. Under our fiscal management, Government debt will stabilise, then start to come down. And our control of spending creates room for monetary policy to respond with lower interest rates.

There is no doubt that fiscal consolidation is challenging. Some would do it with higher taxes. Well, that would burden New Zealand workers and businesses, and scare away talent and investment. It would put our economic recovery at risk. This Government is taking a different approach. We are getting the books in balance by controlling growth in Government spending. The operating allowance for Budget 2025 is $1.3 billion on average per annum. This is the lowest allowance in a decade, significantly down from the $2.4 billion allowance signalled in the Budget Policy Statement in December. That reduction of $1.1 billion goes straight to the bottom line. The Government’s headline operating balance indicator, OBEGALx—the operating balance before gains and losses, excluding ACC revenue and expenses—is $1.1 billion better each year, on average, than it otherwise would have been. In addition, the Treasury estimates that the tighter Budget package will see interest rates being 30 basis points lower than they otherwise would have been by the end of the forecast period.

Importantly, that $1.3 billion allowance is a net figure. On the one hand, it encompasses $5 billion a year of new spending and $1.7 billion a year for tax reductions through Investment Boost; on the other hand, it contains savings of $5.3 billion a year. These savings are the result of ongoing efforts by multiple Ministers, and I want to acknowledge you all today. We take seriously our roles as custodians of taxpayer money.

A significant portion of those savings come from changes to the pay equity regime. The changes were made to ensure future settlements stick to correcting pay discrepancies that arise from sex-based discrimination, and not for other reasons. Making those changes means the Government can re-purpose $2.7 billion a year, on average, towards Budget priorities like health, education, and law and order. That $2.7 billion had been put aside in contingencies for what, under the previous regime, were expected to be very wide-ranging pay equity claims, increasingly divorced from the sex-based discrimination that pay equity is supposed to be about. A one-off $1.8 billion has also been repurposed from previous contingencies and put towards capital expenditure in this Budget, supporting investments in new hospitals, schools, and other infrastructure. I can assure members that adequate funding remains in contingency to meet potential costs of future public sector pay equity settlements under our new regime. And the Government also anticipates there will be pay rises in female-dominated public sector workforces, achieved through normal collective bargaining.

The Government has also been able to find net savings by increasing funding for Inland Revenue’s compliance activities. Funding of $35 million a year is expected to result in $280 million of extra tax revenue. That’s an eight-to-one return on investment. This was an initiative proposed last Budget by New Zealand First and expanded in Budget 2025. Further savings have been made by closing a number of tagged contingencies and from reviewing the value for money of grants and fund across Government.

This is not austerity. In fact, it is what you do to avoid austerity, because getting the books in shape ensures New Zealand has financial security and choices into the future, and, as I am about to set out, savings in this Budget have allowed us to make much-needed investments in health, in education, in law and order, and in rebuilding our defence force.

Budget forecasts show that core Crown expenses are expected to remain steady, then decline as a percentage of GDP, reaching 30.9 percent by 2028-29. The OBEGALx deficit is expected to widen in the near-term, and then gradually improve after next year, returning to a surplus of $200 million before the end of the forecast period. At that point, members, the structural deficit the previous Government left us will have been eliminated. Net core Crown debt is expected to peak at 46 percent of GDP, slightly lower than forecast at the half-year update, before then beginning to decline.

As these forecasts show, the Government is taking a deliberate, medium-term approach to fiscal consolidation. I am aware that there are alternative approaches. Some say that we should keep borrowing for ever, whack it on the credit card, and hope for the best. That would be the height of irresponsibility. It would put the financial security of New Zealand at risk, and we owe better to our kids.

To my own kids, sitting in the gallery today, I want to say that I know Mum’s been busy lately—and I’m sorry I missed your show last night, Hatta—but your future and the future of the next generation of New Zealanders has been very much on my mind as we’ve put this Budget together. This Budget will be good for you and for all our kids.

New Zealand’s productivity challenges are well understood. Study after study has identified a low level of capital investment per worker, compared to other countries. To raise productivity, to lift incomes, and to drive long-term economic growth, New Zealand needs our businesses, big and small, to invest—to invest in machinery, tools, equipment, technology, vehicles, industrial buildings, and other capital assets.

Investment Boost is a new tax incentive that will increase capital investment in New Zealand, and Investment Boost allows a business to immediately deduct 20 percent of the cost of a new asset from its taxable income, on top of depreciation. This means a much lower tax bill in the year of purchase, and the remaining book value is depreciated at normal rates. Since a dollar now is more valuable than a future, the cash flow from investments is more attractive and the after-tax returns are better. More investment opportunities will stack up financially, so more will be made.

Over 20 years, members, Investment Boost is expected to lift New Zealand’s capital stock by 1.6 percent, our GDP by 1 percent, and wages by 1.5 percent. The advice we have received is that the benefits will be widespread among New Zealanders, with workers set to benefit the most in the form of more employment and bigger wage increases. These are, of course, orders of magnitude, but officials estimate that roughly half the impacts happen in the first five years.

Investment Boost starts today, and it applies to new assets purchased in New Zealand, as well as assets imported from overseas. It includes commercial buildings, but it excludes land, residential buildings, and assets already in use in New Zealand. There’s no cap on the value of new investments, and all businesses, regardless of size, are eligible. It is estimated to cost an average of $1.7 billion per year in reduced revenue across the forecast period. So to manufacturers, farmers, tradies, and other Kiwi businesses, my message to you is this: our Government is helping you invest for your future and our country’s future.

Continuing the growth theme, Budget 2025 funds a number of initiatives that contribute to the Government’s Going for Growth agenda. As I announced earlier this week, the Government has set aside $65 million to encourage foreign investment in New Zealand infrastructure by increasing the amount of tax-deductible debt foreign investors can use to fund it.

The Budget also supports the science and innovation reforms announced earlier this year. These include the move to transform Crown research institutes into three new public research organisations, establishing a dedicated gene technology regulator, and creating a new agency, Invest New Zealand, as the Government’s one-stop shop for foreign direct investment.

Other economic growth initiatives in this Budget include funding for screen production rebates and additional funding for the Elevate NZ Venture Fund to invest in the technology start-up sector. Funding has also been set aside in contingency for potential Crown co-investment in new gasfields to ensure future supply.

While KiwiSaver has helped a lot of New Zealanders to save, many people’s balances are modest. There would be few people, I think, who would reach 65, look at their KiwiSaver balance, and think, “I wish I’d saved less.” The same goes for those looking to buy their first home.

Budget 2025 makes changes to encourage Kiwis to save more while also making the scheme more fiscally sustainable. From 1 April 2026, the default rate of employee and employer contributions, which is currently 3 percent, will go to 3.5 percent, and from 1 April 2028, it will go to 4 percent. Phasing this in over a three-year period helps workers and employers plan ahead.

The Government recognises that, over time, employer contributions may, effectively, form part of the wage negotiation process. Employees will be able to opt down to the current 3 percent rate and still be matched by their employer at that lower rate. Their contributions will be reset to the default rate after 12 months, but they can opt down again if they wish. These changes—moving to a default contribution rate of 4 percent, but retaining a 3 percent option—were recommended last year by the Retirement Commissioner.

From 1 April 2026, the Government will extend employer matching to 16- and 17-year-olds, and from 1 July 2025, it will make them eligible for the Government contribution. This will encourage more young people to adopt a savings habit and help them build a deposit for their first home.

Members may recall that the original KiwiSaver design included layers of expensive Government subsidies that proved unaffordable. Most have since been wound back—and the scheme has continued to flourish—apart from the Government contribution, which is expected to cost an average of $1.2 billion a year over the forecast period.

I’m advised that the Government contribution is unlikely to be increasing the amount New Zealanders save. To ensure that KiwiSaver’s cost to the taxpayer remains sustainable, this annual Government contribution will be halved to 25c for each dollar a member contributes each year, up to a maximum Government contribution of just over $260 a year. Members with an income of more than $180,000 will no longer receive any Government contribution. These changes to the Government contribution will apply from 1 July 2025. They do not affect the current year’s Government contribution, which will be paid out in July and August this year.

Putting all these changes together, the KiwiSaver balances of employees contributing at the new default rate will grow faster than they do now, providing a larger balance at age 65 or when people come to buy their first home—building the financial security of New Zealanders. Savings from changes to the Government contribution which total $2.5 billion over the forecast period are being used to fund other Budget priorities including health, education, and law and order.

A number of Budget 2025 initiatives deliver targeted cost of living support. These include fiscally neutral changes to Working for Families to better target it at low and middle income families who need the support most. From 1 April next year, the Government will raise the family income threshold for Working for Families to $44,900 a year and increase the abatement rate slightly to 27.5 percent. As a result, families with incomes just above the new threshold will get an extra $23 per fortnight from Working for Families, with this additional support reducing gradually as family income rises. In all, an estimated 142,000 families with children will receive $14 more per fortnight on average, and the vast majority of these families will have incomes below $100,000 a year. This will incentivise working families and give them support when they need it most.

The cost of this extra support is met from better targeting the first year of the Best Start tax credit. From 1 April next year, the first year of Best Start will no longer be universal but will be income-tested the same way the second and third years already are, with payments ending completely when a family earns just over $97,000 a year. As a consequence, there will be families that receive less financial support than they otherwise would have, but the vast majority of those families will have incomes over $100,000 a year. The change to Best Start only applies for births on or after 1 April 2026, so no family will see an actual reduction in their payments. As a mother of four, I can point out that we are giving prospective parents more than nine months’ advance notice of this change.

Another cost of living initiative relates to prescriptions. Getting a prescription for only three months at a time can be frustrating, particularly for people on stable, long-term medications like asthma inhalers, insulin for diabetes, and blood pressure tablets. Getting a repeat prescription costs money and adds paperwork for doctors. Now, from the first quarter of 2026, New Zealanders will be able to get 12-month prescriptions for their medicines. That will save Kiwi medical costs, and it will give health professionals more time to deal with other patients.

The Budget also helps up to 66,000 additional SuperGold card holders pay their rates. From 1 July this year, the Rates Rebate Scheme will become more generous for SuperGold card holders and their households, by increasing the income abatement threshold to $45,000 a year and increasing the maximum rebate to $805. These changes originated from the National and New Zealand First coalition agreement and will come as welcome relief to many ratepayers.

The biggest part of the Budget is investment in the front-line services Kiwis rely on, and I want to take members through some key areas of new funding. First, let me clarify that when I talk about additional funding, I am referring—unless stated otherwise—to operating funding over the next four years plus capital funding.

I will start with health. Budget 2025 makes a capital investment of more than $1 billion in hospitals and health facilities. Funding has been allocated for a major redevelopment of Nelson Hospital, including a new 128-bed in-patient building. In what is great news for the people of Nelson, the new in-patient building is expected to be built by 2029—two years earlier than originally planned. Funding is also being allocated for a new emergency department at Wellington Regional Hospital. In addition, Wellington Hospital will get new specialist treatment spaces, an expansion of the intensive care unit, and a refurbishment of the old children’s hospital. The Budget also funds infrastructure projects at Auckland City Hospital, Greenlane Clinical Centre, and Palmerston North Hospital.

In terms of operating funding, the Budget confirms a funding increase of $5.5 billion for hospital and specialist services, primary care, community health, and public health. This will support Health New Zealand to make progress on the Government’s targets for more timely care, including shorter waiting times for hip replacements, cataract surgery, and other elective procedures.

Budget 2025 confirms funding of more than $1 billion to buy and deliver additional cancer treatments and other medicines that Pharmac has announced over the past 12 months, and the Budget provides new funding of $447 million to support increased access to primary care, including urgent care and after-hours services across New Zealand.

I now turn to something close to my heart. Giving children a chance to reach their potential through the power of a good education is one of the greatest gifts that a Government can bestow. To my mind, improving the results we get from our education system is the single most important thing we can do to improve the future productivity of New Zealand. New funding in Budget 2025, of $646 million operating and $101 million capital, is the largest boost to learning support in a generation.

Improvements to our learning support system are overdue. It is a system that has become characterised by inequity, underfunding, long wait-lists, and frustrations from schools and parents. Children who need additional support have been missing out, and that is of great cost to them and to their families, and it is of great cost to our country. Because children with additional needs have enormous potential and, with this support, more of them will have the chance to realise it. It will also benefit their classmates, whose teachers will now be better supported to meet diverse learning needs. The extra Budget funding will provide more teacher-aide hours, more specialist support, more learning support coordinators, an expansion of early intervention services, and new learning support classrooms. This investment will change lives.

There is also new funding in the Budget for schools’ operational grants, early childhood education, and tertiary education subsidies, and there is funding to increase the independent school subsidy to address price and volume pressures over time, delivering on the ACT and National coalition commitment to review the funding formula.

Extra maths help will be available for students who need it, with $100 million of new funding for early intervention and support, and there is a $140 million package of services to lift school attendance, and this delivers on another ACT and National coalition commitment. Finally, more than $700 million has been set aside to deliver new schools, purchase sites, expand some schools, and build new classrooms. The Hon Erica Stanford—we did it. It’s a great Budget.

New funding in Budget 2025 continues the Government’s drive to restore law and order. The Budget invests $480 million more to support police on the front line, to crack down on crime and keep our communities safe. We will not be defunding the Police.

We are also keeping communities safe through stronger sentencing laws that mean less violent crime, fewer victims, and more offenders in prison. The Budget invests $472 million to ensure Corrections can manage this increase in the prison population, including 580 new front-line staff. This reflects an ACT and National coalition commitment to increase funding to ensure sufficient prison capacity.

The Government is also redeveloping Christchurch Men’s Prison, with the project set to be designed, built, financed, and maintained for 25 years under a public-private partnership. And I know the member for Selwyn is pleased. Court case backlogs will be reduced through $246 million of new funding, which will improve timeliness and access to justice. Customs is also receiving additional funding to strengthen our border, prevent drug smuggling, and fight organised crime.

Finally, I want to mention Māori and Pasifika wardens and the Māori Women’s Welfare League. They are the friendly faces when things get tough and they are receiving funding in this Budget thanks to New Zealand First.

For too long, New Zealand’s Defence Force has been allowed to gradually deteriorate through loss of personnel and a failure to upgrade equipment. Budget 2025 marks a change in that course. A major uplift in defence spending will ensure New Zealand pulls its weight in an increasingly volatile world. It does this by investing in the men and women of our military and giving them the modern tools they need to do their jobs. This uplift cannot be funded in one Budget alone. But we have made a meaningful start by funding priority projects including new maritime helicopters. The Budget also invests $660 million to improve core Defence Force capabilities across air, sea, land, and cyberspace.

In terms of foreign affairs, the Budget addresses a very steep fiscal cliff in overseas development assistance, specifically for climate finance, that was unhelpfully left by the previous Government. The Budget addresses this, at least in part, through ongoing, baselined funding of $100 million a year, focused on the Pacific. Members will perhaps not be surprised to learn that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has made a very strong case for more funding, and this will be looked at in future.

The Budget also includes new funding of $84 million over four years to enhance New Zealand’s relationships with Asian countries, address trade barriers, and support the Government’s goal to double exports.

Budget 2025 sets aside $230 million for a new Social Investment Fund, of which $190 million is to purchase better outcomes for New Zealanders in need. Social investment is about the Government investing earlier, guided by data and evidence, and with much more transparent measurement of the impact that interventions are having in people’s lives. It is not enough to simply service misery; we have to actually make people’s lives better.

Over the next year, the fund will invest in at least 20 initiatives, adopting a very different contracting approach than is traditionally used by Government agencies, and an approach we’re ambitious to grow much, much further. I know that the Minister for Social Investment is excited by the prospects for this approach to change vulnerable people’s lives for the better.

As announced a fortnight ago, the Budget allocates $774 million to fund initiatives in response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care. The Government has committed this funding, across a number of different Votes, to improve redress for survivors and to strengthen the care system to prevent, identify, and respond to abuse in the future.

Budget 2025 allocates $6.8 billion of capital expenditure. This is partially offset by savings, leaving a net capital allowance in the Budget of $4 billion, slightly higher than the $3.625 billion capital allowance signalled in the Budget Policy Statement.

I have already mentioned most areas of new capital expenditure in the Budget—hospitals, schools, the Defence Force, prisons, and the Elevate fund. Budget 2025 also provides new funding to improve New Zealand’s rail network. Train commuters and businesses moving goods around the country will see more reliable rail services thanks to the Government’s investment of $605 million for rail upgrades and renewals.

In addition, the Budget provides funding to deliver additional social homes and affordable rentals, including for whānau Māori. These Budget 2025 capital initiatives add to existing investments already under way.

Government infrastructure investment over the forecast period now totals around $61.8 billion. About a third of this investment in infrastructure will be spent on the transport sector and another third is going to education and health. In addition, $3.5 billion has been set aside in each of the next three Budgets for new capital investments.

Putting this Budget together wasn’t easy. It involved careful choices and restraint from all Ministers. That is as it should be, and as New Zealanders have the right to expect, because Budget 2025 had to strike a careful balance. It invests in public services that New Zealanders need now, while driving the long-term reforms to lift investment and productivity in the longer term. It delivers new hospitals, new schools and a transformational boost to learning support. It makes changes to encourage Kiwis to save more. It provides cost of living relief targeted at low and middle income families. It takes the first step in a major uplift in defence spending. It secures the economic recovery that Kiwis are depending on. And, as all New Zealanders should expect, it does this while setting a course to a balanced Budget and an end to rising debt.

Our approach means that New Zealanders can look forward with confidence. Every Kiwi can know that this is a Government that has their back. I commend this Budget to the House.

SPEAKER: Before I call the Leader of the Opposition, I’ll just call the House’s attention to Speakers’ ruling 141/3, particularly the second half of that, for all members of the House. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Budget Debate

Budget Debate

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That all of the words after “That” be replaced with “this House has no confidence in the Government because it has chosen to pay for its Budget by cutting the wages of future working women.”

Nicola Willis’ pre-Budget spin got it half right—this was a scramble without the lollies. A Budget that has scrambled the Government’s finances, tried a whole lot of smoke and mirrors to hide where their cuts are being made, to try and confuse New Zealanders with the idea that they’ll be better off when, for a lot of Kiwi families, this Budget is nothing but bad news.

This is the Budget that will be remembered as the Budget that left women out. This is the Budget that said to working Kiwi women, they are worth less—in fact, nearly $3 billion a year less—a Budget that says that women are worth less than tax breaks for landlords, a Budget that says women are worth less than tax breaks for tobacco companies, a Budget that says women are worth less than tax breaks for multinational corporations like Google and Facebook, a Budget that says women are worth less than subsidies for the oil and gas industry.

There’s one thing this Government have shown they’re very adept at mining, and that is the pits of division. It says everything about this Government’s twisted priorities that they’re saying to working Kiwi women that they are worth less than men doing work of comparable value. Midwives, Plunket nurses, those who help new mums and babies are worth less to this Government. The care workers who look after our elderly are worth less to this Government. The hospice nurses who support New Zealanders in their final days are worth less to this Government. The teacher-aides who support some of our most vulnerable children are worth less to this Government. The librarians, the technicians, the support workers who keep our front-line services operating are worth less to this Government. All of them are being told loud and clear that they have to settle for less pay than men so that this Government can balance its books after a series of bad choices they have made.

Never in the history of this country have women been told: “Work harder and get less.”, and yet that is what this Government are saying. The country that was first to allow women the vote has nothing to be proud of today when it comes to advancing the cause of women. This is a Budget that exposes how Nicola Willis and Christopher Luxon see hard-working and often low-paid Kiwi women and where the savings from devaluing women’s work are being celebrated by people like David Seymour.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How’s about Marsden Point?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: And Winston Peters, who has a lot to say at the moment, paragon of virtue, he’s going to uphold the standards of Parliament, must have had his head in his hands when Nicola Willis described this as the “no BS Budget”. What he didn’t realise is that BS wasn’t actually about a swear word, because when she was talking about “no BS”, what she was being clear is the Budget had no bold solutions. The Budget had no bread and shelter for vulnerable New Zealanders. The Budget had no back-paid settlements for women who have been fighting to have fair pay for far too long, and it had no better society. What it does have is big subsidies—big subsidies for oil and gas, among others. This Government has no vision, beyond enriching those who are already doing well, whilst dividing working New Zealanders in an attempt to distract them from the damage that they’re doing to their lives and livelihoods.

This Budget isn’t only about cuts to women’s pay, though, because, for the second year in a row, that much promised cost of living relief the National Party banged on about during the election campaign is proving to be elusive. Remember the $250 a fortnight that families with children were promised by Christopher Luxon during the election campaign? The Government cannot find one single family—not one single family—that’s got the $250 a fortnight that they were promised repeatedly by the Government during the election campaign. The party that pumps itself up on its own economic grandiose has exponentially failed on its flagship promise of cost of living relief for Kiwi families.

But this gets worse, because Nicola Willis talked about the changes to Working for Families in her Budget speech. What she didn’t mention is that for 61,000 New Zealand families, their Working for Families is being cut. They’re going to be $43 a fortnight, on average, worse off because of this Government. I didn’t hear anyone on the election campaign trail when speaking for National say that tens of thousands of families were going to be made financially worse off by this Government, and yet that is exactly what today does. For those who are supposedly better off, what do they get? Less than a block of butter a week extra. If they save it up over two weeks, they might be able to buy a block of butter. That’s what they’re getting, whilst 61,000 families are actually having the level of financial support they get cut by this Government.

Best Start payments are being cut for many families. It might not mean much to the members opposite, but for many of those families it’s a box of nappies or a tin of formula, or potentially both, a week that they are now missing out on. In the meantime, those families see their rents continuing to go up, while their landlords get tax cuts. They’re seeing their insurance continuing to go up, partly driven by increasing rates by Government. They’re seeing their rates being driven up by the actions of this Government. Their power prices are going up, in part because the Government’s decided to increase its contribution to power prices across the country. They’re seeing the cost of registering their car going up. The Government made that decision. They’re seeing road-user charges going up—all costs being imposed under National, while cost of living support for things like public transport and so on has been cut by this Government.

This is a Government that has made bad choices that make life worse for a lot of working New Zealanders. We’ve just heard from Nicola Willis that it’s all because she had no other choices—that there was no room to move and that there was no money. All Governments have choices. Nicola Willis would have had more choices had she not increased borrowing by $12 billion in the last year because she didn’t make her numbers add up. The position that this Government and Nicola Willis have put us in is down to their bad choices. They are choosing austerity and cuts. And austerity is exactly what it is. It failed in the United Kingdom and it will fail here. It will leave New Zealand a poorer country and it says to the next generation of New Zealanders, who are already giving up in record numbers, that they may as well leave the country because there is no hope here. This Government are practically offering them a plane ticket and saying that there is no future for them here and they may as well give up and leave.

It is this Government that has chosen women to pay for the unaffordable decisions that they have taken. It’s time they accepted responsibility for their own decisions and stopped blaming everyone else. They should stop blaming unions, nurses, teachers, care and support workers, hospice workers, Plunket nurses, midwives, because these are all choices this Government have made.

What have those choices led to for New Zealanders? Rising unemployment, record numbers leaving to go overseas, more people living on the streets in cars and under bridges, more children going hungry, women being paid less. These are their decisions and their choices, and they have made bad ones.

More people living in cars is nothing to celebrate, and yet this Government has celebrated this year, in this Budget, the amount of money they’ve cut from emergency accommodation. Cutting funding for emergency accommodation and celebrating how much you’ve saved while our agencies that work with our most vulnerable who are living on the streets say they simply cannot keep up with demand, because the numbers of people rough sleeping are growing so fast that they can’t support them, is nothing to celebrate. It says everything about how wrong this Government’s priorities are that they think that booting people out of emergency accommodation and on to the streets is something to be proud of. It’s not something to be proud of; it’s something to be ashamed of.

I recently said that there would be three things that we were looking for in this year’s Budget. The first is that it properly funds our front-line public services. Under this Budget, front-line services, like health, continue to go backwards. Last year, we said the money that they’d put into health wouldn’t keep the lights on, or barely kept the lights on. This year, the lights are flickering and starting to fail. The health system simply isn’t getting the funding that it needs to continue to serve New Zealanders.

Hon Shane Jones: Boring.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The second thing we were looking for from this—I know Shane Jones thinks the health system is boring, but for New Zealanders that rely on it, it’s pretty damn important—year’s Budget was credible answers to how the Government’s actually going to fund all the promises that it’s been making, and that shouldn’t be at the expense of working New Zealand women. So we were looking, for example, for how they’re going to fund the billions of dollars’ worth of new roads that they promised, the billions of dollars of hospitals and school upgrades—all those things they go round the country talking about, the huge pipeline of work that’s coming. We were looking for an explanation for how that’s going to be funded. Shane Jones is waving it around. He might like to have a look at the level of Government capital investment in that Budget document that he’s waving around that shows that the amount being invested in all those things has been cut from $65 billion to $51 billion. The Government that talks a big game on infrastructure is actually cutting the amount of money that’s being spent on those things.

The final thing that we were looking for was a plan to invest in our collective future as a country, and there is no greater example of how this Government doesn’t have one than the changes they have made to KiwiSaver. Working New Zealanders out there saving hard for their retirement will be shocked to learn that this Government has raided their retirement savings to pay for its Budget—not the first time the National Party has done that. KiwiSaver, proudly set up by Labour, halved by the last National Government, is being halved again by this National Government. If there is one message New Zealanders have had loud and clear from this National Party, it’s that they cannot be trusted when it comes to the national treasure that is our KiwiSaver scheme.

So let’s look at what the $2.5 billion of cuts to KiwiSaver mean for working New Zealanders. An 18-year-old New Zealander, as of this year’s Budget, is now going to be $66,000 worse off in their retirement. Let’s be clear on that: for an 18-year-old just starting out, signing up to KiwiSaver, getting into the workforce for the first time, they have just seen $66,000 taken from their KiwiSaver balance on retirement.

Let’s talk about someone who’s 30. Someone who’s 30 is going to get $30,000 less in their retirement because of the cuts to KiwiSaver made in this year’s Budget—dressing that up by saying, “Oh, you can save more of your own money.”, to compensate for the fact that the Government’s just cut KiwiSaver isn’t going to wash. I support greater retirement savings, but I don’t support the Government cutting investment in KiwiSaver and cutting the future retirement savings nest egg of all working New Zealanders, which it has done in this year’s Budget.

They call this the “growth Budget”. What’s growing? We’ve seen growth in homelessness, growth in unemployment, growth in food prices, growth in people using food banks, growth in the number of people living on the streets, growth in the number of kids living below the poverty line, growth in the number of people giving up and leaving New Zealand, growth in the gender pay gap, and growth in environmental degradation. They are offering growth, but it is growth in all the wrong places, and despite all of their rhetoric, this year’s Budget actually borrows more.

All Budgets are about choices, and we would make different choices. Governments should serve the people. They should provide hope for the future, they should have a plan for the future, and this Government is doing neither. When Kiwis are out of work and desperate for work, there is very little hope for them in this year’s Budget. When far too many Kiwis are without a home, there’s no hope for them in this year’s Budget. When Kiwis are struggling to get the healthcare they need when they need it, there’s no hope for them in this year’s Budget.

Our priorities are very clear: jobs, health, homes. This Government’s not delivering on any of those things. They’re making it harder to get a job, and they’re making sure that for those who do have one, it doesn’t pay as well, and that’s particularly the case for hard-working Kiwi women. They’re not funding the healthcare New Zealanders deserve, and they’re making it harder to buy a home. Look at the fine print in this year’s Budget and, after cutting first-home buyer grants last year, you’ll see the Government have once again made it even harder for first-home buyers, not just by their cuts to KiwiSaver but by further cuts, hidden in the fine print, to the other support that’s available to first-home buyers. We’ll get to that in due course.

Jobs, health, and homes should’ve been the priority for this year’s Budget, and they simply weren’t. This is a Government that is delivering cuts, that is delivering austerity, and it’s a Government with no vision for the future. The smoke and mirrors in this Budget—for example, extending prescriptions; a good thing—won’t make up for the fact that the prescriptions they’re extending are for those who can afford to pay for them. For those who lost their free prescriptions, it offers no additional hope whatsoever. The emergency care clinics they’re offering are the very definition of the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, because they can’t find people to staff them. Where are they going to find the doctors and the nurses, particularly given they’ve told the nurses that they’re worth less? But that’s what this year’s Budget has done.

Instead of investing in homes for people—and this is a Government that has cut investment in people’s homes—they are making it harder for people to access the support they need. Instead of supporting people into work, jobs have been slashed. More jobs will be slashed as a result of this year’s Budget. Make no bones about it: this is a Government that is making the wrong choices.

So I look forward to seeing all those one-term National Party backbenchers up the back there going back to their electorates and telling the hard-working Kiwi families who have just found their Best Start payments have been cut, that their Working for Families has been cut, that their KiwiSaver’s been cut, and that they’re not getting the $250 a fortnight the National Party promised them—I look forward to seeing them going around the country and trying to tell New Zealanders why they should be grateful for that. I look forward to them going and telling the half of the population in their electorates who are women why they think they don’t deserve to be paid fairly, because that is the very clear line in the sand that this year’s Budget makes for Kiwi women.

New Zealanders saving for retirement will get less. Families will never see the $250 a fortnight that the National Party promised them, families are having their Working for Families cut, families are having their Best Start payments cut, and families are having their KiwiSaver retirement nest eggs cut. At a time when we have seen record numbers of people leaving the country under this Government because they are giving up hope, this Government is offering them nothing of the sort. That problem will only get worse under a Government that is offering nothing more than austerity, cuts, division, and divisive politics. New Zealanders deserve better from their Government. It isn’t what they’re being offered today.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Well, hasn’t it been a shambolic year for the Labour Party—hasn’t it? I have to say: has there ever been a Leader of the Opposition with less substance than Chris Hipkins? What you get is a lot of carping, what you get is a lot of points of order, and you get a lot of wishy-washy, don’t you? It’s a lot of wishy-washy, because beneath it all they have no policies—zero policies—and they have no plan. Of course, the worst thing of all is the constant flip-flopping from the man that I call “Mr Bojandals”—“Mr Bojandals”—because you have to ask the question: does the Labour Party have a single position on anything, a consistent position on anything? Let’s just look at the last few weeks, because here’s a pretty basic question if you want to be in Government, and the question is quite simply: how much debt is the Labour Party prepared to take on? It turns out the answer depends on who you actually ask; that’s the problem.

If you ask Barbara Edmonds, you sort of get a sensible sort of response or idea. Yep, she wants to tax more. Yep, she’s going to spend more. Yep, she’s going to borrow more. But she’s promising to keep debt around 50 percent of GDP, and she’s promising to get to a surplus within four years. That’s pretty basic stuff, really. Actually, big-spending Grant Robertson would have even signed up for that stuff. But I’m telling you, if you ask Chris Hipkins, you get a completely different answer, because, within days of Barbara promising that she would meet that debt cap, within days of her promising to deliver the surplus in the four years, he actually goes on radio, throws her under the bus, and then doesn’t stick to that commitment. Instead, what we get from Chris Hipkins is that we have to have a “mature conversation”—a “mature conversation”—about Government debt. What that really means is that he wants a lot more debt. We know that to be true because, the last time they were in Government, they added $120 billion extra in debt, and we have nothing to show for it except economic pain and economic suffering.

Now, the Green Party and Te Pāti Māori, they may have two leaders each, but under the Labour Party—under Chris Hipkins and Barbara Edmonds—we are seeing, for the first time in political history, a party with two different Budgets. We’re going to have two debt targets, we’re going to have two surplus targets, we’re going to have two plans for spending more, borrowing more, and taxing more, and we have two MPs that are totally unqualified to run the economy. I just would ask you all to close your eyes and reflect and think and imagine a nightmare scenario, which is Chris Hipkins, Chlöe Swarbrick, Marama Davidson, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and Rawiri Waititi, sitting round a table, discussing how they’ll run the economy. Well, I have to say: these people can’t run a bath—they cannot run a bath—let alone run an economy.

But the flip-flopping doesn’t stop here, because if we just take pay equity—let’s talk about that up front; let’s be really honest about it—Labour’s regime was unworkable, it was broken, it was unaffordable. We’ve made the sensible changes, and, yes, we’ve saved $12 billion in doing so. But here’s a really basic question: what is the Labour Party’s position on pay equity? What is it? We, first of all, heard Chris Hipkins say he’s going to roll it all back—roll back the changes—whatever the cost may be, without knowing what the cost actually is. Despite having been in Government for six years, you’d think they’d actually know this stuff, but they didn’t. Then guess what happened! The next day, “Mr Bojandals” showed up and the U-turn was away; that’s what happened. Now he’s saying he may not roll it all back, because it’s a little bit complicated and it’s a little bit too hard; that’s where we are.

There are two more flip-flops about to come, because the unions and Fleur Fitzsimons are going to hit him, and he’s going to change his position, and then Barbara will internalise the actual depth of the number and then, before you know it, actually, he’ll be back in the old position again. But the flip-flopping doesn’t stop there, because last week, we saw the Green Party roll out their plan for $88 billion in new taxes, $44 billion in more debt, and it is a dangerous plan. It is absolute madness and insanity—

Ingrid Leary: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I note that the member didn’t refer to my colleague as Barbara Edmonds, and I thought that was something that this House has ruled on this week that we should be doing: using both names.

SPEAKER: Thank you. Good point.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: So they add $88 billion worth of new taxes. They add $44 billion worth of new debt. But you’ve got to admire the Green Party, at least they have a plan. At least they have the courage to have a plan. Labour don’t. The question I’ve got to say is: when he got the chance, did you actually hear Chris Hipkins rule any of it out?

Hon Members: No.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. Did he actually rule out the wealth tax?

Hon Members: No.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Did he rule out the inheritance tax?

Hon Members: No.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Did he rule out the trust tax? Did he take that off the table?

Hon Members: No.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. And could he rule out an income tax rate that sees, on average, nurses being worse off under a Labour-Green Budget? No, he didn’t do that either. As far as Chris Hipkins is concerned, everything’s off the table or on the table. I’ve just got to tell you—here’s my prediction—I’ll tell you what’s going to happen: he is going to come out, flip-flop, and actually desperately try and rule it all out—the Greens’ plan—and then you know what he’s going to do? He’s going to launch a broken tax plan of his own very, very shortly. You watch this space.

But of course it has been a year of flip-flopping for the Labour Party, and we, on this side of the House, had that feeling it was coming this year. We could tell because, on day one, he showed up in his jandals, you know, and then it just got worse, because the flip-flops have come thick and fast. He’s flipped and flopped on public-private partnerships. They flip-flopped on the gang patch ban. They flip-flopped on charter schools. They flip-flopped on the mobile phone ban. I’m telling you, all this despite the fact that Labour have literally zero policies and no plan. You know, they have nothing to explain, and they cannot explain it. It’s unbelievable. It’s quite something.

Of course, when Chris Hipkins actually launches Labour’s plans to smash Kiwis with a capital gains tax, which I guarantee will happen by the end of the year, that will be the biggest flip-flop of them all. And why? Because, within three years, we’ve had four different positions on capital gains tax from the Labour Party. First and foremost, they were very much against it. Secondly, they set up poor David Parker and Grant Robertson to discuss the merits of a wealth tax versus a capital gains tax. Then “Mr Bojandals” shows up and makes a captain’s call and says it’s all off—it’s all been ruled out—and I guarantee you, by the end of this year, he’s going to show up here, launch a capital gains tax, and say, “That’s the solution to all of our economic woes.” Watch this space.

I’ll just say, at the end of the day, we know what economic policies we get from the Labour Party, the Green Party, and Te Pāti Māori. We know what those three policies are going to be: one, they are going to tax more, guaranteed—guaranteed; secondly, they will have more wasteful spending, guaranteed—absolutely guaranteed; and thirdly, they’re going to have a lot more—a hell of a lot more—debt, guaranteed. I can tell you that’s what the policies actually are.

But enough about the Labour Party, because I have to say this has been another year and another outstanding Budget from the great Nicola Willis. I’ve got to tell you: how lucky is New Zealand and how lucky are we to have someone as hard working, tenacious, determined, smart to deliver yet again, another amazing Budget? For a second year in a row, she’s knocked it completely out of the park. Thank you, Nicola Willis.

Now, Budget 2025 is a responsible Budget, and it is focused on growth, and it is focused on helping Kiwis get ahead. It’s a Budget that supports the cost of living, it’s a Budget that makes significant investments in the front-line services that Kiwis rely upon, it’s a Budget that, despite a very difficult international backdrop, charts a responsible pathway back to a surplus, and it’s a Budget about growth that is ambitious for New Zealand. Here are the numbers: Treasury’s latest forecasts show that, under this Budget, inflation remains in the band, interest rates will remain low, economic growth is going to average 2.7 percent over the period. We’ve got, most importantly, wages growing faster than inflation, and that helps working Kiwis every single year of this Budget. We will generate 240,000 new jobs in the period of this Budget.

For the hard-working Kiwis trying to get ahead, these forecasts—I tell you—are good news and they reinforce that New Zealand is turning the economic corner incredibly well. Inflation is down, interest rates are down, growth is back, we grew 0.7 percent in the last quarter, and in regional New Zealand, when you get out there, exports are taking off, dairy’s doing incredibly well, and our tourists are flocking back to New Zealand. We want a lot more of it. We want a lot more growth in this coalition Government.

I want everybody to know whether you are a farmer, a grower, a tourism operator, a manufacturer, a small-business owner, or an exporter that we want to say thank you to you. We want to say thank you for what you do. I hope you know that we back you 100 percent and we will do whatever it takes for you to be able to win—whether that’s fast track or whether it’s Resource Management Act reform, whether it’s keeping agriculture out of the emissions trading scheme, building new roads, signing fresh trade deals, or attracting more investment from offshore, we are utterly, utterly obsessed with economic growth, on making your life easier so that New Zealand can be an outstanding place to do business.

Now, this brings me back to this year’s Budget, because our Government’s top priority is economic growth and it’s at the heart of what we’re doing in this Budget. The centrepiece of that focus is Investment Boost. That is a critical next step in our plan to lift economic productivity. From today, if you are a tradie, a farmer, a manufacturer, a small-business owner, or another hard-working Kiwi actually wanting to invest in the future of the New Zealand economy, we’re making it a little bit easier for you to grow your business—I’ll keep it real simple—because Investment Boost means cheaper tractors. It means cheaper utes. It means cheaper plant and equipment for manufacturers and winemakers and tourism operators and start-ups. It means fostering the investment New Zealand businesses need to lift productivity, to increase wages, to boost exports, and to get even more competitive on the global stage. It means making New Zealand a much more attractive destination for overseas investment. It means, most importantly, backing Kiwis to work smarter, not harder, as a result—higher wages, more jobs, and a chance for every New Zealander to get on top of the cost of living.

You see, that’s the difference between this Government and National and Labour. That is the big difference. We back small businesses to invest and to create jobs and to lift wages. Meanwhile, Labour’s gearing up to actually smash them and punish them with the capital gains tax as they stop them from just getting on and doing what they do, which is to grow. But National backs growth and—I’m telling you—Labour wants to tax it. It’s that simple.

Now, of course, it doesn’t stop there, because in Budget 2025 we’re making major investments in infrastructure; in Invest New Zealand; in growing tourism; in accelerating our science, innovation and technology sector; backing our film industry; and our early stage tech companies. It’s all part of our plan to go for economic growth to create jobs and lift wages. Why? So that Kiwis can actually get ahead. That’s what we’re here to do.

In this Budget, though, we have also got some very targeted support for those dealing with the cost of living. We’ve had years of economic mismanagement and vandalism from the Labour Government and that left a massive financial toll on families up and down this country. We all know the history. The history was pretty simple: lots of wasteful spending drove up inflation, drove up interest rates, led to a massive blowout in debt, and took a massive toll on families up and down around the country. Kiwis paid the price for their economic incompetence. That’s what happened here. Since day one, all of this Government has been focused on cleaning up their mess, and now we’re starting to see those results.

The exciting thing for working New Zealanders is that under this Government, the Government of the workers and the low and middle income New Zealanders, their wages after inflation have gone up—listen to this—$1,100 in the short time that we’ve been in Government. Under the last three years of a Labour Government, it went up a measly $80 average after inflation wages, right? That comes on top of the first tax relief, which we delivered in the last Budget for low and middle income, working New Zealanders. The shame of it is Labour, the Greens, Te Pāti Māori, and the unions didn’t support getting more money into the back pockets of working New Zealanders.

Now, we know that there is a lot more for us to do, which is why in this year’s Budget we are taking action to support those dealing with the cost of living in a targeted way. You’ve seen it with the changes to Working for Families payments, which means that 142,000 families across this country will receive, on average, an increase of about $14 per fortnight. We have 66,000 SuperGold card holders who are going to receive a rates rebate, ensuring that older New Zealanders living on a fixed income can navigate the cost of living in a much better way. I have to say to everyone listening, if you’re receiving New Zealand super, your payments are going to continue to rise under this Government. In fact, they have already risen $130 for a couple per fortnight since we came to power 18 months ago. We’re also extending the prescription lengths from three to 12 months. Of course, what that means for a lot of Kiwis is that removes a lot of time, a lot of hassle, and a lot of expense. Importantly, what it’s doing is it’s freeing up GP appointments so that those that need to see a doctor can get in and actually get that appointment as well.

Now, this Budget isn’t just about economic growth; as I said it’s about cost of living, but it’s also about investments in the front-line services. I’ll just say to you, look at the investments that we’re putting into health: $164 million to fund more urgent care and more after-hours care for Kiwis so they can see a doctor when they need to. We’re rolling that out across the country. We’re talking about new 24-hour urgent care services in Whangārei, in Tauranga, in Palmerston North, in Dunedin, in Counties Manukau. That means new urgent care services in the Hutt, in Timaru, and in Invercargill. It means extended after-hours services in Dargaville, Hokianga, Kaitāia, Gisborne, Hāwera, Tauranga, Te Kūiti, Taupō, Tokoroa, Whakatāne, Dannevirke, Levin, Masterton, Wairoa, Alexandra, Ashburton, Golden Bay, Gore, and Oamaru.

We have targeted support for more than 70 rural and remote communities, including extending after hours, 24/7 on call, in-person support, and improved access to diagnostics and medicines. All up, 98 percent of Kiwis will be able to receive in-person urgent care within an hour’s drive of their home. I’m telling you, that will make a real difference to many, many thousands of New Zealanders. Of course, we’re funding more health infrastructure—another $1 billion going in to make sure that we can actually redevelop Nelson Hospital, make sure that we can deliver a new emergency department for Wellington Hospital. That is a brilliant, brilliant healthcare package put together by a fantastic world-class Minister of Health: Simeon Brown.

The good news is it’s not just about health, because we all know in this House that we cannot have a strong economy if our kids haven’t mastered the basics, and our businesses can’t access the skills that they need to grow. The good news is in this Budget, thanks to our brilliant Minister of Education, Erica Stanford, we have some major investments coming into education. Every child in New Zealand deserves an outstanding start to life. We want them to have the very best opportunity and all the potential to succeed and to realise their potential. That’s why we campaigned for an hour a day of maths and reading and writing. That’s why we implemented a mobile phone ban. That’s why we’re actually rolling out structured literacy and structured mathematics so that we teach our kids the basics well and they get a chance at accessing higher-paying jobs.

But parents also need to know that if their child needs extra help, they have a real chance at getting the support that they need. In this Budget, we’re going further than ever before: the most significant and most comprehensive investment in learning support in a generation. Having spoken to many of the parents, I’m proud to say that the investments that we are making will be able to deliver 900,000 hours in additional teacher-aide time by 2028. We also have fresh opportunities for speech-language therapy and educational psychology. We’re also building new classrooms, too. There’s $514 million set aside for 300 new classrooms and new and expanded schools, and there’s $90 million set aside for 25 new learning support special classrooms and also improvements to those schools for students with additional needs as well. We have done that after watching Labour fail our kids year after year. We watched our children fall further and further behind against the rest of the world, and our Government’s determined to turn that all around, because every child deserves to master the basics and every child deserves their shot at their version of the Kiwi Dream, whatever that may be.

Well, I have to say this is another excellent Budget from Nicola Willis. It really is. Just like every family around the country, we have had to make tough choices about what we spend our money on. Against the challenging international backdrop, it’s a responsible Budget and it gets the basics right. It is a Budget focused on unleashing economic growth, creating jobs, increasing wages so that Kiwis can get ahead. It’s a Budget that’s providing targeted cost of living support as well. It’s a Budget that makes fresh investments in front-line services, like health and education, and it’s a Budget that actually keeps the country on a pathway back to surplus so that we can keep a lid on the debt and keep New Zealand well positioned for a rainy day.

We know on this side that it’s only through a strong economy that we can deal with the cost of living, that we can support Kiwis to get ahead, and we can make sure that we can afford the world-class public services that New Zealanders expect and deserve. So let me say, in closing, Budget 2025 is another excellent step in that direction and all part of getting New Zealand back on track. Thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): Isn’t it telling that in the Prime Minister’s speech he spent the majority of his time talking about our Green Budget and not his own. Budgets make Governments put their money where their mouth is. They show how a small group of elected people who win power by convincing enough people to vote for them will gather and spend our country’s collective resources. It shows you who they think is worth protecting, and who they think deserves to suffer. It shows you what they think hard choices are: whether they think it’s harder to tax the rich or to allow children to live in poverty, whether they think it’s harder to protect nature or hand over our forests and our oceans to fossil fuel lobbyists, whether they think it’s harder to feed the poor or to arm up for somebody else’s war.

Today, the Government has shown us that it thinks it’s harder to get the rich to pay their fair share than to look after regular people and the planet that we all share. For them, the path of least resistance is the suffering of regular New Zealanders. Just look at the cruel and callous decisions to punch down on young people who need income support. Just look at their cuts to Best Start. Tens of thousands of families will miss out because this Government has decided that supporting babies who don’t meet their necessary threshold for investment—they are supposedly saving $200 million by denying money to our tiniest New Zealanders. Coincidentally, they could find $200 million for new offshore gasfields. Let me spell that out: in a climate and inequality crisis, the Government is taking money away from whānau with a new baby at home and setting it on fire by ploughing it into new fossil fuel exploration.

Last week, the Greens showed the country what we would do if we were making these decisions. We showed people that we could reduce the cost of living, increase our quality of life, and rapidly reduce climate-changing emissions. We were straight up that doing so means fixing the tax system, and sensible borrowing to build a resilient economy. We chose common-sense decisions for our common good. We chose everybody seeing their GP for free. We chose every child in this country getting high-quality early childhood education that they need for a good life, free and publicly provided like every other year of schooling. We chose to fix Working for Families with a fair approach that lifts every single family out of poverty instead of a punitive abatement that pits the worst off and the slightly better off against each other.

Now, the Government, well they looked at the problem of high, effective marginal tax rates, which they know is a diabolical trap for whānau, and decided to make it worse. We, however, chose well-resourced public transport, reducing stress and congestion and climate-changing emissions; trains in and between our cities to connect whānau and friends and opportunities and fun, and, God forbid, to connect our country. We chose to put the wellbeing of everybody over the profits of a few, but this Government today chose to slash almost everything that we care about to protect those profits of a few.

So much for no BS, eh? This is the “trickle-down Budget”. This is the “no ambition Budget”. This is the “child poverty is actually all good Budget”. This is the “dismantle the country and hope to sell it for parts to international investment funds Budget”. This is the “ask the lowest-paid working women in this country to pay the cost of your unequal economy Budget”. This is the “let them eat cake Budget”. This is the “BS Budget”, because the Government is taking New Zealanders for chumps.

This Government is asking New Zealanders to believe that this is as high as we could possibly aim. They want people to believe that they should be scared of each other. They want people to believe that there’s not enough to go around. They want people to believe that what it takes to survive is relentlessly and exhaustingly competing and hustling and hoarding. They want people to believe that if you don’t, someone else will come and take it, that working harder, longer, for less, is somehow the only way to survive, but that one day you too could knuckle down and buy an over-leveraged property and owe a whole heap of money to the bank, and that your highest aspiration could be to buy a couple of homes and to rent them out to people so that you could charge an arm and a leg for the privilege of not freezing on the street. They want you to believe that our time is only valuable if it turns a profit, that our worth is only outputs and key performance indicators, that our native taonga, our whenua, our wildlife, they only matter once they have been sold.

This Government knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Everything in their world is only as worthwhile as its ability to generate a surplus. The Government wants New Zealanders to believe that this country does not have enough, that New Zealanders aren’t enough, and that we all need to settle for far less than what we deserve. We in the Greens know that that is simply not true. Our country now is wealthier than it has ever been, but, for some strange reason, half a million New Zealanders are using food banks every week. We rank rock-bottom in OECD countries for children’s wellbeing. The Government is fast tracking the destruction of native wildlife to line the pockets of fossil fuel executives.

Don’t hate the player; hate the game, eh? Well, clearly, we hate the game. The majority of people who play this game every single year, where fewer and fewer people win, and more and more people lose, well, I believe they hate the game too. But the rules of this game were made up, and they can be remade. The rules of this game were made up by the people in this House roughly 40 years ago by a string of radical finance Ministers who wanted to justify their dogmatic belief and the need to shrink the size of the State and rewrite the terms of our social contract. While the Government of today fixates on these outdated, self-imposed targets in this made-up game, it ignores the stuff that is really, really real.

Because what is an economy really? It’s just you and me, our planet, the stuff we make, and the relationships between all of those things. It’s the plumber turning up to work on a cold winter’s morning; the nurse clocking in. It is our land, our water, our natural ecosystems. It is our infrastructure which supports all of those rich resources. It is the experience, it is the skills, it’s the creativity held by each and every New Zealander.

Without nature, there is no economy. A river poisoned by mining doesn’t care about your race back to surplus. The children who currently are sleeping in bus shelters and under bridges because the Government has made it harder to access emergency housing and wrap-around support do not care about the debt-to-GDP ratio. The native species that the Government is deciding to push into extinction with the race to extract and exploit cannot be brought back to life when we grow this made-up pie. But, oh yeah, let’s not forget that they’ve also cut Predator Free.

There is an indigenous people’s proverb which goes something like: “Only when the last tree has been cut down, the last fish has been caught, the last stream poisoned, will we realise that we cannot eat money.” This Government has lost sight of how these fiscal measures are means and metrics, not goals unto themselves. They are ways to do things, not the things that we do for their own sake.

It should be blindingly obvious that when the real world is falling apart around your ears, anyone who wants to declare themselves as a leader should be focused on fixing the real things that actually matter. But what this Government is telling us is “Computer says no”. Instead of daring to imagine a new computer programme, instead of questioning whether that system needs updating, this Government has decided it’s the people who are wrong, not their tired, failed, exhausted old script.

But it does not have to be this way. The Greens believe in the power, the creativity, and the people of this country. We know that by working together, we can achieve things that not one of us could possibly achieve alone. We know that our nation isn’t 5 million random, isolated, alienated individuals all doing our own thing. We are New Zealanders because we share this country, and our futures are inextricably intertwined. In order for us to move forward, to really, truly, properly move forward, we cannot leave anyone behind.

The Greens are not solely interested in fiscal management but in real-world economic management. We know that a surplus ultimately means nothing on paper if your people can’t afford to eat. We know that pushing more capital into this economy doesn’t mean that much if New Zealanders are slaves to it, instead of the owners of it. We know that for all of the big speeches from this Government on “Going For Growth”, their merciless cuts mean that all they are growing is homelessness, poverty, inequality, climate-changing emissions, the pockets of the rich, and the young people currently leaving this country in droves.

A different world is possible. We can look after each other, and we can care for our planet. Who’s telling us that we can’t? Oh! It’s the people who are currently making a heck of a lot of money and holding a lot of power in the rules of the game as it currently runs. Of course change terrifies them. That’s why they have spent decades building up thinktanks and talkback radio hosts and political parties who will tell everyone that “This is just the way that things are.” They will conveniently leave out the fact that the way things are right now is pretty bloody recent phenomena. In the 1930s and 1940s, after some of the worst atrocities that we have seen in the world, our country decided to create public healthcare, public education, and public housing, and we paid for it with higher taxes on those who had profited handsomely during a time of hardship for many. We have done it before, and we can do it again.

But then, just before I was born, politicians in this place who went on to found the most radical, right-wing party in here, decided to shred all of that and sell off the things that we all owned. They changed the rules as to what the Government could account for and why. A few people made a lot of money, and regular people have been left fighting for crumbs. Those same very people who have made a lot of money hoovering up the things that we all used to own together and then selling those services like electricity back to regular New Zealanders for eye-watering costs—those people are now bankrolling some of those same parties which tell regular people that “This is just the way things are. Don’t think about it too hard.” The rules of this game are designed so that regular people blame themselves instead of seeing this game for what it is.

The Government is not a household. The Minister of Finance talks about maxed-out credit cards, but that is not how it actually works when you are managing a country’s economy. The Government should not and does not have to penny-pinch while it is fixing the roof that is leaking. We can and we should build things and invest in our future together. What we need to do, we have that to do it ourselves.

Of course we need to be careful and we need to be thoughtful about how we do it. You can’t just throw money at things if you haven’t built the real-world capacity to actually build those things. Funnily enough, this Government’s Budget simultaneously cuts funding from the things that we hold dear, but also undermines and guts our real-world economic capacity. Real responsibility means taking care of more than just a balance sheet. Growing our economic capacity means investing in energy infrastructure, in stable jobs, and in transport.

Now, the Government will tell us all that we just have to wait. We have to wait until the economy grows, wait until the books are balanced, wait to care for people—as though those things are luxuries and not necessities. But while we wait, this Government shifts more and more of the burden on to everyday people through toll roads, new fees, rising costs. They are making New Zealanders pay more while they are doing less. They do this in the name of shrinking public debt, which they know will increase private debt.

In a country with some of the highest levels of household debt in the OECD, this straight-up does not make any economic sense. It’s not common sense, because none of this is common sense. It is common sense to ensure that everyone in this country has a safe, warm, dry home to live in. It is common sense to ensure that everyone can get their teeth fixed when they need it. It is common sense for us to look after the planet that we all rely on for our survival. It is common sense for us to invest in ourselves, to collectively plan for a future that is based on New Zealanders’ know-how and creativity, not simply to satisfy some spreadsheets on a banker’s computer screen in New York City.

Even the Minister of Finance herself admitted the other day—and I quote—“not all spending is a cost. Some spending is investment that provides a social and financial return over the longer-term.” Well, Minister, Government spending is not a zero-sum game, because the Government is not a household, and investment is not just a cost, yet successive Governments have been fixated on reducing the fiscal deficit and, in doing so, they have neglected the world around them and the growing deficits that aren’t represented on our books: the billions in neglected infrastructure, the huge social deficit, and the climate liabilities.

Successive Governments have chosen to be bound by these self-imposed debt targets—this old-school accounting, not real-world economics. The models which generate these numbers—well, they tell us when debt might be dangerous, but they don’t tend to tell us when the risks of under-investment are genuinely dangerous. How long can our country sustain decades of chronic under-investment? We need to be willing in this place to have a grown-up conversation about the opportunity cost of not investing in our future. That is a real social investment approach.

But by refusing to do so, and by crafting ideologically driven targets, the Minister of Finance is showing us that she’s the real radical in this room. Her fixation on reducing debt beyond levels recommended by Treasury—which necessitates these pages and pages of investment cuts—put us all on an incredibly, incredibly dangerous path. The Minister of Finance’s self-imposed fiscal rules and expenditure, gunning for historic lows, will, according to Treasury itself, change—and I quote—“the fundamental role of Government in New Zealand”. I don’t believe that this is the radicalism that New Zealanders voted for.

If balancing the books is only to be done by throwing working people under the bus, then the books need to be rewritten. If meeting your targets mean that the productive sectors of our economy shrink, while the paper values of the wealthy increase, then we need to rethink those targets. The question before us isn’t whether we can afford to care for each other; it’s whether we choose to. This Budget is a mirror, and it reflects the Government’s values. They know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. We can do so much better, and the Greens have shown this country precisely how.

SPEAKER: Before I call the member, I just want to make it clear that the question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. You know, you can always tell when a politician’s speechwriter doesn’t like her very much, and that was certainly one of those circumstances.

Hon Members: She wrote it herself.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Someone said that she wrote it herself—well, that’s not very nice.

I rise on behalf of ACT in support of this Budget, and I want to start with some simple truths about every Government Budget. When a Government spends, it takes from the firms, the farms, and the families that make up our great country. Every dollar that the Government spends cannot be spent by a family paying their groceries or their energy bill or renovating their house, it can’t be invested by a business trying to create new jobs, and it can’t be spent by a farmer trying to buy a new tractor. Nobody else can spend that dollar, because the Government has it.

But it’s not just that simple power to tax. The Government has a diabolical power: time travel. It can actually take money now, put it into the fiscal TARDIS, and send it into the future as debt one day landing on taxpayers who might just be starting on their ABCs this afternoon, or maybe, with the help of the Government’s new maths assistance, their “one, two, threes”. Every Government has an obligation to stop the fiscal TARDIS for the sake of future generations. Every Government, like this one, must have a path to return to surplus and start paying debt down.

Another fact is that this Budget isn’t the one that the ACT Party alone would bring. If you’ve read ACT’s alternative budgets in past years, you’ll know that this Government is spending in this Budget more than we would. But I can tell you something else: it is also spending much less than a Budget without ACT, and I’m proud of the role that ACT has played, working with our partners in the National Party and New Zealand First, to bring together this coalition Budget. I’m proud of the role that we’ve played in questioning spending, finding the savings, and, collectively together, saving billions of dollars—about $4.9 billion a year—for the taxpayer.

Another great feature of this Budget was those authors. You see, it wasn’t written by the postmodern unicorn-chasers of the Opposition benches, like the ones we just heard. This Budget, among other things, signals another year of stable Government for New Zealand.

The Greens—well, they’ve, helpfully, shown us their alternative budget. They would increase annual Government spending by $22 billion a year, and, with that, they promised that they would end poverty. I read the Greens’ alternative budget and it got me wondering if anything like this has ever happened before. Well, something very similar has happened. The last time the Greens were in Government, they increased annual Government spending by $52 billion a year. Now, here’s the thing: they can’t have it both ways. Either $52 billion of extra spending was enough to fix all our problems, or $22 billion will not be enough to fix all our problems. You see, the Greens are intellectually bankrupt, and if they were over here in Government instead of there in Opposition, the Government would be fiscally bankrupt, as well.

But their bankruptcy does not end there. They’re also morally bankrupt, because societies succeed when we push each other up and don’t pull each other down, and the core message of the Greens, when you listen to all those thundering cliches and shop-worn phrases—in fact, I don’t think Chlöe Swarbrick uses an expression unless it’s so well road-tested that it’s lost any semblance of traction. But if you listen to it all, what you hear is a simple message to her supporters: “Your problems are caused by someone else’s success, and if we were in power we would pull them down. The solution to your problem is to take from someone else.” That is the moral bankruptcy at the heart of the Opposition’s proposition.

Now, there are two other parties in Opposition. Te Pāti Māori probably don’t know what a Budget is or that it was on today, so we needn’t worry about them. They show up to Parliament for TikTok, not for the good of all New Zealanders—and ain’t that the truth?

Then there is the Labour Party. Their whole electoral strategy is kind of the opposite of the Kama Sutra—they don’t have a position on anything. It’s dangerous to have a party desperate for power that won’t tell you its policies. An Opposition of unicorn-chasers, TikTok wannabes, and dodgers should never be allowed near your money.

ACT supporters, on the other hand—our Ministers, our members of Parliament, and our allies in Government—are proud to stand behind a Budget that is saving to invest and is boosting the productive capacity of New Zealanders. We have a simple set of values that just happen to work the world over. Any Government is only a group of people, and so is the rest of the population.

I ask those who say that the Government can solve all your problems: if a group of people ensnared in the policy, politics, and bureaucracy of Government can solve your problems, imagine what human beings could do if they were free to do it for themselves without the politics and bureaucracy—and that’s why the Government that governs best is the Government that governs less. That’s why any Government’s goal should be unleashing the creative powers of a free society that are in all of us. The goal should be freedom under the law so that each of us can make a difference in our own lives and in the lives of those that they care about. The alternative—the politicians and their grand Government schemes—cannot make New Zealanders flourish, because nobody can be forced to flourish. A country can only flourish, on the other hand, when each of us is free to be ourselves and succeed on our own terms.

I believe that those values are reflected in this Budget. This Budget reduces the share of the nation’s economic pie that is taken by Government, and while ACT would never have its fingers in the pie, our fingerprints are all over it. You see, inflation is currently at 2.5 percent. The population grew by 0.9 percent, or about 47,000, in the last year, and that means that our population plus inflation is almost 3.5 percent. If the Government’s Budget had grown by 3.5 percent, it would have grown by $5 billion, and the question is: does this Budget increase spending by $5 billion? No, it does not; it increases by a fraction of that. It increases by only $1.3 billion, and that is the saving. That is where we are growing our spending by less than the rest of the economy and saving New Zealanders money so that there’s more for those firms and those farms and those families that make up this great country to consume.

Now, that may be true, but it’s not the whole story, because, too often, Budgets are said to be all about who gets what. Actually, Budgets are about values and about ensuring that there is a reward for flourishing, for taking action, and making the most of your time on earth.

That’s why it’s so important that under this Budget, if a business invests in new plant and equipment, they can write off 20 percent of the value and pay no tax right now. If you’re a farmer buying new milking machines because you want to increase your output and export to the world, if you’re a start-up investing in lab equipment to test the science of your product, if you’re a restaurant upgrading a commercial kitchen to serve more people better and faster, or if you’re a logistics company investing in better-enterprise resource management to get stuff to the right place faster, it’s not up to any politician to tell people how this policy should be used. It’s up to the creative people of New Zealand, and whatever they’re trying to do, the 20 percent capital asset deduction will reduce the tax drag on investing in order to increase productivity and wages.

The Treasury forecasts that by the time those young Kiwis learning their ABCs I mentioned enter the workforce, wages will be 1.5 percent higher than they would otherwise be, thanks to this policy alone. This Budget doesn’t just hose money at what’s politically popular; it sets the foundations for growth and it benefits those New Zealanders who may not be able to vote yet but who will look back and thank today’s Government for this policy, if they care to do so.

Paying less tax certainly matters. If people can keep and reinvest more of what they make, it actually starts a virtuous circle turning. That investment that leads to productivity, leads to higher wages and higher profits. Those profits can be reinvested, leading to more productivity, and those higher wages empower workers to become investors and owners themselves. Productivity rises more, and all the Government needs to do to allow this virtuous circle to turn is less. I’m proud to be part of a Government that is doing just that, where it counts.

When the Budget debate adjourns, we’ll see the Regulatory Standards Bill debated and sent on its way to become law, and though I said at the start that the Government’s goal should be unleashing the creative powers of a free society, paying less tax is half of the equation to human flourishing, but that’s just about the Government taking less of your property in tax in the first place. The Government must also restrain itself from restricting how you use the property you have left, and for far too long, politicians have come into this House and trampled New Zealanders’ rights to use and exchange their own property.

They do it for political reasons. They ban people from using buildings in order to show they care about to earthquakes, even if no lives will be saved and the cost will be billions. They ban oil and gas exploration to show that they care about the planet, even if the practical outcome is to our burning more coal. They give every Tom, Dick, and Hōne the right to object to your building a house in order to show that they care about the planet, but the truth is that there’s a whole generation who find that there’s not enough habitat for humanity in our country.

Democracy demands that politicians be held accountable for bad lawmaking, and that’s what the Regulatory Standards Bill will facilitate. It will require lawmakers to publicly declare what problem their law seeks to solve, it will require them to show the effects on people’s liberties and their property rights, and it will require them to weigh the costs and benefits of a law and publicly state who pays the costs and reaps the benefits. That sort of transparency and accountability will not actually stop bad lawmakers—Parliament will remain sovereign—but what it will do is help voters identify and punish the bad lawmakers when they vote, and, over time, we’ll see a change of incentives in our politics and a change in our country.

Justifiable, necessary regulations will remain but others won’t. The builder who takes longer to get consent than actually build the thing will spend more time building homes for the next generation and less time being frustrated with the council. The educator who only wanted to open up young minds will have more time to do that and less time being afraid of the Ministry of Education. The lawyer conveyancing property will spend more time articulating their clients’ interests and less time checking their identity, again and again and again. The church organising an Anzac Day parade will spend more time preparing to honour those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country and less time talking to the council about more frickin’ cones. That is the world of empowerment, with less red tape and regulation, that this Budget and the Regulatory Standards Bill herald.

But the Government is also investing in things that matter, and what matters more than anything is to be safe in our bodies from thugs abroad and thugs at home. That’s why a half-billion-dollar boost in defence and foreign affairs is necessary in a changing world. ACT long campaigned, one alternative budget after another, to spend 2 percent of GDP on defence, and that is what our Minister of Defence, Judith Collins, will be spending in her ninth term in Parliament in the early 2030s. It is a form of insurance, defence. You hope you never use it, but the chances are higher than ever that we might have to.

Big countries talk about peace through strength. A better option for a small country like New Zealand is peace through alliances, and this Budget allows New Zealanders to take seriously our ancient Anzac bind. It allows us to be part of a network of like-minded democratic societies committed to defending our freedoms in an uncertain world.

We also need security from thugs at home. Some Government spending, I’ve got to say, just sells itself, and there are few things that are better value than locking up criminals. Nearly half a billion dollars for locking up more crooks sounds expensive, but if you think crims are expensive in jail, imagine them out on the streets, robbing, raping, and murdering. Locking them up is the best money we’ll ever spend.

The Government is investing also in the ultimate resource of human creativity. Better education, including another $140 million on school attendance, will help ensure that we transfer skills from one generation to the next and have fewer lives going off the rails, and when children get to school, the learning support and the maths help will be there. I want to paint a picture. Just imagine how our society could be today if that maths help was available when Grant Robertson was at school: the Budget would be much, much easier—if only.

Parents who save and sacrifice to get their children a better future at a private school pay taxes like anyone else, their children deserve an education like anyone else, and yet they pay more GST on their school fees than they get back in Government subsidy. After 15 years of neglect, we are finally increasing that subsidy and tying it to the actual number of parents who choose private schools, rather than simply capping it and watching their fees slowly reduce.

All of these policies are possible only because we’re being prepared to live within our means. In those reckless, hungry years under the previous Government, when any problem could be solved by throwing some more of other people’s money at it—or so we were told—I think we had a different approach in this country that had to stop. In fact, if Labour sold T-shirts, they’d probably say, “I voted Labour and all I got was $100 billion worth of debt.” That’s all we got, and for those who blame COVID, the splurge went on far longer than that.

This Government has to do what those firms and farms and families had to do in the hungry years of Labour: if we want to spend more, we need to save somewhere else. It makes no sense for Government to borrow money your children will need to pay back, with interest, and then put it in your KiwiSaver so you can invest in shares. I’m sorry, and I know people like free money, but it’s not free: your kids will pay it back, and it makes no sense. It’s just good, basic financial management.

I said that Brooke van Velden saved the taxpayer billions in the Budget for the Government. Today, it’s been revealed the savings of the pay equity changes are $12.8 billion over four years. But I also said something else: I said that she left a fairer, more affordable, and more sustainable pay equity scheme.

Camilla Belich: Totally wrong.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: That is true. What she’s done is she’s ensured that if you want to take a pay equity claim, you’ve got to prove sex-based discrimination. The whole point of it in the beginning, I would have thought, Camilla Belich—and, yes, Brooke van Velden also said that we need to put the emphasis on growing wages back on to the actions that economists tell us grow wages.

I heard people say after the changes that they’d been “working on pay equity cases for years”. I’ve got a news flash for them: that’s not work; that’s litigation. It doesn’t make the boat go faster. The fact that people thought that taking a pay equity claim was work tells us everything we need to know about why it needed to change: the way the left think and the way the union movement think. There are not only fiscal savings from pay equity changes but there’s a proud declaration that this country, or no other country, will get wealthy by arguing with itself. We get wealthier from investment, innovation, and genuine hard work, such as what this Government and this Budget promotes.

Of course, there are many other savings. The $18.4 million reduction in Radio New Zealand funding should help focus the organisation on high-quality news reporting in the way many of its competitors have been forced to do in a challenging industry.

The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority has always been silly. People know energy is expensive and that it’s good to save it. There’s no need for a Government department to do that and, over four years, we’re going to save $56 million there.

We’re ending the mad experiments of Kāhui Ako—or communities of learning—which were actually “communities of teachers taking time off”. That will save $375.5 million, and good on Erica Stanford for removing what Hekia Parata started.

Crazy research grants for so-called climate resilience for Māori—whatever that really is—and bilingual towns and cities funding is all getting cut to save taxpayers’ money. People who work hard in the real world, treating others well, taking each person as they find them—those people have, in this Budget, some relief and are being taken seriously.

There are so many savings, I’m going to run out of time. But what I will say is that I’m proud to be on this team, with these parties, bringing down this this Budget. With the savings that ACT has produced, with the sense of hope that we get when people are able to make a difference in their own lives, this little country can keep the promise to all those who have come to its shores for a brighter future. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Kiwis, I am holding Māui-1 crude oil from 1969 because this Budget is the real oil, with $200 million dedicated to accelerate, de-risk, enable your nation—our country, fellow MPs—to take a cornerstone in recovering a foundation industry destroyed by the last regime. With your blessings, Mr Speaker, I’d like to take the lid off and invite the Green Party to sniff it. I daren’t do the same thing to my whanaungas in the Māori Party—they’ll claim ownership of it.

The Green Party is likely to say “We can match it with wind.”, but we don’t want your mung bean, pronoun version of wind. We are here to turn around the fortunes of our country and our nation, and that depends on affordable energy and secure energy. It is a problem that has been inherited after the worst decision made in the history of our nation, delivered by Jacinda, supported by Megan, and, sadly, acquiesced by the good Matua. But to remind me of my ills, I’m wearing a light-blue suit today, and to remind Labour what they could’ve had, I’ve got a red tie.

I would say to Labour that I need to give you speed-dial relationship advice, and my advice to Mr Hipkins is you’re going to kiss a lot of frogs before you find the prince. I doubt that they will be able to find anyone worthy of a partner, because his speech today was an obituary. It was an epitaph. The ideas that they formerly associated with of the proud men and women who were on the farm, digging the coal, digging the gold, doing the mahi—they have been overwhelmed by marginal, frivolous, irrelevant beliefs.

Who will they find to uphold their Government—the Māori Party? Send a search party. The Green Party? Never—that Budget was a toxic diet of destructiveness for New Zealanders.

There’s nothing wrong with aspiring to become wealthy. The Green Party stood against that. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with teaching our children to stand up and, by the sweat of thy brow, look after yourselves, and of all the people they purport to represent in strugglers’ gully, don’t lecture us about school lunches. Wake up early and make your kids a lunch yourself. When they’re not at school, who’s feeding them? And if they’re not being fed, you don’t deserve the munificence of the State.

Our social welfare Minister has laid down the law. If you’re 17, 18, 19, or 20 and you’re not willing to stand up and join the ranks of your fellow New Zealanders, prepare to own your own life. Prepare to find a solution to your own problems. We are no longer going to pay you to stay on the couch or be on meth.

That’s the appetite that Kiwis have, because we’ve inherited not only a set of fiscal problems; we have a cultural problem in our country where far too many Kiwis believe it is the State’s obligation—and their right to demand it—that we meet the cost of their lifestyles. No, it is not—if you do not change in Kaikohe your lifestyle, the cops are coming to get you, and if they take you to court, we’ll build another prison for you.

I’m sick to death, as a leading Māori identity in this Parliament, of not seeing a quality of leadership from either iwi or hapū to not only eradicate the gangs but to get the old type of leadership that defined the Māori community: wake up early, look after your children, look after yourselves with a balance of faith, and no more hakas of victimhood. Don’t tell this House that the reason the haka exists here is because of victim ideology of colonisation. There are lots of people of my descent in this House who are proud to own the traditions and obligations and duties of being a parliamentarian, which is why we are giving our speeches on the Budget today.

Let’s think about security. We need a deeper ethic of service, obligation, and duty, and let’s give our Minister of Defence a hearty round of applause. After many years of deprecating and marginalising the tradition of service and the role of the military, she has brought that back to a position of elevated status. We need to celebrate these institutions, which this Budget builds on.

But security is not only about men and women in uniform; it’s about having fiscal resilience, and fiscal resilience does require us to continually manage debt in such a way that it expands the private sector whilst confining the public sector as to what it should be doing. There will be more cuts, and then the question should be asked: what exactly should the State be doing? If we cannot generate the surplus—if we cannot continually deliver budgetary surplus—then we have to address what should the State be doing, because the State over the last three to five years has expanded into various spheres of our economic life, where it no longer belongs.

That takes us to the regulatory reform. That’s why we are repealing the excesses of the Resource Management Act, that’s why we will be fixing up the Wildlife Act, and that’s why my leader, Winston Peters, in negotiating with the National Party, brought forward the fast-track legislation.

It is pitiful. I come from the Tai Tokerau—Northland. Three projects. Number one, a potential marina in a very benighted area of the Bay of Islands, where P has gone mad amongst local people. Number two, taking sand out of a virtual Sahara desert—i.e., the coast of Northland, on the East Coast. Number three, the development of a dry dock facility. What do I hear from the North? These are the voices that this Government cannot tolerate—stopping, halting, confusing, undermining. If we do not have projects that are permitted and accelerated which generate jobs and increase our productivity, where will our wealth come from?

The wealth, I say to Mr Hipkins, does not come from doing each other’s dirty washing; the wealth comes from using our natural resources, mining our natural resources, utilising our fisheries resource, and boosting the footprint of our farming—and stop intimidating Kiwis who are willing to invest. This is a pro-investment Budget, through our depreciation. Stop scaremongering that New Zealand can no longer grow its food-generative capacity, its food-productive capacity, because of climate change. We were given in the Paris accord, as a food-producing nation, the option of not including food-related emissions. That’s what the law says at the UN, and stand by when we move forward to the next election, associated with the party that we belong to—you’ll hear much more about that.

I want to focus on a number of the other initiatives that really are important to us as Kiwis. At the pith of this Budget is a challenge and a question for Kiwis: if we cannot afford the current size of the State, then are we willing to make the hard trade-offs? Mining gas and oil is a hard trade-off. Do you want the lights on? Don’t seek to convince Kiwis you’re going to keep the lights on by more sunlight and more wind. We, whether we like it or not, because of the wretched decision of destroying the gas industry four or five years ago, are the only Western nation that I know of that is transitioning to coal—the damaging outcome of decisions made without contemplating their consequences.

That is why the $200 million that I’ve announced today is needed to derisk—and it’s sad that I should say this, because we’re not Venezuela. We’re New Zealanders, proud of our heritage and capable of bringing a number eight wire mentality to solve our problems, but too many foreign direct investors no longer have confidence in our country. Why? Because they look back and see how one decision could destroy a whole industry. But when they see the Government as a fellow shareholder, a fellow investor with a cornerstone right, they know that it’s is going to be a very bad Government and permanently scarred Government, or, indeed, a Government that disappears for ever, that willingly destroys that investment.

It’s extraordinary that you and I, fellow MPs, are reduced to encouraging people to come to New Zealand because of their fear of our worthiness, our integrity, and our reliability, but we should not overlook the fact that so much of the resources of the country were developed in a co-investment model. Now, we ought always to be very, very vigilant that we do not use in a reckless, profligate fashion our cheque book. But the story of our nation has been co-investment, and we, through this decision, are going to make sure: number one, that the lights stay on; number two, that energy is affordable; and, number three, that energy is secure, and if it comes to pass that fossil fuels are required in the short to medium or even in the long term, that is the price that we have to pay to ensure that we do not believe falsely in how quickly alternative technologies can develop in order for us to make the journey in terms of carbon emissions, because we cannot destroy our economy through that journey.

That is why I’m intensely proud to belabour the fact in respect of this $200 million, and I know it will be attacked. But you may not know that next Thursday, the Green Party travellers are going to have a protest outside the ANZ Bank. They have decided that banks should no longer fund coal, minerals, and gas. These unelected fellow travellers of the Green Party, possessed of some false creed—

Francisco Hernandez: It’s called capitalism—it’s called markets.

Hon SHANE JONES: Well, I’ll tell you what, I’m going to be there the day before, and I will be there with my megaphone because the banks of New Zealand need to know that you don’t have the moral authority to de-bank farming. You don’t have the moral authority to destroy regional New Zealand, and the Green Party and their fellow travellers—under no circumstances whatsoever should we permit or should we encourage that destructiveness, because of their conceit and the false superiority that they bring to these debates.

Now, let me talk about a topic near and dear to my leader, who, by the way, said to me “Have you finished your discussions with Nicola Willis?”, at about a quarter past one. “I have.” “Oh, very good. You’re giving the speech. Well, you like to challenge yourself and give speeches without notes, Shane. Let’s see how good you really are.”

The one thing he said was “Please talk about rail.” Now, I know what attracts adverse and toxic reactions to certain lost souls, but, folks, rail will continue to occupy a place of position. But we need to put the executive of KiwiRail on notice: if the Crown, on behalf of the taxpayers, is continually going to throw dough, we must see results, and if we’re not seeing results, don’t just blame the workers. We’re putting a new board in place, and that board will have the acid on them to ensure that that executive leadership team delivers; if not, consequences will most certainly flow.

Let me now talk about some of the environmental changes that are adverted to in our Budget, not the least of which is the money that’s put aside to meet the costs of the new Resource Management Act (RMA) system. The new RMA system, folks, is based on property rights. It’s based on expanding the liberty of asset owners to enjoy not only the fruits of their labour but the fruits of holding certain rights of ownership, and not having too many nosy parkers—not having too many people who are not directly affected by decisions—hampering the ability of local communities and local businesses to thrive. That is going to take some millions of dollars to introduce, but in the period of time that that final product is introduced, we’re making other changes. We are going to ensure that aquaculture, mining, quarrying, and water utilisation are not held captive and not squandered as people march off to the court, never to get a result within a decent period of time. Those are the practical challenges, and those are the practical responses that this Budget is funding.

The other thing that needs to be borne in mind through this Budget is that when we do find opportunities, let’s invite foreign direct investment to come into our country. Let’s ensure that the test is one where Kiwis, our quality of life, and our values are uppermost in the minds of the officials as those decisions are made, and stop blaming foreign direct investment in the mining sector for things that may have gone wrong and stop stigmatising such a sector when, every day, my opponents come using technology totally reliant on mining—a level of hypocrisy we see that in an ideological sense beggars belief. Foreign direct investment is a key pillar and an important input to the future of our nation, providing it’s on the basis that it enriches, enhances, and expands the independence and productivity of Kiwis.

The whole concept of investment has been supported through our depreciation announcements today. If you want to expedite productivity and if you want to find solutions of a scientific, technological nature for climate change challenges, depreciation is a tremendous input. We know we’ve virtually reached peak tree position. Granted, planting trees is a key contribution to our climate change journey, but my colleagues on this side of the House realise that land must also produce food. So to the vegetable growers, please rest assured that the Ministers on this side of the House are going to ensure that you’re not taxed and you’re not regulated out of existence. We want more food produced in our own country, including an expansion of dairy, by relying on science and technology and cleverer utilisation of water resources.

Of course, I’ve had a rather charmed position in this Budget because my leader negotiated the $1.2 billion at the point of the Government’s consummation. But money that’s allocated via the Regional Infrastructure Fund will continue to support the underlying principles of our Budget, and—to remind Kiwis—what are they? Growth, common-sense outcomes, security, and a sense of responsibility that you are both the author and the inheritor, but—most importantly—you are responsible for what happens in your life.

That is why I’ve got no tolerance for the haka of victimhood. That is why my leader and I see a very bright future when politicians stand up and reclaim from the woke tribe the ability to use our own oil and our own gas to keep the lights on, and this [Holds up the bottle of oil] genuinely—as is the Budget—is the real oil.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. E ara ake nei au ki te whakapuaki whakaaro ki te iwi Māori, ngā mea noho ki te kāinga.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to express some thoughts to the Māori people, those that are at home.]

If we look back in this country’s history, there’s never been a Budget that delivered what Māori needed, not in the light of the Māori history in this country, nor in the light of the Māori future in this country. No Budget has ever taken into account the Māori-Crown relationship. No Budget has ever recognised the contribution that Māori will make to the future of this country and to invest in the 1 million-plus Māori of today—yes, e te iwi, the 1 million-plus Māori of today.

The census told us that the Māori population was just under a million, but they also told us that they only managed to count around 85 percent of us, with this meaning that the 15 percent of Māori who are out there somewhere would naturally take us above 1 million—the 1 million Māori in Aotearoa today. So we are at least 20 percent of the country’s population.

This is important. Don’t ever let anyone downplay that number, because in a democracy, the numbers count, as does proportionality. So if we consider the Budget being discussed today, $180 billion of your money, e te whānau, and we consider proportionality, it stands that 20 percent of the population who are Māori should expect to see an investment of 20 percent of that $180 billion made in their name. That’s $36 billion, e te whānau—$36 billion. Don’t forget that figure.

Remember, the numbers count and the numbers can also hold those in Government to account. So $36 billion, that’s what we should be looking for in this Budget—$36 billion of Māori and Te Tiriti accountability from the Government. If we look a little closer at the demographics, at our young Māori under the age of 27, they are one in every third person in the country. You see, we are a young people. Of the 1 million Māori, 70 percent, or 700,000, are under 40 years of age, and 50 percent, or 500,000 of the 1 million Māori, are under the age of 25.

You see, we have a strong future in this country—the numbers tell us so—yet no Government has had the courage to deliberately and intentionally invest in us. Will today be that day? Well, I highly doubt it, but let’s not worry about today.

I accept that, for many, it’s hard to make sense of the tensions that exist in the Māori-Crown relationship. I also accept that it’s not entirely their fault. They were never taught that history. It was purposefully obscured beneath colonial myth, with one clear intention: to erase any trace of the Māori people and to exonerate the colonial settlers.

Right up until 1860, Māori remained dominant in economic endeavour and development in Aotearoa. Māori were busy organising, developing, and expanding our own economic future. Māori imported the first plough in 1820, quickly adapted to new breeds of animals and crops, and steadily moved to import technologies such as the flax and flour mills, whilst simultaneously continuing to export those raw materials, and all of this was before the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

By the time the colonial settlers arrived in 1840, Māori had already shifted to large-scale agriculture and horticulture, and were capable of feeding tens of thousands of people. As it follows, as the settler population ballooned, that’s exactly what they did as he tohu o te manaakitanga [a mark of hospitality]. You see, the farming backbone of the New Zealand economy was established in the 1800s by te iwi Māori, and if this conversation has peaked your interest in some way, then I suggest you go and take a look at any iwi Treaty settlement account and it will have a record of that iwi’s historical production capacity and value.

Now, lastly on this topic, the 20 years following the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi between 1840 and 1860 is a period known as the golden era of Māori enterprise, and up until that time, Māori retained complete economic independence and, indeed, economic dominance in Aotearoa. All of this economic development was enabled and underpinned by the retention of our land and natural resources and it also positioned Māori to lead the economic development of the new, emerging country of New Zealand, but our tīpuna could never have foreseen how the next 40 years would play out.

As the military invasion of Aotearoa commenced in 1860 at Waitara in Taranaki, Māori would be besieged by two decades of war, theft, destruction, displacement, and imprisonment by military and legislative force. This invasion would ultimately wrench all of that economic development, its capital, its equity, and its potential out of Māori control and transfer it to Pākehā control, and the lion’s share of that work was executed between the years of 1860 and 1885. The following 15 years would be characterised by a deep, deep post-invasion depression for Māori, and by the turn of the 1900s, we would be deemed a dying race, with a population less than 40,000—āe rā, e te iwi [that’s right, people], less than 40,000.

So the fact that we are here and we are more than a million today is cause for celebration. But although we have endured, we have never recovered economically. The land and the resources that once underpinned our economic independence and the future is now in the hands of the Government, corporations—both domestic and international—and the private citizens of this country. Although this House would rather that we forget these events and lock them away in the colonial history, there are even more glaring examples in our contemporary history, none more glaring that the example of the disproportionate post-war economic advantaging of the Pākehā and the economic disadvantaging of Māori—actions that would systematise and entrench the economic imbalance and would set the socio-economic scene for the next 100 years.

By 1950, Pākehā returned servicemen had received around a million acres—just short of a million acres—of farmland. They’d been given it free of charge for their service in World War I and World War II. They would then be given low- and no-interest loans to build their family homes on those farms, they would be given grants to stock and equip those farms, and they would be given perpetual subsidies to underwrite the new family farming economy of the new New Zealand, lovingly known still as the backbone of the country’s economy. By the end of this privileging, they had received almost a million acres of farmable land and had been advanced more than £28 million in grants and low or no-interest loans. This, naturally, positioned them well to exploit new opportunities in the emerging new modern society.

Their Māori counterparts, however, would not do so well. Māori returned servicemen, despite the promises of inclusion, would be excluded from all of these initiatives. They would be told to return to their iwi and to their rural homes, and seek support there. They would be excluded from the post-war PTSD rehabilitation programmes, excluding them from receiving the returned serviceman pension, and they were even excluded from the RSA. This was not the promise of equal citizenship that they’d signed up to; this was the reality of second-class citizenship in their own land, and as the engine of the new, young New Zealand wound itself up, Māori found themselves firmly fixed at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, with no economic leverage.

It’s truly a shame that the Governments of the 1940s and 1950s couldn’t bring themselves to make good on their promises that they made to Māori to honour and support the commitment made by Māori by participating in those wars in good faith for the promise of equal citizenship, and for enduring the ravages of colonisation through the 1800s. Indeed, as I consider the long list of anti-Māori, anti-working class actions this Government has taken in only 18 months, it feels as though we have been taken straight back to the 1940s.

You know, this was the Crown’s opportunity to begin to restore its own mana, to act in the same good faith towards its Tiriti partner, and begin the journey towards Tiriti justice for all to make a small amends for the devastation they had inflicted on the Māori people. Sadly, this was not to be. Instead, they doubled down and they tripled down. They began to engineer social and economic conditions that would entrap Māori in intergenerational poverty to for ever serve as the blue-collar workers in the new little piece of Britain in the South Pacific.

This is the story and the nature of economic privilege in Aotearoa: a privilege afforded to Pākehā and a privilege stolen from Māori—not from one generation of Māori, but from every generation of Māori. And now, as we return to this year, to sit here and listen to those who have been economically privileged as to how they intend to spend the $180 billion of the country’s money derived from its core assets—stolen assets—with all of its history, yes, tensions do indeed rise and, yes, in this term of Government, those tensions have indeed boiled over. But it’s for good reason, no doubt, because despite all we have learnt, despite all we have discovered together, and despite all we have jointly agreed to, not one Budget in this country’s history has ever had the courage to properly address the disproportionate distribution of economic privilege in this country and the everlasting inequities and burden suffered by te iwi Māori as a consequence. The last Budget returned us to the 1940s, and this Budget, no doubt, will return us to the 1800s.

But let me get back to talking about the marvellous 1 million out there that are Māori and about the future. Māori are an undeniable part of the future of this country. In our young people under the age of 27, we are one in three of the population—one in three—and we reproduce at a higher rate than anyone else, and so we are, in fact, a numerical inevitability.

SPEAKER: Skiting!

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Those young Māori of the future, all of whom are alive and kicking today, I might add, for the sake of the wellbeing of the country’s future economy, must be well supported today, and, sadly, they are not. We’re currently 20 percent of the population, steadily moving towards being 30 percent, yet when it comes to the distribution of Budget funds, Māori are lucky to receive 1 percent. In a democracy, this seems absurd, and if I consider the future economic requirements of a stable country, I could easily call this economic sabotage—failing to invest now for the needs of tomorrow.

Young Māori will comprise 30 percent of the future workforce of this country. In many industries, this is already the case. A critical factor of the productivity of the future workforce and economy is how highly trained and skilled, or not, those young Māori are when they arrive in those workplaces, and given that under the current settings, young Māori have amongst the lowest education and training achievement rates in mainstream delivery, this clearly demonstrates that the need for greater investment and autonomy is now. Indeed, if this Government is truly committed to a brighter economic future for the whole country, then you must invest in Māori today.

Unfortunately, this aspirational view is far from the lived reality for Māori today. The reality for Māori today is no investment. The reality for Māori today is abolishing, it is cuts, it is gutting, it is disestablishment—the list goes on and on and on—and on a more serious note, and a note of concern, the attitude is one of “Your language doesn’t count, your culture doesn’t count—you don’t count.”

Engari kaua rā tātou e māharahara, e te iwi Māori. Kaua rā tātou e māharahara.

[But let us not worry, Māori people. Let us not worry.]

We count, all right. The more than a million Māori—we count, all right. We count more than people in this House like to admit. Māori—

Hon David Seymour: Most of us don’t support you.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: To the 200,000 Māori out there who took up a pen and voted for us, tēnā koutou.

E te iwi Māori, we count in the future of this country. These young Māori need support, not more policing and profiling. These young Māori need support, not Ministers that ignore court rulings. These young Māori need support, not justice reforms that willingly increase the overrepresentation of Māori in the justice system, filling up prisons. They need billions invested into educational facilities that help them succeed as Māori, not billions invested into mega-prisons, as the current Government would have us follow and believe. They need billions invested into helping them secure a home for their whānau, not a billion-dollar gutting of Kāinga Ora whilst homelessness increases to 53 percent.

They need social supports that help them succeed in life, to raise healthy, strong families, whānau, and tamariki that is tailored to their needs, not the disestablishment of Te Pūtahitanga, of Whānau Ora—the dismantling of one of the most successful Māori social investment programmes of any Government in the history of this country, and the last line of defence for those that fall through the cracks of poverty into homelessness. This is not what young Māori need.

Young Māori of today need investment in their future. Young Māori need training and education that meets their needs, not one-size-fits-all delivery. This has failed them for 150 years, so why would you persist? They need supported opportunities into employment to succeed in life, not record high unemployment, record high rents, or a record high cost of living. They need and deserve a $36 billion investment.

What young Māori need is a Government courageous enough to reconcile, with complete truth, accountability, and honour, its Māori-Crown relationship and the rightful place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in Aotearoa in 2025. They deserve a Government bold enough to invest in their future for the good of the whole country, they deserve a Government compassionate enough to recognise its own shortcomings and to adjust the direction accordingly, and they deserve a Government bold enough to invest in them for the value proposition that they present to the future of the nation. To all of those baby boomers out there, I would encourage you to vote for these young Māori, for they will uphold your retirement.

This is what young Māori need, this is what all Māori need, and this is what the nation needs, as we debate and consider the future of our collective kāinga, of Aotearoa New Zealand, the place where every person has the right to call it home because Te Tiriti o Waitangi affords them that right—that right, that safety, that kāinga. I hope we all have the courage to challenge ourselves to think of the needs of others before the needs of ourselves, to think of the needs of those who are yet to be born instead of the needs of those who have so much already, and the needs of those who stand in the truth of the collective history of our country, not the imaginary history of our country. I implore us all to draw on this courage and to take up the challenge to think of the needs of others and to consider the future that our tamariki and mokopuna will inherit.

Nō reira kei ngā wā kāinga, whakatārewahia ake nei te mihi o te ngākau. Tēnei mātou te tū wātea nei i roto i tēnei Whare me ōna karawhiutanga katoa. Kāore mātou mō te hoki waewae tutuki. Kāore mātou mō te whakarongo ki ngā pahupahu a tēnā taha, a tēnā taha; ngā oati, ngā kī taurangi e mea nei ka manaakitia tātou i roto i ngā tau katoa.

Tirohia te huarahi o muri; whakaarohia te huarahi o mua. Ko tātou te kotahi miriona Māori o te motu. E tū, e ara, kōkiritia ō tātou whānau ki te pōtitanga ā tērā tau. Tukuna tēnei hunga kia hoki atu ki te puna o mahara, ki te puna o whakaaro, āta matapaki ake ai me pēhea tā rātou whakaratarata i te iwi kia hau mai ki te kakara, ki te kawa rānei o tā rātou e kōrero nei.

Tāku e tū nei ki te iwi Māori, e kore tātou e heke. E kore te kākano i ruia mai i Rangiātea e ngaro. E kore tātou e hoki mā te waewae tutuki. E kore e ākina e te hau, e te karawhiu marangai rānei o te moana. Ka tū ātea ko te iwi Māori, he toka tū moana.

He toka tū moana nō runga i te whenua, nō ō tātou mātua tīpuna. Tēnei hunga i tāwharautia ki te rau aroha o te Tiriti o Waitangi, i tahuri mai ki te ngau tuarā me te kōhuru i ō tātou tīpuna.

E tū, e ara, maranga mai rā e te iwi Māori.

Kei te Pīka, tēnā rā koe.

[And so to those at home, suspend the greetings of the heart. We hereby stand free within this House and all of its abuses. We are not going to give up lightly. We are not about to listen to the mutterings of each side, the oaths and promises that state that we will all be looked after, year after year.

Look to the path behind; consider the path ahead. We are the 1 million Māori of the nation. Stand up, rise up, take our families to the voting stations next year. Send these people back to the source of memory, the source of thought to carefully examine how they might gain the confidence of the people so that they come into the sphere of their fragrance or the odour of what they are talking about.

What I would say, who stands here before the iwi Māori, we will not decline. The seed that was sown from Rangiātea will not be lost. We will not give up lightly. We will not be assaulted by the wind, or the lashing rain of the ocean. The Māori people will stand free, a rock unconquered by the sea.

A rock from upon land, from our ancestors, undefeated by the ocean. These people who were sheltered by the compassion of the Treaty of Waitangi, who then turned to bite our ancestors in the back, and murder them.

Stand up, arise, rise up, Māori people.

Mr Speaker, thank you.]

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Debate interrupted.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the first reading of the Appropriation (2024/25 Supplementary Estimates) Bill; the introduction and passing through all stages of the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2); the first reading and referral to a select committee of the Regulatory Standards Bill; the introduction, first reading, and referral to a select committee of the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill; the introduction and passing through all stages of the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill, the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill, the Invest New Zealand Bill, the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill, and the Patents Amendment Bill; the introduction, first reading, and referral to a select committee of the Public Finance Amendment Bill, the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill, and the Legal Services (Distribution of Special Fund) Amendment Bill.

The Government is moving urgency in relation to all of these measures for a range of different reasons. In relation to the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill, as indicated by the Minister of Finance in her speech today, there are changes being made to give effect to the Investment Boost scheme, which takes effect as of today, once the legislation is passed, and the KiwiSaver changes mentioned in the Minister of Finance’s speech. The Regulatory Standards Bill is being sent to a select committee for further consideration. The Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill gives effect to the Government’s commitments around granny flats and will go to a select committee for further consideration and is part of the growth agenda of the Government.

The two social assistance pieces of legislation give effect to savings committed to through Budget 2024. The Invest New Zealand Bill establishes Invest New Zealand, to take effect from 1 July and is, again, a key priority following the Budget. The Rates Rebate Amendment Bill gives effect to commitments made in the Budget around further assistance to low-income superannuitants with gold cards to get financial assistance. The Patents Amendment Bill is, again, a growth-enhancing initiative which makes a small change to the very out-of-date Patents Act 1953 to benefit—it, essentially, tweaks to benefit some companies that use that Act. The Public Finance Amendment Bill gives effect to commitments made by the Government, upon taking office, to change the Act to allow for greater transparency, and the two justice-related bills give effect to Budget savings. Both of those two bills are being sent to select committee.

There is a lot of business to get through, much of it—in fact, all of it—related to the Budget and the growth agenda. We’re looking forward to making progress on that.

A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Introduction of Bills

Introduction of Bills

SPEAKER: I understand it’s the intention of the Government to introduce bills.

CLERK:

Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2), introduction

Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill, introduction

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

Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill, introduction

Invest New Zealand Bill, introduction

Rates Rebate Amendment Bill, introduction

Patents Amendment Bill, introduction

Public Finance Amendment Bill, introduction

Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill, introduction

Legal Services (Distribution of Special Fund) Amendment Bill, introduction.

Bills

Appropriation (2024/25 Supplementary Estimates) Bill

First Reading

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Appropriation (2024/25 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2024/25 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Bills

Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2)

First Reading

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I present a legislative statement on the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2).

SPEAKER: The legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on Parliament’s website.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I move, That the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.

This bill contains three tax measures announced in Budget 2025: the new Investment Boost tax incentive to grow our economy, changes to KiwiSaver settings to encourage New Zealanders to save more for their first home or their retirement, and changes to Working for Families to better target the scheme at low to middle income families. The reason for it being called a No. 2 bill is simply that a bill of the same name was introduced after Budget 2024, because this is a Government that knows that tax relief is always welcomed.

Mr Speaker, let me start with Investment Boost—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Madam Speaker.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —Madam Speaker—a tax incentive that will lift capital investment and increase productivity. New Zealand has long been recognised for its low rates of capital intensity. That is, we lack the machinery, tools, and technology per worker that other countries have. That has an impact on the country’s economic performance, as more capital per worker means higher productivity and it means higher wages; it means more competitive businesses. So Investment Boost is a policy to increase capital investment in New Zealand. It allows New Zealand businesses to immediately deduct 20 percent of the cost of qualifying assets, on top of depreciation. That means a much lower tax bill in the year they purchase or create or construct the asset compared to the current rules. The remaining book value of the asset is depreciated at normal rates. Loading deductions into the first year means that cash flow arising from investments is more favourable. The present value of the investment is greater; the after-tax returns are higher. It is good news all around. More investment opportunities stack up financially, so more will be made. This will help the cash flow of businesses already investing and it will encourage more investment from those who aren’t.

All businesses, regardless of size, will be eligible for Investment Boost at the full rate of 20 percent. Farmers, tradies, manufacturers, small-business people—all. There is no cap on the value of new investments a business can claim Investment Boost on, and there is no cap on the number of assets a business can claim for. Investment Boost is generally available for all assets that are depreciable for tax purposes, as well as a number of assets that are allowed depreciationlike deductions. It applies to commercial buildings, but it excludes land, residential buildings, and fixed-life and tangible assets. The main proviso is that assets cannot have previously been used in New Zealand.

Investment Boost starts today. We do not want businesses to delay investments while waiting for the new rules to apply, and that is one of the reasons this bill is being debated under urgency. The Government did consider other options for driving productivity, including a reduction in the company tax rate. It soon became clear, however—and I encourage members to read the regulatory impact statement on this one—that dollar for dollar, Investment Boost has more impact on business investment than a reduction in the company tax rate, as it only applies ties to new investments and not those made in the past. Over 20 years, Investment Boost is expected to lift New Zealand’s capital stock by 1.6 percent, GDP by 1 percent, and wages by 1.5 percent. These are orders of magnitude, not precise values. But officials estimate that roughly half the impacts happen in the first five years. Investment Boost is good for Kiwi businesses and it’s good for New Zealand.

I want to read you this, Madam Speaker, from that regulatory impact statement I referred to, because members may ask who this policy really benefits, and I want to read you the view of the non-partisan Government officials. They say, “Our view is the majority of the increase in national income from this policy would flow to workers. And this increase would come from a combination of higher wages and higher employment, and we therefore expect that the benefits of this policy will be spread broadly across a wide range of New Zealanders.” So I dare members opposite to oppose this move for New Zealand’s workers.

This bill also proposes changes to KiwiSaver to encourage New Zealanders to save more, while also making the scheme more fiscally sustainable. The default employer and employee contribution rates in KiwiSaver are currently 3 percent of salaries and wages. These rates will rise to 3.5 percent from 1 April 2026, followed by a further increase to 4 percent from 1 April 2028. In addition, employer matching and the Government contribution will be extended to 16- and 17-year-olds. This will encourage more young people to adopt a savings habit and help them build a deposit for their first home. The Government, of course, recognises not everyone will be in a position to increase savings every year—it depends on their own particular circumstances—and we believe in choice. Employees will therefore be able to opt down to the current 3 percent rate and still be matched by their employer at that lower rate. Their contributions will be reset to the default rate after 12 months, but they can opt down again if they wish.

Budget 2025 ensures KiwiSaver remains affordable and sustainable by lowering and better targeting the Government contribution. Without changes, members, the Government contribution is expected to cost an average of $1.2 billion a year over the next four years. Under this bill, the annual Government contribution will be halved to 25c for each dollar a member contributes each year, up to a maximum of $260.72. In addition, the Government contribution will no longer be paid to people with an annual taxable income of more than $180,000, because they do not need it. These changes to the Government contribution will apply from 1 July 2025 and they do not affect the current year’s Government contribution, which will be paid out in July and August.

The third tax measure in this bill makes fiscally neutral changes to Working for Families to better target low and middle income families with children. Working for Families has a family income threshold, above which family tax credit and in-work tax credit payments are gradually reduced. This bill raises the family income threshold from $42,700, where it has been since 2018, non-adjusted. This bill adjusts it to $44,900 and increases the abatement rate of reduction from 27c for each dollar above the threshold to 27.5c. As a result, families with incomes just above the new threshold will get an extra $23 per fortnight from Working for Families, with this additional support reducing gradually as family income rises. This will also increase the gap between those on a benefit and those who are working, because our Government believes that work should pay and you should always be better off in work than on a benefit. An estimated 142,000 families with children will receive $14 more per fortnight on average, and the vast majority of these families will have incomes below $100,000 a year.

The cost of this extra support, members, is met from income-targeting the first year of the Best Start tax credit. From 1 April next year, the first year will no longer be universal; it’ll be income tested, exactly the same way the second and third years already are, at exactly the same level of income testing. Let me stress: the change to Best Start only applies for births on or after 1 April 2026. So no family will see an actual reduction in their current payments, and you’ve all got time to make babies yet.

These are meaningful, forward-looking tax changes that will help boost wages, savings, and growth. These are changes that will help families who most need financial support. These are changes that will not only grow New Zealand and create opportunities in the here and now but they will set this country up for a better, better future. New Zealanders will be better off for this bill passing through this House. And anyone who opposes this bill may ask themselves why they oppose growth, why they oppose workers, and why they oppose savings. We’re about to find out if people like that exist in this House. If they do, they’ll be answering to the New Zealanders they are letting down. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question—[Interruption] Quiet now! You’ve had enough applause. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): The person who will be answering to the New Zealand public, to New Zealand workers, is the person who has balanced this Budget on the backs of working women, on the backs of families, and on the backs of low-paid workers who rely on that Government contribution to KiwiSaver to save for their old age. Those people are all worse off because of this Budget.

When this Government Minister, the Minister of Finance, says that this is a Budget that is going for growth, let’s remember who is enabling that growth. When she says some of these Budget moves are fiscally neutral, are they fiscally neutral to the families who are paying for them? Are they fiscally neutral to the women who are paying for them? Are they fiscally neutral to the low-paid workers who will now have less when they retire? It’s an interesting use of “fiscally neutral” to describe it as a good thing when it hurts so many people.

Now, in terms of these tax measures which have been introduced in this bill, there’s a pretty interesting tax measure with the Investment Boost, and some large promises have been made with respect to that Investment Boost. In fact, the large promise is—as the Minister of Finance pointed out—that over the long term, the benefits would flow through in terms of increased growth, increases in labour productivity and in wages, which would materialise over a long time frame. But, in the short term, we’ve got women, we’ve got families, we’ve got low-paid workers who are suffering. That is a pretty grand promise. We’re only going to see the reality of it in 20 years’ time.

Now, as it turns out, we do acknowledge, of course, the problem with labour productivity in this country. We do acknowledge, of course, the problem with capital intensity in this country. We do know that in order to become more productive, we need better tools within businesses. So doing something in this space is a good idea. But the interesting thing is the options that were analysed, and there are only two of them—only two. One was this Investment Boost, the 20 percent immediate deduction for purchasing an asset, and the other was a cut to the company tax rate. But why did they not look at increasing the low-value asset threshold for writing off a low-value asset? Why did they not look at targeting this measure towards small business? That would not have cost as much and it would not have had to be taken out on the backs of women. Why did they not consider an accelerated depreciation rate?

Now, these are options that all should have been looked at as alternate measures, but sitting in the regulatory impact statement we find they considered only two options. Of course, the Investment Boost looks good when you’ve only considered that option. Of course it does. I want to know why those other options weren’t considered, especially given the large promises that have been made around it, the large promises of growth in the future. I’ll be wanting the Minister of Revenue and possibly the Minister of Finance to answer for that in the committee stage of this bill. In the meantime, there are some very serious questions to be asked about the other measures in this bill, some very serious questions to be asked about the KiwiSaver changes that mean that people will be worse off in retirement.

Now, in recent days, we’ve heard the Minister of Finance saying that we need to examine superannuation in the future—we know who’s holding her back from doing that; that’s New Zealand First. But we need to get serious about New Zealand superannuation. Well, it doesn’t seem to be getting very serious about it when we cut the savings of people in retirement. One way to ensure that we could adjust superannuation in the future would be ensuring that low-paid workers have more saved up by the time they retire. But that Government, we estimate they have taken $66,000 away from a person who’s starting work tomorrow. That’s a lot of money that’s gone.

There’s another very, very serious question to be asked around the Working for Families changes. When we looked into it, when we asked Treasury, here is what Treasury said about those changes: it turns out that 61,000 families will be $43 a fortnight worse.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. A friend of mine messaged me during the speeches earlier saying, “Wow, this Budget is catastrophically bad and cartoonishly evil.”, and I wonder if the members opposite on the Government benches realise how out of touch they are. Another person suggested that maybe the Budget should be known as the “Budget for the wealthy and sorted”, because it’s very, very clear that the members of the Government, clapping like seals in their little chorus of applause for their party leaders and finance Minister, are completely out of touch with what ordinary New Zealanders are having to deal with in terms of the increased cost of living, and now a huge number of people, hundreds of thousands of people, looking at not having the increase to pay that they are deserved for the important work that they’re doing.

What’s very clear in the Minister’s speech on this bill, which brings in their Budget measures, is that her vision of New Zealand is one of a bunch of individuals who don’t work together and those who are competitive and hard-working climb up ahead and shove everyone else down and then enjoy, you know, their multiple properties or whatever, this tiny proportion of people.

Look, we’re not going to support this bill. Mainly, I want to speak to the Best Start payment, because the Best Start payment was a really awesome initiative, and the Green Party would’ve extended the universality of it. We would not have brought in means testing for year two and year three. So thousands of families having a brand-new baby have their income cut by $3,800 a year by this bill. That’s what the Budget does. It takes money away from families with new babies.

The changes to Working for Families, we haven’t been able to get into the detail of that yet, but, ultimately, what the Minister has said demonstrates that she does not understand. She doesn’t think people who have lost their jobs deserve to live in dignity. The 5 percent unemployment, higher for certain populations like Māori, like women, like Pasifika, people with disabilities, she’s going to make it harder for them—this Government’s making it harder for them to make ends meet just because they’re not in a position to find paid work.

The reality is we’re not at 100 percent employment. The whole purpose of this attitude of, like, punishing those who are out of work rather than ensuring that everybody, when they fall on hard times, has the means to live with dignity—the purpose of that is to keep wages lower. It is to keep wages lower, and in the meantime we all suffer from having more child poverty in our country.

It’s very clear from the Budget that child poverty is not going to get better because of these Budget measures. That is what we see, and that’s all a political choice that this Government has made because they lack empathy. The crazy thing, from my point of view, is that they actually believe that this is going to—well, from what they say, it sounds like they think this is going to be good for growth or the economy. I mean, it’s good for growth in poverty. It’s good for growth in the number of people who are homeless. This idea of growth that they’re cheerleading for demonstrably does not come from cutting investment in people. It doesn’t come from cutting benefits. It doesn’t come from taking money away from young families. It doesn’t come from underpaying women who do some of the most essential work in our country. That’s not what leads to economic prosperity and productivity.

Finally, I’ll just touch on these tax cuts or tax breaks for businesses. If the Government was truly serious about tackling low productivity in New Zealand, they would take the mainstream economic advice from institutions like the IMF who have recommended tax reforms, including a comprehensive capital gains tax or a land value tax. Like, the problem with productivity—

Simon Court: The woke mind virus has spread far.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yeah, Simon Court says the woke mind virus has spread to the IMF, I guess. It’s just, like, laughable. It’s really hard not to sit in here and laugh at the absurdity of the claims from the Government benches when we know what it takes to achieve improvements in productivity, and it’s not tax breaks for new utes, all right, so stop pretending like you care about the future of this country when all you care about is lining the pockets of your mates and your donors.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to commend the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2) to the House.

In particular, I am really excited on behalf of the ACT Party around the Investment Boost scheme. We’ve talked for a while about how important it is to improve productivity in this country, to get investment happening in this country—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Yeah, capital gains tax.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: —and pushing it further. The member opposite talks about a land tax. How’s that going to help anything? That’s going to discourage you from doing any other investment because you’re too busy paying their death taxes and their land taxes and their capital gains taxes and every other tax there is.

I just want to provide a really simple, practical example of how investment in a business can drive productivity and how incentivising that will improve outcomes not only for a class of businesses but the entire country. Now, a few nights ago here in Parliament, we had a function over at the Banquet Hall for a really innovative, awesome Kiwi firm that’s taking on the world; that’s fastest-growing in the country. The product they’ve got, it’s not cheap; it’s a serious investment—trust me, I know—but if you were there, you would have heard about some pretty impressive numbers.

By using this product, the farmers that use it were getting a 20 percent improvement in pasture production. Now, that means a 20 percent improvement in production. That pasture gets eaten by a cow and it gets turned into either more beef or more milk. That’s money for this country. It leads to a 70 percent reduction in lameness. Now, you may not think, “Well, what does that mean?”

Grant McCallum: Animal welfare—really important.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, it’s animal welfare, but it’s more than that. A lame animal isn’t making you as much money; it is costing you money. Again, this is improvements in productivity and it also led to 20 percent less time that the people on those properties needed to work. They were more efficient—

Grant McCallum: Better working conditions.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: —they were more productive, better working conditions, enjoying their jobs more. The whole business improved.

That enables higher wages for everyone and that just flows through the economy: 20 percent more milk would mean 20 percent more tanker drivers, 20 percent more workers in the factory. The numbers that Treasury have put in the regulatory impact statement around what we might see—you know, the member opposite was questioning, “Oh, will these promises come true?” If anything, they’re probably half undercooked, quite frankly, from what I know of when you’re able to invest new technology, new innovation, new ideas into your business.

It was insinuated that, “Oh, this is just for the big boys; the big corporations.” No. New Zealand is built on small family businesses, and these businesses being able to invest and look for new, productive ideas, improving their business, helps all of New Zealand. This is an absolutely great scheme and I commend this bill to the House.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2). It’s been a great day sitting in the House, in, obviously, still my first term here, and hearing the finance Minister deliver her second Budget, and also having that Budget delivered, to actually see our finances in this country being turned around and, at the same point of time, with the other Associate Ministers, the effort that’s been put into that Budget today. But even on this side of the House, and especially from a New Zealand First point of view, seeing some of the wins in that Budget today and some of the hard work that we’ve put in and, in the past, said about compliance with the Inland Revenue Department and actually seeing some extra money flowing into the Budget there—we’ve actually seen savings that now we’ve been able to put into other incentives around the SuperGold card; we’ve had an increase in New Zealand Customs Service staff; Māori wardens are getting more money; that great thing that we championed, the rail; and also Matua Jones around energy. So having that extra money in our pockets to actually be able to put into some really important places.

The bill here today addresses three issues: the Investment Boost is the main part that I want to come back to and talk about, the KiwiSaver reforms, and the Working for Families changes. But hearing the Budget delivered today, we heard about this being a responsible Budget. Obviously the other side of the House doesn’t understand what responsible is, because they’re just bemused by what we’ve actually done, actually turning this economy around. We’re talking about economic growth, we’re talking about getting behind the productive sectors in New Zealand. This is an investment Budget. When you look at the Investment Boost—and just as the last speaker alluded to—this is a game-changer. This is a game-changer for small businesses. It’s a game-changer for businesses in New Zealand.

And what an idea! We’re going to look back on this day and we are going to say “Investment Boost; what a terrific, what a great idea that was.” I’ve owned a small business. Most people on this side of this House have actually worked. We have actually owned businesses. We actually know, buying an asset, how difficult that is. And if we can invest into capital, if we can actually take that 20 percent and then still depreciate, what a game-changer that is for businesses. I think, tomorrow, people are going to be out to shops. I think Mark Patterson, he’s going out to buy a tractor tomorrow; I think he’s going to buy a tractor. I think there’s some people on this side of the House—we’re going to go out and we’re going to have Fieldays and we’re going to be spending up, because this is the day that this has changed. So Investment Boost, I think we’ll look back—what a stroke—that this has been a real change today.

KiwiSaver reforms—again, that side of the House doesn’t understand: why would we say to 16- and 17-year-olds that we don’t want to contribute to them? They’re going to say “No” to that. They’re going to say “No” to my teenagers who are that age who are working—they’re now going to get the contribution, and guess where they’re going to put that money! Into their first homes. We want people in their first homes, we want them to have that opportunity. That, again, is a game-changer today. So this has been a great Budget, great incentives. This is a great bill. I commend it to the House.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Probably the first thing I’d want to say, possibly to the speaker just before me, is that that’s mighty white of you—so let me repeat that: that’s mighty white of you—because in all of your expression and all of your ideology and all of your Pākehā reo, which is quite limited, at the end of the day, what I’m hearing in it is that it suits you, it fits with you, and, sadly, it does nothing for Māori. I know that you want to think it is, because Matua Jones, who happens to be my relation, by the way, gets—you misunderstand the whole scenario.

But, look, I don’t expect much more, and, by the way, look, I’m pleased to stand and oppose this. I’m pleased and I must, and it is a duty. Why? Because the number of people outside this House—you obviously weren’t listening to it. You were probably—I don’t know what you were doing—flicking through your papers. But outside, this morning, you had a number of people come and tell you lot that “You are failing. You are screwing us over. You are damaging our future. You are bad for our health. Cut it out.” That’s what they were saying, and guess what! They were women and girls, and they were full of it, wanting to possibly get you to understand and think this through. But you won’t, because you’re carried away with your mighty white selves. So here we go—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): He paku āwhina mō te mema. Taihoa, he paku āwhina mō te mema, me kōrero mai ki a au. Hei aha te kōrero ki a rātou. Tērā te tikanga o te Whare. Āe, haere tonu.

[A little help for the member. Hold on, a little help for the member, you should speak to. Don’t worry about speaking to them. That’s the procedure of the House. Yes, continue.]

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Ka pai. Tēnā koe. So the Minister of Finance is, essentially, asking Māori and low-income whānau to front a $170 million tax cut to implement a 20 percent tax deduction for businesses. Let’s be clear about what’s happening here under these new proposals: KiwiSaver contributions for lower-income earners are being cut, meaning that they will pay more and receive less than they do now. This isn’t just a tweak to the system; this is a fundamental shift that undermines the retirement security of the very people who need it most.

I really wish that the lot on my left listened to “Doc’s” speech this morning, and I know it would have irritated particularly the most ignorant, possibly because you just can’t get it. But, look, do some reading and understand the shared history that you have, and you’re welcome that you get to live here at all.

Hon Members: Oh!

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Yeah, I know—having feelings. Come on, come on, come on, come on—go ahead.

Simon Court: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): A point of order, Simon Court. [Interruption] There’s a point of order.

Simon Court: That reference that that member made to “we should be thankful that we should be allowed to live here at all”, I find offensive—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): What’s the point of order?

Simon Court: —I find it—the point of order is that that member is creating disorder in the House by suggesting that some members don’t deserve to live here, and I ask that you ask that member, please, to withdraw—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That’s enough.

Simon Court: —and apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): OK, I’ve heard that. Speaking to the point of order?

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Speaking to the point of order, it wouldn’t be the first time that people had feelings and offence in this House—I mean, that was constantly my feeling as soon as the first speech began this morning. So that’s my response to the point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Well, I found it very difficult to hear the member talking at all because of the number of interruptions on that side of the House. There always has to be a bit of give and take in this place, but I would invite all members to think carefully about their contributions and also their interjections, as well, because it is important that the people at home can hear this debate. So, Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, I call you to continue.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We are making it harder, not easier, for young people to own a home, and for Māori, who already face significant barriers to homeownership, this is another door being slammed shut in their faces. This tax cut is being propped up by Māori, by low-income earners, by solo parents, and by whānau who are already doing it tough. That is not economic strategy; that is economic exploitation of vulnerable communities, who have been absolutely pummelled with legislation that is stealing right from underneath their noses, again.

Make no mistake, the changes for Working for Families will mean that fewer whānau will qualify for support—I mean, please hear that. The increase for whānau who do receive it will only amount to $14 per fortnight. You think that’s OK—you can tolerate that? Sorry, Mr Speaker—through you.

These taxation measures are redistributing wealth upwards. It is taking from the poor and handing it to the rich. They are blocking out our mokopuna and our young whānau from getting into homeownership. The change to KiwiSaver puts homeownership even further out of rich, out of reach—“rich”; funny—for young people.

Really, if I can just refer back again to the great voices this morning that were speaking to this House, if people were daring to listen to it, and saying, “You are failing us, you are failing our children, you are failing women.” You are failing women—the number of women that are out there, fists-upping, going, “Eh, sisters are doing it for themselves.” Please, I’d ask the side on my left to take note, because it’s coming. Tēnā koe e te Pīka.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I acknowledge the enthusiasm from the other side. But what a great day we have in the House today, and I tell you what, as the Minister of Revenue for this Government, I am very, very proud of the initiatives which we have outlined today under this Government. Under the leadership of Christopher Luxon, under the leadership and thought of Nicola Willis, as our Minister of Finance, we have delivered our Budget, which is going to increase investment in this country. That is great for our economy, it is great for our people, and it is great for future generations, and we should be proud of that as a party and as a country.

This Budget delivers tax incentives to lift growth through Investment Boost. It means that KiwiSaver changes are going to encourage more savings. It’s going to increase support for families. Those elements matter. They are going to make a difference, because we know that, for too long, Kiwis have been doing it tough. Life has become very challenging for many New Zealanders, with the rising cost of living and placing real pressure on households across this country. But that is why this Government is focused on growing the economy and putting in place changes such as the tax legislation that we’re passing today, which will turn that reality around, to increase economic growth, to increase jobs, and to increase the wages and grow our economy and get Kiwis back on track. That is really, really important.

This bill covers three key areas, which we’ll walk our way through today. It is going to drive investment, it is going to lift productivity, and certainly, as I noted, it will lead to an increase in wages. However, these measures are not the only aspects which this Government is doing; we have outlined a suite of interventions today that deal with the core issues and opportunities in this country.

This Government wants to boost investment, but actions speak louder than words, and this legislation, from today, means that hard-working Kiwis can get benefit, can reduce the tax implications of investments. Let’s give a real example. Let’s think about an electrician in my electorate of Takapuna who’s going out tomorrow and wants to buy a new van for their small business. Well, immediately, from tomorrow, that electrician—that small business—will be able to get a benefit of 20 percent reduction in terms of that investment, of that vehicle, tomorrow and be able to offset that against their tax. That means that that amount of tax saved is more money that that individual can put back into their business to help grow their livelihoods, to help grow our economy, and to help deliver core services to our communities. That is real action, and that is what that initiative is going to do.

Changes in the KiwiSaver regime that have been announced by this Government will make tangible differences for New Zealanders. For the first time, 16- and 17-year-old New Zealanders will be able to get the benefits of KiwiSaver; 85,000 young New Zealanders will be able to now get the benefit of KiwiSaver. That is tangible investment in our young people. Why? Because they deserve it, and this Government recognises that. Won’t it be interesting to see if, on that side of the House, they vote against that change?

We also know that increasing contribution rates will increase the amount of money that people have at retirement. That is very, very important. It’s prudent, it is sensible policy, and we’re giving time to make sure that increases over time as well. We have also increased the thresholds for Working for Families—tangible increases that mean those benefits will go to those individuals with incomes below $100,000. The examples provided by some people in this House are completely misleading in the context of those people who will not benefit. This is targeted at those families that most need that benefit. Those changes would have not been updated since 2018. This Government is making changes, and those benefits will flow through importantly to those families.

The changes today are important, substantial changes in tax policy to drive economic growth, to drive the livelihoods of all New Zealanders, and to put more money in their back pockets. I commend this bill.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I agree with one statement that the previous speaker, the Hon Simon Watts, said, and that is that actions speak louder than words. Today, we have seen the actions of a Government where they have laid their values very bare for New Zealanders to see, because Budgets are about choices. Budgets are a time where Governments have to make value-based decisions about what their priorities are. What have we seen in this year’s Budget? We’ve seen a Government that has decided that it is absolutely their priority to take nearly $3 billion a year out of the pay packets and pockets of some of our lowest-paid women workers and their families, and to give that for tax breaks to other people. For $200 million for the oil and gas sector—multinational companies. That is more of a priority for this Government than $3 billion going into the pockets of our families.

Let’s have a look at the legislation before us. Let’s have a reality check on some of the excitement that the Minister of Finance—followed, but not quite as excitedly, by the Minister for Revenue—got. The Minister of Finance came down here, thinking she was some latter-day champion of working people, and challenged us to vote for this because this was the panacea for working people. But let’s look at the detail of this legislation that we have before us.

So when we’re told that this is the centrepiece of growth, this piece of legislation, for the Government, now let’s not make any mistakes. On this side of the House, we are open to discussions about good policy that will increase productivity in New Zealand. But as my colleague the Hon Deborah Russell has identified, there’s just two options that have been explored and we’re now debating in urgency. There were a bunch of other options that could and should have been looked at and weighed very carefully to see if they were the right ways. Because the centrepiece for growth—the thing that the Prime Minister is hanging his hat on and the Minister of Finance is hanging her hat on—is 1 percent growth in GDP over 20 years. For those working people that the latter-day champion of the working people—Nicola Willis—comes down and says she’s speaking on behalf of, when you look at the detail of the changes, the Treasury have been telling the Government we’re looking at a 1.5 percent increase in wages over 20 years as a result of these changes. So let’s not let facts get in the way of what we’re actually doing here.

In terms of the KiwiSaver contributions, again, on this side of the House, we’re not opposed to 16- and 17-year-olds starting to save for their retirement, but to halve the Government contribution—what are we seeing? We’re seeing that for an 18-year-old today, they are going to enter retirement with $66,000 less than they would have had if the Government kept its contribution where they are today. For a 30-year-old—

Suze Redmayne: Read the RIS.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —that is $30,000 less—

Hon Simon Watts: Read the RIS.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —that they will be taking into their retirement than they would have had today.

What we also see from the Treasury advice in the regulatory impact statement (RIS)—and, yes, I have read the RIS—is that the Government was told very clearly that 80 percent of the cost increases with employer contributions would result in lower wage growth for those working people. So before we start championing this as the panacea for working people, let’s have a look at that.

Let’s have a look at the fact that we do have tens of thousands of families that are going to be up to $43 a week worse off under this. We have the vaunted changes that are going to help families with the cost of living being less than a block of butter a week. This is not the real relief that New Zealanders get and it has been paid for off the backs of working women and not paying them what they are worth.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Oh, aren’t the Labour Party jealous of this Budget? Aren’t they jealous of this Budget? Aren’t they jealous of the KiwiSaver changes we’ve made? Let’s have a look at the KiwiSaver changes, and they’ll be thinking, “No wonder Barbara Edmonds is invisible at the moment.” They will be thinking, “Why didn’t we come up with this? Why didn’t we come up with extending employer matching on KiwiSaver to 16- and 17-year-olds?” Why didn’t they—why didn’t they back our young people? Why didn’t they allow 16- and 17-year-olds to get matched by Government contribution? That’s what will happen from 1 July. That contribution will encourage young people to start saving. It will encourage young people to start saving for a deposit. And this is this, and the National Party - ACT Party - New Zealand First coalition Government has done that for 16- and 17-year-olds. That’s what we’ve done.

What else have we done? What else have we done that they’ll be thinking “Why the hell didn’t we do that?” Axing the Government contribution for those that earn over $180,000.

Hon members: Oh, wow!

CAMERON BREWER: Oh, wow! Oh, is that us looking after our mates? No, why on earth didn’t they do that? Why wouldn’t they axe it for the rich? Why wouldn’t they axe it for the rich? In 2021, they brought in that top tax rate, 39c in the dollar. Oh, for everyone earning over $180,000, they said: “They don’t need it.” They didn’t do that, though, did they? They didn’t save the average working New Zealander any money—any money—by axing the Government contribution for those that earn over $180,000. So we did that. We did that and that’s why we are the party of workers and the party of SMEs—and we’re the country of small to medium sized businesses: 97 percent of our businesses are small to medium sized businesses. And guess what! They’re all eligible for Investment Boost—they’re all eligible for Investment Boost. That will be for tradies. That’ll be a 20 percent deduction on the cost of new machinery, tools, equipment from their taxable income at the next financial year, kicking in now, isn’t it? Isn’t it Minister of Revenue—kicking in now to be redeemable next year?

When do we have Fieldays? On 11 June, Fieldays kicks off at Mystery Creek. What a time to buy a tractor. What a time for farmers to get in and buy some technology. What a time. Utes! If utes got cheaper last year, they’re about to get another 20 percent cheaper. People say, “Oh, but, surely, they can’t get their depreciation off that ute as well.” We dropped the ute tax; they still get their depreciation, minus 20 percent—they get that off their tax bill. Wow. Oh my—you won’t be able to see the Government marquees at the Fieldays for people lining up saying, “Wow, you are making it easier for me to invest in my business.”

As has been alluded to, the regulatory impact statement—this lot always says, “Where’s your regulatory impact statement? Where is your regulatory impact statement?” Well, they don’t want to read this one, do they? They won’t be reading this one because this shows us a lot of things about Investment Boost and its contribution to the national economy. Holy smoke—Investment Boost—this is big. It is expected to lift—get this—the levels of business investment with longer-run benefits including increasing the level of GDP by 1 percent—GDP by 1 percent—capital stock by 1.6 percent, and wages by 1.5 percent over 20 years with at least half of those benefits happening within the next five years. This is an amazing regulatory statement and if anyone wants to read it, it will put you to sleep as well. But it’s got incredible figures from our officials at IRD. One thing about IRD is they don’t exaggerate; if anything, they’re conservative, and that is their estimate. That is their estimate. Huge for GDP growth, huge for investment growth, huge for wage growth, huge for business growth. This Investment Boost initiative—

Joseph Mooney: Is huge!

CAMERON BREWER: Is huge. That’s it; that is the word I was looking for. Everyone in business, those 612,000 small businesses are eligible in New Zealand. They’re all eligible to get 20 percent off their asset purchases, their machineries, their utes, their carports for their cars that they’re building—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The member’s time has expired.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Cameron Brewer is sounding more and more like Donald Trump as each minute ticks by. As we hear the National Party congratulating themselves on how proud they’ll be at Fieldays when they can see their mates all buy a tractor for a cheaper price, let them be reminded that in 2026, this Budget saves $2.9 billion from working women. In 2027, it saves another $2.6 billion from pay that would have gone to working women.

In 2029, it saves $2.6 billion from the pockets of working women. How many tractors is that, Mr Brewer? Because, on top of that, there’s $1.8 billion saved in capital expenditure from the pockets of working women. All up, that is $12.8 billion saved by taking the wages of working women. Those opposite jump up and down with excitement at the thought of Fieldays, of what technology and tractors that their friends will be able to purchase out of the pockets of working New Zealand women—women in libraries, women in hospitals, women in hospices, teachers, women who hold this country together, who were in line for a pay equity settlement that has been ripped out of their hands by this Budget. This Budget is funded by working women and by taking the future superannuation savings of New Zealanders. I would not be proud of that Budget. I would hang my head in shame, because it is a short-sighted and self-serving Budget.

What has the money gone to be spent on? Let’s take a look. So $15 million in increasing funding for private schools, because David Seymour says that kids who go to private schools, their parents pay tax too. What about the kids at public schools? The oil and gas sector has also been increased in its funding, out of the pockets of working women. Ministerial budget for international travel, increased by $8 million, out of the pockets of working women.

The cuts that have gone on in this Budget are absolutely unbelievable. KiwiSaver—it hits the lowest-paid New Zealanders. Recently, we have seen the highest number of people withdrawing their KiwiSavers because of hardship. And what does this Government do to respond to the cost of living crisis? It halves the Government contribution to KiwiSaver. An 18-year-old today will get $66,000 less in their superannuation. Also, a 30-year-old will get $30,000 less out of their KiwiSaver by halving the Government contribution in this Budget. It has the biggest impact on lowest-earning New Zealanders, but those members opposite don’t seem to be too concerned about that.

And let’s take a look at Working for Families, while we’re at it. Working for Families, changing the abatement levels is great, but around 61,000 New Zealand families will receive a decrease of $43 per fortnight, and 89 percent have taxable incomes above $100,000. You’re taking money out of the pockets of New Zealanders. It is a shameful Budget—absolutely shameful.

To top it all off, from going from the most vulnerable, this Budget also makes it harder for younger New Zealanders who are trying to get a job and trying to get training, by preventing the jobseeker benefit being paid to 18- and 19-year-olds—the very young people that already find themselves on the streets of New Zealand, making it harder for them to get access to emergency housing, making it harder for them to access any funding, and asking them to go to their parents. Well, many of those young people are looking for the jobseeker benefit because they cannot get the support of a parent. The individual circumstances that young people find themselves in will be even harder under this Budget.

This is a self-serving Budget, because it benefits those who are in power already and it further marginalises those who are not in power. It is an absolute disgrace—a Budget that is paid for by working women. That is how this Budget will be remembered in New Zealand history, and I would hang my head in shame if I were you.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s fantastic to stand to speak on this bill, being the last speaker. It’s almost an opportunity to fact-check some of the misinformation, and it’s good to welcome you back. I’ve got some good information for you, but let me just start with Investment Boost. Wasn’t that a great contribution from the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee? It was powerful, it was exciting, and it reminded me of the excitement that’s going to be generated next week in Fieldays Wednesday, the largest agricultural event in the Southern Hemisphere, held in the mighty Waikato. And now, with high farmer payouts and an extra 20 percent depreciation on top of normal depreciation, in many cases that’ll be like a 25 to 30 percent depreciation boost. That’s cash flow, that’s investment, that’s confidence. Like the Minister said, for small business, that’s an extra van, that’s an extra ute, and that gives you the confidence to hire an extra employee. It’s a win-win situation. It’s so good, and, like our Minister said earlier today, with a 1 percent increase in GDP coming up, that’s an order of magnitude. That’s a huge impact on the economy. It’s just massive.

Now, let’s just do a little bit of fact-checking around KiwiSaver. My son worked at a takeaway shop—I won’t name the one, but you could probably imagine; there’s only a few—as a 16- and 17-year-old, and I made sure he ratcheted up his KiwiSaver contribution. “Put it as high as you can, son—why not?” The only difference was his employer wasn’t contributing to it; it was all his own savings. This makes a small adjustment for the employer to contribute up to 4 percent, and it’s a marginal upkeep for employers. As Cameron Brewer said, aren’t we supposed to be against the little man? Aren’t we supposed to be supporting our mates in employment and the big business? No, we’re actually saying, “You guys can actually put up an increase from 1 percent to 4 percent because it’s the right thing to do and it’s going to be of benefit to your employee.” So I think it’s fantastic.

We’ve heard comments saying that with the reduction in employment contribution, Kiwis are going to be $60,000 worse off because of it. Well, remember, that Government contribution was put there as an incentive when KiwiSaver was first set up, and now we’ve got such huge intake, we’ve got to look: is that still fit for purpose? We’re not getting rid of it; we’re just reducing it. Actually, if you want to do a quick fact-check on the old ChatGPT, you will see that over a 10-year period, someone on $60,000, cutting the Government contribution by half but lifting the employee and employer contribution to 4 percent, they’re $10,000 better off in 10 years—just in 10 years. You compound that over time; it’s huge.

Now, what about some of those comments that had racial overtones and said, “What about Māori? It’s harder for them to get into housing.” Well, let me give you some facts—let me give you some facts—85,000 kids will now be eligible for KiwiSaver at the age of 16 and 17. Do you think some of those 85,000 children will be Māori? You bet they will be. Tens of thousands of kids will be Māori, and they will benefit from this employee and employer contribution for KiwiSaver. So this will help more people get into housing. It’s a wonderful thing—it’s a wonderful thing, and I’m so proud to do it. Of course, now families, with the Working for Families, $23 better off a fortnight. When does this kick in? As of tonight, hopefully, we’ll cement this legislation. It’s a great day for New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.

It’s an honour to speak again on this year’s Budget bill—a bill focused on growth. New Zealand is still in recovery mode from economic damage caused by the COVID period and we know many Kiwis are still feeling the impact. We need to accelerate our recovery to erase some of the pressures facing many of our households and businesses. The Government recognises the urgent need to grow our economy. When we speak of growth, it is not just about the numbers; we are talking about helping Kiwis get ahead with higher wages, more job opportunities, and better public services. We are already seeing positive progress. We have brought inflation under control, we have delivered tax relief that has put more money in the back pockets of hard-working Kiwis, and we have supported families with childcare payments through FamilyBoost. Businesses will play a critical role in driving this economic growth.

I thought it would be useful to provide the House with some facts and figures regarding the proposed Investment Boost, our policy designed to help businesses invest in their companies and increase productivity. New Zealand’s productivity challenges are strongly linked to low investment in business assets. The root cause is that the cost of capital for investment in New Zealand is high relative to other OECD countries, and this is in part driven by our tax settings. The lower investment that this causes negatively impacts productivity and, importantly, the living standards of New Zealanders across this country. New Zealand has experienced low productivity growth over the past decade, averaging just 0.2 percent per annum. Productivity is important because it’s a determinant for increases in GDP and living standards. It means that New Zealand’s weak productivity has broader economic consequences. New Zealand has a high cost of capital compared with other countries. Changes to the taxation of investment, which this Government is doing today, will lift capital intensity and support New Zealand businesses. Investment Boost is designed to achieve this. Actions speak louder than words, and this is a Government of action.

Over 600,000 businesses are in New Zealand. Farmers, agricultural entities, small businesses across our urban areas—they all contribute to our economy; 600,000 of those businesses. And when this bill passes, these businesses will be able to claim a 20 percent tax deduction for any eligible assets they purchase from today. There is no cap on the value of the asset, and there is no cap on the number of assets for which the tax deduction can be claimed for. Investment Boost is an accelerated depreciation regime—a regime that is going to drive economic growth and is so badly needed in this country right now. Compared with the current depreciation rules, businesses would enjoy a larger immediate tax deduction, thus reducing their tax payments in the first year that they own these assets, and thereby reducing the present value of tax over the life of that investment. Investment in business assets will become a lot more attractive from today and a lot more attractive under this Government, and that is critically important.

We could see over 600,000 businesses across New Zealand investing in their businesses—businesses in Takanini, businesses in Northcote, businesses in Upper Harbour, businesses in Northland, businesses in Thames-Coromandel, businesses in Taumarunui, businesses in the Bay of Plenty, businesses in Kaikōura, businesses in Timaru, businesses in Christchurch, businesses in Ōtaki, businesses in Hamilton-East and Hamilton-West, and businesses in every town and every province of this beautiful country which we all call home—from today.

Treasury estimates that the impact of this will be a 1.6 percent increase in the real capital stock in 20 years, thanks to Investment Boost contributing hugely to productivity. With productivity comes more and better jobs for Kiwis, and, importantly, for those hard-working Kiwis, a rise in their living standards. I’ll tell you what: that is what New Zealanders expect of their Government. As a Government, we have heard that loud and clear, and we are following that through with actions, not words. We’re making that happen. It’s gonna happen from today, and it is a reality. Investment Boost is expected to reduce the cost of capital and increase the capital intensity of New Zealand businesses. All of this means an increase in GDP and, therefore, also increased tax revenue. Guess what! There’s no magic money tree, is there? We need to ensure that we can fund the public services that Kiwis deserve. As a result of more economic growth, we will derive more tax revenue and we will be able to fund those services Kiwis need. We are not a Government of taxing New Zealanders more; we are deriving more economic growth. That is an enduring mechanism in order to improve the living standards of this country.

It is estimated that the nominal GDP will increase by a very healthy $6.4 billion over the forecast period—$6.4 billion. That is a heck of a lot of money, and that is economic growth and benefit for the communities across this country. We acknowledge that the initial fiscal cost will be high, but the forecast is to tail off and the benefits will exceed the costs. It is investment in New Zealand’s future economic success.

I focused this speech on only one of the key measures of this bill, but I will briefly touch on the other two before I conclude. We are supporting Kiwis in saving more through KiwiSaver so that they can enjoy a more comfortable retirement. This side of the House cares about New Zealanders and we care about hard-working Kiwis. We’re doing this by proposing increased contribution rates for employers and employees, which means that by the time Kiwis buy their first home or retire, they will have more money waiting for them in KiwiSaver. Before we move to that, we are also proposing that people aged 16 and 17 years will qualify for Government KiwiSaver contributions, which means that our young people—85,000 young people—will be able to enjoy the benefits and be able to start saving sooner for their retirement. We’re also supporting the families who need it most—through Working for Families, by increasing the abatement threshold. This will benefit 142,000 Kiwis who are dealing with increased cost of living so good.

All of these measures will significantly benefit New Zealanders. I am very proud, as revenue Minister for this Government and as a member of this Government, to be able to deliver this legislation—these changes in our underlying tax settings which will make a tangible and real difference for New Zealanders. That difference will not be felt next year, it will not be felt in a month’s time, it will not be felt in a week; it will be felt from today.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Time for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Good evening, members. When we broke for the dinner break, we were up to the second reading of the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2). We were up to call No. 2, the Labour Party call.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. We’ve had a little bit of time now to have a look at the bill, to assess what’s going on in it, to read the details on it. Of course, we’ve also, since about 4.45 today, had access to the various regulatory impact statements and to some of the background information about this bill.

Now, in the first reading of this bill, the Minister of Finance and various speakers from the Government were very enthusiastic about Investment Boost. I have to say that in his speech in the second reading of this bill, the Minister of Revenue, too, was very, very excited about the so-called Investment Boost. I get why they’re excited. It is the major measure that they have put through in economic terms for this particular Budget—there are, of course, other measures—the major positive measure that they have put through.

Now, the trouble with this measure is not whether or not it’s good or bad in itself, although I’m inclined to think that, on the whole, it’s probably something that’s working in the right direction. It has nevertheless been paid for out of the future wages of working women. Women hold up half the sky and it turns out, in this country, they are carrying the Budget this year. That is where this Investment Boost is coming from, so the Investment Boost had better be worth it. It really needs to deliver what the Government has said it is going to deliver, and the only way that we can work that out is to have a look at what is said in the regulatory impact statement.

Now, we have to remember that at this stage, because we are doing this in urgency—and I absolutely understand the need to specify a starting date for this policy—we have not had a select committee process, so we haven’t had time to dig into the economic analysis of this. Of course, this is being justified on economic grounds, and as I’ve said, they’d better be good. Just having said that, it’s still not quite clear to me why this particular measure absolutely had to go through under urgency. There is no reason why a starting date couldn’t have been specified, and that starting date could have been today, but we could still have had time to work the legislation through.

Nevertheless, having not had that opportunity, I want to look at the macroeconomic analysis contained in the regulatory impact statement, because we have been told by the Treasury, by the Treasury’s papers, by the Minister of Finance, and by the Minister of Revenue, that this will contribute to economic growth over time, and it will contribute to economic growth in the order of about 1 percent over the next 20 years or so.

So looking at the macroeconomic impacts, here’s the first interesting statement in the macroeconomic impact, assessing whether or not it is worth pursuing this measure—and I’d like to direct members’ attention to paragraph 62 in the regulatory impact statement. That’s after discussing that this is likely to be a positive measure, but then paragraph 62 says that there is, however, a high level of uncertainty as to the precise magnitude of impacts, although the direction of impact is certain—so, yes, we do think that this will have a positive impact on growth, but it is highly uncertain as to what the magnitude of that impact will be.

Then it carries on to discuss the findings from international literature saying what the heavy economic analysis says might be the effect of this measure. Of course, Treasury did its own estimates. It’s got its own economic model. They do have highly skilled people. It says that they looked at the international literature where the results were broadly consistent with Inland Revenue and Treasury estimates.

But to look at the summary of overseas regimes, we are directed to table 8 in annex 2 of the regulatory impact statement. Sitting there in table 8, it talks about countries where similar work has been done. Now, let’s remember what this measure is. It gives a cash-flow advantage to people who are investing in new depreciable assets, so it gives them a bit of a boost along the way, but that can only be justified if it adds to economic growth.

Now, in Australia, it turns out that the one analysis that’s available from there is from the global financial crisis, and the estimate is that perhaps GDP growth might have been about 1.2 percent higher thanks to a particular accelerated depreciation policy they had in place for a short time for small business. But of course, it was only small business that applied to. They’ve had a 100 percent write-off—full write-off for assets of $150,000 or less—in place for a few years, and they can’t really tell yet the magnitude of the impact of that. They think there was a lift in investment, but whether or not that led through to increased economic growth is a different matter. As we know, Australia, like us, is not growing at the rate that it would like to.

There are some studies from the United States suggesting that having this kind of accelerated depreciation write-off does increase economic growth. The interesting policy is that credible estimates on very recent policy changes suggest maybe a 1.7 percent increase in capital stock, but then it says, “but direct GDP impacts are less clear at this time.” And so it goes on through all the studies that are quoted.

I want to suggest that that paragraph 62 is reflecting very accurately—in fact, it carries a large amount of weight when it says that “there is, however, a high level of uncertainty as to the precise magnitude of impacts.” In other words, despite all the rhetoric from over there, we just don’t know. It’s likely to be positive, but we just don’t know.

What we do know is that women have lost out—to try to get this high level of uncertainty about the economic impacts—on their future pay rises, and that is something that will affect them for a very, very long time. Pay equity has been swept away for this high level of uncertainty as to the precise magnitude of impacts. [Interruption] So we think this policy might work, but we’re highly uncertain.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): We won’t have the conversation across the House, please.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: What we are certain about is that women are paying for the cost of that. Carrying on through the other measures that have been taken in this Budget, we know that with the Working for Families changes that have come into place—changes around the abatement rate, around the threshold, around the universal Best Start in the first year of a child’s life—61,000 families will be worse off. So we know that the Working for Families change will be fiscally neutral, the changes within Working for Families—61,000 families are worse off. Well, they are paying for this highly uncertain economic impact as well.

We know that the KiwiSaver tax credit—an incentive to save that also provides a substantial benefit to low-income people—has been halved and has been taken away, and that over the lifetime of a worker, that might amount to as much as $66,000 gone. That, too, is what is paying for this highly uncertain economic impact.

So, yes, we do think that this will have a positive effect, but it is highly uncertain as to how much. What we do know with absolute certainty is that it is the women and the low paid who are paying for this Budget, and that is an appalling thing. We want our country to do well, but it should not do it off the backs of the most vulnerable, and that Government should be ashamed of doing that.

So we are going to carry on opposing this bill. This measure in itself—we should be doing something of this nature. It is worth trying, but I want to know a lot more about it and we need to be a lot more certain about it before we can endorse it.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): This is a Budget for the wealthy few, not for the many, and this is so telling in this first piece of legislation we’re debating straight after the Budget speeches. You’ve just got to look at the Hansard record of the first reading speeches, and the New Zealand First member’s speech, because the people that he mentioned this bill would benefit were not working families, were not people in poverty, were not those that are homeless. It was his own colleague—Mark Patterson—who’s now going to be able to buy a tractor. Like, spare a thought for the poor New Zealand First members of Parliament, who will now be able to finally buy a tractor, while children are going to experience greater levels of material hardship. [Interruption] You don’t have to believe me! You can just look at your own Government’s child poverty reports, which show that under this Budget, children will be doing it tougher.

What this bill is doing in order to put more children in material hardship is giving, basically, a tax cut to fossil fuel companies, and, on top of that, leaving low-wage workers worse off. Again, for example, when it comes to the KiwiSaver changes, we have a minimum wage worker who’s working 48 hours. Right now, under the 3 percent contribution, they would be contributing around $1,466.40. Under the changes, under 4 percent, that’s an extra $488, which amounts to around $940 extra a week. This is a Government that will be leaving low-income workers worse off as a result of these changes. Then when it comes to the safety-net changes under this bill in the Working for Families package, they’re stripping away universality from some of these changes to just give breadcrumbs to low-income families. People doing it tough deserve far more than a Government that hands out breadcrumbs while giving billions of dollars to people already doing really, really well. I think it’s also really rich that the Government is just recycling and reheating the nachos, the same very narratives that we’ve heard from the 1980s.

Ryan Hamilton: Nachos?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Yeah, you should spend some time with young people, or at least people my age, to know some of this terminology.

Ryan Hamilton: How old are you?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Younger than you are, at least, in the front bench. But anyway, the important point is that the Government is reheating the very same old narrative that if we give tax cuts to the wealthy, they’ll trickle down to everyday people. It didn’t work in the 1980s, it didn’t work in the 1990s, it didn’t work in the first few decades of the 2000s, and it won’t work this time—it won’t work this time. This Government is only making the pockets of companies fatter at the expense of people doing it tough.

Again, if we go back to the changes of the bill, I think it’s really lamentable that while we do think that the abatement threshold changes around the Working for Families package are welcomed, it’s the National Party basically trying to fix a problem they created. Because in 2010, they removed the automatic changes to the abatement threshold in the Working for Families package. They themselves created the conditions where, basically, working families on low incomes would be losing money when they entered work, and better-paying work, faster. So this is really weird that the Government is now claiming they’re doing a really good thing where the previous National Government actually created the very same problem, leaving people worse off, and actually with less incentives, to enter employment as a result of those abatement thresholds and changes.

If we go back to the changes to how companies will benefit in terms of the tax breaks that they’re giving to them, the Government members so far haven’t committed to this money being passed down to workers, for example. What they’ve said is that it’ll benefit businesses, but they haven’t given us a guaranteed or evidential basis that this extra money will filter through to workers. They haven’t committed to this, and they haven’t given us a guarantee that there’s any safeguards in this bill that ensure the additional money that businesses receive will equate to higher wages. They can’t make it happen by just repeating it time and time again. What the research does tell us is that if we want to, for example, increase the incomes of families doing it the toughest, we just need to actually continue increasing, at a much higher rate than this Government is doing, things like baseline benefits. We could also be, for example, doing things like pay equity, to ensure that low-paid women, the ones that are paying for the tax cuts under this Budget, can receive adequate and fair wages.

But instead, the Government has relied, in this bill, on trickle-down economics, hoping—literally hoping, because they haven’t presented any evidence—that it will result in higher wages. Saying buzzwords like “productivity” over and over and over in their speeches does not amount to actually a more productive economy. I think, to me, it goes back to the fact that we’ve got a Government that is championing industries that (a) are industries of the past, like the fossil fuel industry that will benefit from this bill; and (b) continues to allow us to have an economy that is sustained by inflated property prices. There’s nothing in this bill that does this. Yet they think that people are somehow ignorant enough that they’ll just buy the buzzwords of saying “productivity” time and time again, hoping that they will buy it.

I want to go back to the Working for Families changes, because one of the key things that is omitted in this bill is that even though the abatement is changing, the recommendations that have been given to us by experts throughout the years around the changes we need to see in the Working for Families package are not presented in this bill. I think this is a massive missed opportunity to recognise that caregiving is work that should be recognised as such, and therefore that we should be actually having a far more universal and broader Working for Families package, rather than trying to narrow the eligibility. Those first days and years of a child’s life are the most important, and the Government shouldn’t be assuming that just because someone’s on a relatively OK income for a period of time, that’s basically how they’ll be doing throughout their lifetime, which is why having a much broader Working for Families package is better as a safety net to put the child at the centre of policy making.

In terms of the Investment Boost, which is what they’ve called it, that allows companies buying assets to claim a tax deduction of 20 percent of the value against it immediately instead of as it depreciates, I just want to say that, once again, this is not substantiated in the Government speeches, nor in any of the evidence that we’re seeing as presenting and people having higher wages and a lower cost of living. What we do know, though, is that there’s components of this bill that will explicitly make it harder for low-wage workers. They’re gambling with people’s retirement and people’s ability to have a safety net once they reach 65-plus. The challenge that I see in this is that many people will end up having to choose to then opt out of KiwiSaver as a result of the negative cost of living impacts that this bill is creating on particularly low-wage workers. If you’re a low-wage worker affected by this bill, you may be thinking that I’m better off basically opting out of KiwiSaver to have that additional—

Simon Court: Put it in Sharesies, then! Go on, take a punt on the private market!

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —income on a week-to-week basis. What that means is you end up missing out on having the retirement savings that we all deserve as a safety net once we reach our golden years.

I think it’s really rich to be shouted at, nonsensical shouts by Simon Court on the other side of the House, when he’s not so much challenging the facts that I’m presenting in terms of how the KiwiSaver changes will leave low-income workers worse off and is rather doing performative outrage.

I think voters deserve far better than a Government that is quite happy to back their own reports—well, that is quite happy to actually put out reports on child poverty showing us that they’re going to be making things tougher, and then, when it comes to bills like this one, completely omit the families doing it the toughest and talk about businesses, and completely omit components of this bill, in their speeches, that will make life worse for everyday people.

I think this is one of those bills that would have really benefited from a select committee process so that we could have heard from young people who are on low wages, who will now be, basically, missing out on, effectively, real wages because of the higher contributions that themselves and the employer will be making instead of the Government, and who will now be facing the prospect of either opting out so that they can pay their bills and their rent, or continuing to have KiwiSaver but then having to access hardship assistance from Work and Income New Zealand as low-wage workers simply to make ends meet.

The Green Party won’t be supporting this bill, and we look forward to scrutinising it at the committee of the whole House, because this is a Government that has produced legislation that does not serve the interests of everyday workers and, instead, just simply deepens the pockets of business owners that are already doing it well.

SIMON COURT (ACT): This Budget is delivering value for taxpayers, and this bill is a blueprint for a more productive, investment-focused economy. Investment Boost means that businesses can deduct 20 percent of the cost of new assets up front. For contractors building roads and bridges, all the things that New Zealand needs, that makes it easier to finance the big gear: the cranes, the diggers, the concrete pumps.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: The utes.

SIMON COURT: The big gear that gets big jobs done faster, Duncan Webb. This Investment Boost also allows petrochemical, petroleum, and mining investment, their development expenditure, to also benefit up to 20 percent—fantastic. When you combine that with what this Government has announced today, providing a $200 million contingency to invest in oil and gas exploration so that we can get New Zealand’s energy sector restored to what it should be, this is a very helpful combination of policies. Less tax delay, more action on the ground. That’s how we build better, sooner, and for less.

This bill also brings common sense to KiwiSaver, increasing contributions over time but giving workers the opportunity to scale back temporarily if they need to. We’re extending access to 16- and 17-year-olds. That means financial security for young people starting earlier in their lives. They’ll save more. They’ll be better off over time. Who wouldn’t support that? I would expect the Opposition to support that at least.

We’re also being honest about who needs help, because high-income earners do not need top-ups for their savings, do they? That money should go to families who do. On Working for Families, we’re lifting the abatement threshold to let more parents keep more of what they earn while making sure the system remains affordable.

For the haters in their “just say no” doom cult in Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori—that’s right, Ingrid Leary, you put your thumb on your head—

Ingrid Leary: I hate the Budget. You’re absolutely right.

SIMON COURT: —women own and operate businesses that buy things like diggers and manufacturing equipment. They will benefit from Investment Boost. Māori people own businesses that will benefit from Investment Boost. When I was a civil engineer, I regularly contracted Māori-owned businesses in the civil engineering space, in directional drilling, in environmental management who owned and operated their own gear. They will benefit from this.

The ACT Party supports this Budget, this bill. It’s a great bill. It respects the taxpayer, and it rewards those people who would invest in plant and equipment, improving the productivity of their business and hiring more people. I commend it to the House.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First, in the second reading, to support the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2). This Budget today, from our Minister of Finance, is a responsible Budget and one that we are going to remember for years to come, that has put New Zealand back on track. As much as we are back on track, we love to see all that rail investment as well, because that’s getting trains on tracks.

There have been some announcements made today around Investment Boost that I want to speak on, around the KiwiSaver reforms and Working for Families changes. We heard from the Minister of Revenue how the Investment Boost is going to help up to 600,000 businesses. That is a huge amount of people in New Zealand, that’s across men and women who own businesses in New Zealand, and that’s Pākehā, Māori, and all ethnicities who own those business. It is a Budget—and I’d say that 600,000 businesses will help all Kiwis in New Zealand. Also, we heard through the KiwiSaver reforms, around the eligibility for 16- to 17-year-olds, how that will help up to over 80,000 people—16- and 17-year-olds—in that age group. We also heard from the Minister of Revenue, on the Working for Families changes and how that will benefit 142,000 people. So we are touching a huge amount of people in this Budget and in these policies.

But the Investment Boost, as I said in the first reading, is a game-changer. It is a game-changer when you can deduct 20 percent of a new asset in that first year—and that’s extra—and also deduct the depreciation you normally would. That is a game-changer for those 600,000 businesses. When we are, on this side of the House, going to look at this economy and we want to grow the economy and we’re looking into things like the blue economy—you think of aquaculture, you think of marine farming, you think of things in the mining, all the stuff that’s going to need to be bought there. Farming—we’ve got a Minister here—in wool. We’re going to be getting the wool industry back on track, and we are going to need investment. Tourism—a portfolio I have—all those types of businesses, all can invest, and I do believe, starting tomorrow and in the coming months, that the confidence of businesses across New Zealand will increase.

Hon Mark Patterson: Through the roof.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE: It will go through the roof. We will be at Mystery Creek, and we will be at the farming—we will be at all those places, where we’ll see the confidence in the farming communities rise. You will see businesses wanting to invest, and it’s owning a business in the past and actually knowing how difficult it is, sometimes, to make that decision whether we are going to invest in the capital. Sometimes there are things we want to do, and you put it on the backburner. This is an incentive to invest in your business.

We had the Green Party attacking me about someone possibly, on this side, might want to buy a tractor, but it might be another business. Someone wants to buy a different type of asset. It doesn’t matter what the asset, but if it’s going to make it productive—if it’s going to make the business more productive—they’re going to employ more people. But you don’t know that on that side of the House, because you ones don’t own businesses.

Hon Jo Luxton: Oh, rubbish. You’ve got no idea.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE: Yeah—no, you ones are rubbish, because this side of the House, we own businesses, we’ve run businesses, we know what it’s like, we employ people. We don’t think money grows on a tree, because you ones have all this magical money—magical money—that just appears out of nowhere. But on this side of the House, we know businesses earn money, then you actually employ people, and then you’ve got money to pay them. That’s an amazing concept to that side of the House, but this side of the House knows that.

I also mentioned, in the first reading around KiwiSaver, that isn’t it a great day that 16- and 17-year-olds will be eligible for that contribution? As we know, we want to see young people in this country succeed. We want people to learn to work. We don’t want people on the couch. We’ve had the Hon Shane Jones get the nephs off the couch. We want people to have the ability to learn how to work in this country, and if they go to work and they get a little bit of extra money through contributions, that will also set them up for their first homes. Because we want our young people—and I want my daughter, my son—to be able to buy their first home. And actually having KiwiSaver and actually having that extra contribution will be an extra way to actually have a deposit to actually put into the first homes. I think that is, really, again, a game-changer.

Working for Families, again, 142 families will benefit out of this announcement today. So this is a Government—and on this side of the House, we are growing the economy. This is an investment Budget, and we’ve actually come up with a policy. You’re thinking on that side of the House: “Why didn’t we think about it?” Well, this side of the House have. We’re going to implement it. We will grow the economy. We will have more people employed, businesses will have more money to pay them, and the economy will get better and it will grow and it will be the proof. The policy today will be seen on the ground, because this is a policy of action. I commend this bill to the House.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Oh, thank you, Madam Speaker. What a great bill this is. Actually, what I think hasn’t quite been touched on that much and deserves a bit of focus is the growth of potentials in productivity from this partial expensing scheme. It’s going to be a massive boost to the economy. We’ll see it in the regions first, and it will go right through the economy. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I take it the previous speaker, Stuart Smith, took the call from Te Pāti Māori. Is that what happened? OK. It’s just so naive—like, everything that the Government benches say is so naive. It’s like zero awareness of what actually supports our communities, which is the work of people who are looking after our tamariki. In this very bill, the Government’s literally taking away thousands of dollars from huge numbers of families who’ve had a child. That’s what’s happening with the Best Start payment. They’re taking the Best Start payment away so it’s not a universal thing that everybody can access when they’re having babies. They’re taking money away from babies. It’s really anti-family. But they don’t understand, because they’re just so dyed-in-the-wool in their ridiculous—

Ryan Hamilton: That’s right, bring back wool.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: You’ve drunk the Kool-Aid on the neoliberal fantasy of trickle-down economics. Actually, if you go over to countries that are small countries similar to New Zealand but with much higher living standards and much better productivity, they invest in their people. They have generous paid parental leave.

Ryan Hamilton: Like who?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Denmark, for example.

Hon James Meager: Oil?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: No—you don’t even know. Like, they don’t even know what they’re talking about. Norway has oil; Sweden doesn’t. Sweden doesn’t. Denmark—it is not a major part of their funding of these things; they have higher marginal tax rates. They tax inheritances; they tax wealth. The UK does that. The United Kingdom has capital gains tax, they have inheritance taxes, and they have more progressive, higher marginal tax rates, to invest that money into people. Now, I’m not saying the UK is great, because the Scandinavian countries are much better when it comes to paid parental leave. Iceland—Iceland has no oil; Iceland has nine months of paid parental leave and free universal early childhood education. And they have maybe 300,000 or 400,000 people.

The Government members know nothing, and they repeat the talking points that their little leaders hand down to them, but if they actually wanted to understand what was going to make New Zealand a more productive and successful economy, they might listen to some of the expert evidence from institutions like the International Monetary Fund—the IMF. What does the IMF say? It says New Zealand should have a capital gains tax, or look at a land tax. That is going to drive more productive investments. But people over on the Government—it’s just very frustrating, for those of us who actually know something about the rest of the world, to listen to the uninformed nonsense coming from the Government benches.

Look, I mean, everything that’s been done in New Zealand since the 1990s, most of it has made us a poorer, less competitive country, and that started with massive privatisation of public assets and reducing the social safety net. That has actually led to New Zealand being a less successful economy, and yet that’s what carries on in this Budget. Rather than making sure that people doing some of the most important public sector work—whether it’s the funded sector or directly employed by Government—people who are care and support workers, who are midwives, who are nurses, who are teachers, who are early childhood teachers—those people are not getting paid sufficiently. If we spent the money paying them properly, then they would spend the money in the economy, and it would actually benefit everyone. But instead, the Government chose to give tens of billions of dollars to people who own property, highly leveraged property investors. And then they have the gall to come in here, and the finance Minister, to say, “We want to incentivise people to work.”

Well, guess what! Having a passive income from an investment property is not working and it’s not making the country more productive. It’s not a productive thing for a small number of people to get rich off investing in property and then we take that money away, when we could have universal investment in services and benefits. If we actually valued children, what would we be investing in? Well, we wouldn’t be cutting back on the Best Start payment. We wouldn’t be cancelling the pay equity claims of early childhood teachers. We wouldn’t have this ridiculous policy for early childhood support that nobody can access, practically. I think the Government members are absolutely dreaming and know nothing. But what is true is that people like them will get richer and do well under this. Those people, they will get richer. They own their investment properties. They will get wealthier. And if they own businesses, they’ll write off the taxes and buy some new toys, which maybe will make their business more productive, but maybe it’ll just be a flash new ute to drive around, and that’s not productive.

Cameron Brewer: Madam Speaker?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Madam Speaker?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a National Party call—oh, is this—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Smith took the call.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: It’s all out of whack now.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Just for clarification, we’re out of sequence because of the missed call before, so the National Party have slotted into that one. So it is, in effect, the Labour Party call. My apologies. I call the Hon Dr—

STUART SMITH (Senior Whip—National): Point of order, Madam Speaker. I took the Māori Party call, which was a five-minute call, and then the Green Party have had a five-minute call, so now it’s a 10-minute call for the National Party. And so that’s the right sequence. So it isn’t out of sequence at all.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): As it turns out, if Te Pāti Māori were to come and take a call, they would be entitled to.

Stuart Smith: That’s fine.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): But then they would have to replace someone else’s slot, and so the number of speaking opportunities remains the same until the end.

STUART SMITH (Senior Whip—National): Speaking to the point of order, well, that’s fine, Madam Speaker. There is a National Party call at the end; if they turn up, then they can have that.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, clearly, the allocation of the calls is entirely at the Chair’s discretion—absolutely happy to abide by your decision, whatever it may be. But as I understand it, the call has to be held over for Te Pāti Māori until the end. If they aren’t here or choose not to take it as the final call, then it’s available for a member to take. That’s my understanding of how the House has conventionally approached this problem.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That is the case, and I’ve had advice from the Clerk to that effect.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my absolute pleasure to take a call on this bill and to spell out why it is that Labour is not supporting this bill. We are under urgency; we are putting this bill through at all stages. So my advice to those on the Government benches is to get a bit beyond your research unit’s speaking notes and get into some detail on the bill.

This bill purports to do three things, but, essentially, what it does is sit at the heart of what this Government is saying is their growth Budget. So I want us to take some time in this House and unpack that and see what the actual advice was. Because what we, on this side of the House, say is this is not a growth Budget; this is a Budget that is cutting the pay of working women in New Zealand to pay for the measures that we are seeing in this bill.

The Government is saying this bill, that will help 600,000 businesses, sits at the heart of their growth agenda. But the advice that Ministers that sat around the Government Cabinet table had was that this was going to increase GDP growth by 1 percent over a period of 20 years. If that is the aspiration that this Government has for growth in New Zealand, then heaven help us.

If we look more closely at the regulatory impact statement—if we go into what was said about that—the Government were also warned that not all the benefit of that 1 percent over the course of 20 years would flow to New Zealanders, because some of it will flow to foreign investors as a return on their investment. We’ve got the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance coming down and trumpeting that this is great for New Zealand businesses and great for New Zealand workers. This certainly is not a measure that is putting New Zealanders first. This is not something that sits at the heart of growing jobs and wages for New Zealanders.

Let’s have a look. What did officials tell the Government it would do due to wage growth over 20 years? Well, 1.5 percent increase difference on wages over 20 years—0.075 of a percent per year difference on wage growth. That’s the kind of aspiration that this Government has for working New Zealanders. It can take $3 billion a year out of what should have been destined for the pay packets and pockets of women in this country and instead put this measure in place that will see a paltry 1.5 percent increase to wages over 20 years. That’s the kind of aspiration that this Government has.

And wait, there’s more. What is more: officials told the Government that 80 percent of the growth in wages that would come as a result of their changes around KiwiSaver contributions and the way in which New Zealanders would benefit from that would come at the expense of wage growth. So when you put these things together, you can see this is a Government that doesn’t give a jot about the wages of working New Zealanders; that is not putting that as its top priority. It’s cutting $3 billion a year out of the wages of working women and it’s putting in place measures that return a pittance to working New Zealanders.

Let’s have a look; let’s unpack some of the other measures that are in this. One of the things I’m very interested to see is analysis that is coming through in terms of the Best Start—and when we get to the committee stage, we will certainly have some questions about this. What officials told Government—and it’s laid out in the regulatory impact statement—is that 9,000 families would have an increased effective marginal tax rate as a result of the changes in the Best Start package. Who are those 9,000 families that are going to have an increased effective marginal tax rate as a result of this package of measures?

We’ve also seen in the regulatory impact statement officials that have estimated that the income testing of that first year of the Best Start payment will result in 53,000 families becoming ineligible for the payment. That is in the advice that the Government was giving. They made these decisions knowing that 53,000 families are going to become ineligible for this payment. Who are those families and who is missing out are questions that, in the Opposition, we will want some answers to.

The Government is trumpeting the $7 a week increase that will go to some families—$14 a fortnight, $28 a month. Let’s put that against some of the cost of the package that we’re seeing here. We know that 61,000 families are going to be $43 a week worse off. How does that add up? How does that purport to be a Budget that is supporting working families in New Zealand and their children and raising incomes? Because that is not what this package is doing.

Now, there are some measures in this bill that we think are good. We think that actually starting KiwiSaver contributions for 16- and 17-year-olds is not a bad idea. But it does not have to come at the expense of halving the contribution and the Government contribution. That is a choice the Government has made. We know that 18-year-olds today are going to be over $66,000 worse off by the time they retire had the Government contribution stayed the same; 30-year-olds are going to be $30,000 worse off when it comes to retirement. That’s the kind of stripping out an expense we are seeing for these measures that are in front of us.

We also think measures to increase productivity are things that we should be exploring—that each Government should explore—and actually this Parliament should enjoy the debate about how we can increase New Zealand’s productivity. I don’t think there’s a parliamentarian who doesn’t know that we need to lift our productivity in this country. But the questions we have are the fact that only two options were explored. Some very orthodox other measures weren’t even considered by the Government. Now we are considering these measures under urgency. It is about time we could have a real debate about this rather than the parroting off of the lines given to them by the Prime Minister’s office. And let’s discuss the reality of what is in the analysis that accompanies this bill. Because there are questions; we are in urgency. We are signalling the areas that we are going to want to delve into in depth when it comes to the committee stages of this bill, because New Zealanders deserve to know about this.

We know that this is a Budget with a whole package of measures that is being paid for fundamentally by cutting that nearly $3 billion a year that was destined for the pay packets and pockets of women workers in this country. We also know that this is a packet of measures that is being paid for by cutting the Government contribution to retirement savings. When we think about retirement savings in New Zealand, I think we all know this is something we want to increase, not something we want to cut. I do not want to be setting up 18-year-olds today to retire with $66,000 less in income when they get there. And this is what this does.

They are raising the marginal tax rates of New Zealanders. They are striking hundreds and tens of thousands of New Zealanders ineligible, so it’s about time we had a real conversation about who these people who are being rendered ineligible are, because there are a lot of New Zealanders paying a very heavy price for the Budget introduced today.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Just picture this—just picture this. If they are so angry at this policy, picture this at the Fieldays on 11 June. Picture this at the cultural festivals. Picture this at the market days. Picture this at the home show. The Labour Party marquee—OK, you’ve got the Labour Party marquee, and it’s got a big sign up and it says, “Axe the tax write-off”, and that’s what they’re promising. Let’s see if they commit to that: axing the tax write-off, axing Investment Boost, where businesses can deduct 20 percent of a new asset’s value from this year’s taxable income—vehicles, tools, plant, commercial buildings. Let’s see if they want to axe that tax write-off.

Secondly, on the marquee: “Rewind the default contributions on KiwiSaver”. Why don’t we bring back the contributions for $180,000-plus earners? Are they going to do that? No. Are they going to take back Government and employer contributions? No. Are they going to reverse the KiwiSaver contributions? No. So if we’re going to make sense out of them tonight, they are the ones that are feigning opposition—they are feigning opposition. And they know that this tax policy and they know that this KiwiSaver policy—they’re not going to change a thing. They’re not going to axe the tax write-off. They are not going to rewind the KiwiSaver changes. They are locked in. And if they disagree, I ask the next speaker to stand up and say, “We will reverse the tax changes; we will reverse the KiwiSaver change.” I commend the bill.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): This bill is part of a full-frontal austerity Budget that the National Party Government are paying for through the wages of women and of our young people—shame on them. I would like to say to Cameron Brewer: when you are gloating about the utes and the tractors and the diggers and maybe the boats and the other things that you can call business equipment, you are doing that on the sweat of women from my electorate. Between 60 and 70 percent of the women in the Taieri electorate work in the health and education sectors. That means that between 60 and 70 percent are involved in the 33 pay equity cuts that happened last week. It means they are paying for this Budget.

Let’s remember who those women are: they are nurses, they are midwives, they are care and support workers. They’re psychologists, they’re librarians, they are mothers, they are grandmothers—and believe me, there are many grandmothers in my electorate who are looking after their grandchildren and still working on near minimum wage to bring up their grandchildren. You have just taken, the National Government, the money out of their pockets that they were expecting to get as a result of your miscalculations, and this bill is the centrepiece of that.

Let’s look at young people, the 18-year-olds that will no longer have the $66,000 in their superannuation. Now, that’s an average, but let’s remember that many of them will be women. They won’t get their pay equity claims through. They will be experiencing that pay gender gap. So the $66,000 is actually probably going to be a lot more that they will miss out on in their retirement.

When I think about the 14,500 young people currently in that age group who get $315 a week—we know those numbers, and we know that Nicola Willis in her Budget cannot tell us what the threshold will be for their parents who will be paying for them. Now, how does one put together a Budget and not include the numbers with the threshold that will determine who will be paying that amount and who will not? It does not add up. That is one small example of many examples that we will see as we interrogate this bill where there has been a superficial process and there has not been the depth and the gravitas and the mathematics done in a correct way. That is why women are actually paying the price, because the maths wasn’t done by this Government. That is why women in my electorate are paying.

When we look at families and we look at the means testing of Best Start, which is, effectively, a cut for those who will not get it, let’s remember that we still have not found the family that is getting a $250 a week tax boost from this Government. Where are they? They are not there. What we do know is that 61,000 families will be worse off by $43,000 a week.

When we look at housing, $1 billion is cut from the emergency housing budget. The Ministry of Social Development has already cut the number of emergency housing places from 27 in the Otago-Southland region to just three, between November last year and March 2025. They have declined more than 100 emergency housing grants, and guess what! Ministry of Social Development rental properties in Dunedin are not that much lower than Auckland but our people get half the subsidised amount. How can this Government justify cutting a billion dollars of housing and leave people in the Taieri electorate, in the Oval, who have been in the media, out in the cold, living in tents? It is disgraceful and it is not just adults; it is children.

So there are lots of things the Government could’ve done in this bill that they have not, but instead what they have done is they’ve favoured landlords, the 346 landlords who own 200 properties between them. They each get $464 million worth of tax cuts. They have favoured the ASB and the ANZ. They’re going to pass legislation to make sure that those people who were ripped off by big foreign banks will not get the money that is owed them.

They are repeating history, actually. For those of you old enough to remember, those at home watching, one of the worst decisions made ever in this Chamber was on 15 December 1975, when Mr Muldoon cancelled the superannuation.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired. [Interruption] Order!

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Well, this is a great growth Budget. Growth is good. But, one more thing: the Government isn’t the generator of economic growth; it’s hard-working New Zealanders that are. It’s the 50,000 farmers across this country, the 600,000 small- and medium-sized businesses, and the 3 million working people across this country. Growth is the answer to our short- and long-term challenges. This bill and this Budget are all about growth.

How great is the Investment Boost? Excellent. It is a great, productivity enhancing measure. But don’t take my word for it. Take Barbara Edmonds’ word, who recently said, on RNZ, when asked what’s one thing she likes from the Budget, “Well, umm, that tax break for businesses.” That’s what she said—that’s what she said.

Let’s talk about KiwiSaver. We need to grow our savings as a country. Tell me a country that is rich without a high savings rate. There is none. So this is great policy for New Zealand. And it’s a great policy, as Minister Simon Watts talked about, for the young people—85,000 people across this country that will have access to KiwiSaver. It’s such a great bill. I’ll cut my speech there. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Well, it’s interesting when you take a little bit of a look at the media and try to ascertain how this Budget is being digested by New Zealanders. I looked at a few different sources, and one of them was Stuff. It has been running a poll, and 65 percent of New Zealanders say no to this Budget, and say that it doesn’t help them at all and it’s not much good. Then, when I watched TV ONE, I saw a man from a family, which was a farming family, and he wasn’t really excited about getting some money off a tractor. He was more concerned about his superannuation and how he was going to be able to retire, and that was on One News tonight. He was worried about his own family and the cost of living crisis and the fact that butter was more expensive than what he was getting back in his Working for Families kickback.

So that’s really concerning. It is concerning that, in general, the way that New Zealanders have so far seen this Budget is that they’re pretty unimpressed. They’re pretty unimpressed because it doesn’t deliver anything meaningful for New Zealanders who are struggling right now, and that’s the sad part.

When we look at what this Government has done, it has really tried to balance the books based on working women having to shell out. So while it’s nice what we’ve heard tonight about all the incentives that are going to happen under this Budget and how it’s going to go for growth, what it’s really done is it’s stripped it away from the working women of New Zealand, and what I think this Government hasn’t cottoned on to is that women are just over 50 percent of the population. So, in an MMP environment, those percentages are really important.

There are a lot of New Zealand women out there right now who are pretty unhappy with this Government and what it’s done, and the centrepiece of this piece of legislation that we’re debating tonight, which provides a $1.7 billion tax break for business investment—the going for growth centrepiece of the Budget is unlikely to boost investment much at all, according to Treasury. So this is an interesting point that those on the opposite benches haven’t been discussing. According to Treasury and their analysis of the centrepiece of this Budget, it is estimated it would increase New Zealand’s capital stock by around 1.5 to 1.6 percent over the next 20 years. Rua tekau ngā tau—that’s 20 years.

So the going for growth Budget that that side has championed and that side has cut the wages of working women for and that has robbed out of our superannuation for—all of this has been forsaken for the centrepiece of a Budget that is going to produce a 1.6 percent increase in New Zealand’s capital stock in 20 years. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but that doesn’t seem like a very good business decision. In fact, that would mean that you’ve just marginalised 50 percent of the population, who now think that this Government doesn’t support women—isn’t supporting hard-working Kiwi women—in order to pay for a 1.6 percent increase in New Zealand’s capital stock over 20 years. Well, I fail to see how smart a Budget is that does that. In fact, I think it’s a waste of good, hard-working Kiwis’ time and effort.

That is the problem with this Government, and that’s what starting to feed back in the media. That’s what we’re starting to hear back in the feedback as people talk, and what they’re saying is that there is no hope in this Budget. It doesn’t give us a future we’re looking for.

If you’re maybe an 18- or a 19-year-old New Zealander and you’re growing up in this country and you want to see a pathway forward into where you find your way, or if you’re growing up in a household where there would be family violence or sexual violence, under the front-line service cuts of this Government, mental health care is harder to get access to, youth support and social workers are harder to get access to, and even family violence—now that the police don’t turn up, all the NGO providers are telling us that the police are not turning up to family violence and mental health call-outs. So if you’re a young person growing up in a home and you’re 18, you can’t get the jobseeker benefit. You’re left on the streets—but wait, this Budget just cut $1 billion out of emergency housing.

A billion dollars has been cut out of emergency housing, while the Government is making it harder for 18- and 19-year-old New Zealanders to get access to the jobseeker benefit. On top of that, where are the job schemes? Are there any great job schemes in this Budget to help training to help employment? Oh wait, trade training for Māori—that’s been cut, as well, in this Budget.

So you’re cutting from the very people that you’re putting into—and making it harder for 18- and 19-year-olds to get a job, to get employment, to get a house, and to have some hope in the future. While we have to sit here and listen to the arguments for why this is such a productive and growth-focused Government, there is absolutely no key reason why this is driving growth, and when we go back to the very analysis of Treasury, it does absolutely zip. The centrepiece of this Government does zip for this, as well.

When we look at what it’s actually doing, there’s less for young families and there’s less for those that are struggling in New Zealand right now. This set of measures has cut the Government contribution to KiwiSaver from $512 a year to $260, along with an increase in the default employee and employer contribution from 3 percent to 4 percent.

Tom Rutherford: Oh, great stuff.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Great stuff, but not so great if you want to retire comfortably in New Zealand. You make it harder for working New Zealanders to be able to do it. It’s $66,000 less, if you’re 18 years old right now in New Zealand, when you retire.

This Government has also agreed that it’s going to make it harder, which is impacting directly on workers and those on lower incomes, and that’s what this entire Budget does. This Budget is an absolute assault on hard-working people in New Zealand. You only had to be out the front today to look at and talk to those women who came and spoke today, and they were ashamed. They were frustrated and they were angry that 40 years later, they are still fighting in New Zealand for equal pay. How can you call this a growth Budget when it’s impacting those people—the very fabric of our society—whom we rely upon to try and grow our country? It’s cutting those people off at the knees and keeping their wages low at a time when there’s a cost of living crisis.

When we actually take a look, there was a massive opportunity for this Government during a cost of living crisis to actually look at how they could provide some help and some relief, and the only thing in this Government’s Budget is a centrepiece of a 1.5 percent increase over 20 years. What is that doing to put food on the tables of hard-working New Zealanders? What is that doing to help put lunches on the tables of schoolkids who have to eat the slop that’s being dished out under this Government?

It’s absolutely unbelievable, and, on top of all that, the Government has cut spending on housing, mainly by shifting $188 million of Māori housing operational funding into the general spending bill and by reallocating capital spending out of that area. For those people who can’t get on the list for emergency housing, there are further cuts already going through that.

This is a Budget that is really designed to hurt those who are already struggling in New Zealand, and that is exactly the sentiment that is coming back now. As we hear people’s feedback and as we see those news stories feed through, and as people start to take a look and see what this Budget actually does for them, people are realising that it does nothing. It just takes away from people who are already struggling—and those people opposite know that. They’ll have to turn up in their electorates and talk to those people who get less from Working for Families, or who have an 18- or a 19-year-old in their home who is struggling to find employment or training or hope or opportunities in life, or to those people who are struggling to get mental health assessment or treatment, or who are struggling to get someone to turn up when there’s a family violence call-out, because the very parts of our society that need to be connected are being severed by this Government.

They’re being severed by this Government in order to fund 1.6 percent growth over 20 years, and while we can sit back and hear how great it’s going to be at Fieldays with the rebate and “You’re going to get some great tech.”, what’s the cost? What is the cost of that for New Zealanders? You are paying for that off the back of working women, and they’re not going to go away. They’ll keep coming, they will keep talking, and a whole lot of them used to vote National.

NANCY LU (National): National supports this bill. This bill matters because—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Point of order. I was watching just up in my room a little bit ago and I noticed that you said in your ruling if one of us was to return we could take the final call. I’m happy to do that if that’s your will.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Which will be the next call.

NANCY LU: National supports this bill because this bill matters for businesses and the economy to grow through investment. So tradies, manufacturers, small businesses, farmers, business owners, employers, this is a clear message for you: the National Government have got your back and we’re helping you to grow.

So, Opposition, listen in. If you have not read the regulatory impact statement, at least read the front page. It means new capital investment from nearly all sectors across the economy would benefit from the policy. So read the front page.

But guess what! The regulatory impact statement also shows the changes to the KiwiSaver will leave people significantly better off in the long run. A typical KiwiSaver balance for the first time will help homebuyers grow 9 percent under the new changes, while a person’s balance at 65 would grow by 26 percent. That is an extra $102,817 for retirement. Now, tell me, Opposition, that you would be saying no, and voting down an extra $102,817 for Kiwis to retire. Tell me that you’ll be voting that down. But don’t worry, this is the “BS Budget”, because it’s a “Barbara Support Budget”.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I already made a contribution in the first reading, and I’m happy to take a short call now, Madam Speaker, thank you. I think I heard Dan Bidois refer to this as a gross Budget—I think that’s what he said. It is a gross Budget. I agree with him entirely: it is gross. It is grossly unfair, it is grossly unjust, and it is disconnected from real communities, particularly the communities that I come from. So to assume that you think you know, in your own comfortable and privileged scenario, is a joke, and shame on you.

The other—well, it’s a muttering, but when somebody, particularly on the other side of the House, talks about the facts of the matter and doing a fact check, surely they mean fictional check. To have actual facts about what is going on, particularly in our Māori communities, but in our smaller rural communities—from what families and whānau tell me, it is far from the truth. In fact, the email that I just got—one just came down—said, “These people are barking mad.” I couldn’t contest that idea. I probably think it’s quite true.

Working for Families—well, it’s the absolute opposite of that. It does not work for families, it does not work for children, and it does not work for real people with real plans, aspirations, and dreams. It doesn’t work, and it won’t ever work until there’s a better listening, particularly for smaller communities; Māori communities. The only way you create a better listening is you educate yourself about what’s really going on, so I’m happy to send some books.

Outside, earlier today—and I did refer to this in my first reading speech—there were the loud and clear voices about this pay equity nonsense. I’ve heard in the House a few times that we’re scaremongering—that this is what’s going on. The fact of the matter is everyone that was out there today, they know exactly what’s going on. They don’t need any scaremongering. They know what’s going on. Why do they know? Because the impacts of what’s run in that equity—which is a bit of an ironic word in this situation. They understand what it means for them. They’re not beguiled by the stuff that comes out of here. In fact, they’re probably laughing at it all. They know exactly. So scaremongering—that is not what’s happening, certainly from our party or any other on this side of the House. They know the reality. They understand the reality. Unfortunately, what they are feeling and recognising is that no one is listening, particularly on the other side of the House.

So I wanted to make those points, and, in particular, I just want to say there’s no possible way Te Pāti Māori will support this barking-mad thinking. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee.

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2). Members, we start with Part 1, the debate on clauses 3 to 16, “Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007”.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. A very good evening, members. I’m looking forward to a good committee of the whole House stage of this Budget bill. I just want to provide some context in regards to Part 1, clauses 3 to 16, “Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007”. Primarily, the policy background in this context, and as part of this Part 1, relates to Investment Boost, which is a partial expensing regime and has similarities to other forms of accelerated depreciation. It would allow a deduction of 20 percent of the cost of new investment assets in the income year the assets are acquired. This deduction wouldn’t lower a business’ taxable income, and, therefore, the amount of tax that that business pays.

Investment Boost would provide a business with a timing advantage, allowing it to make earlier returns on its capital investment that could be used to further invest in its business. The deduction would eventually be recovered in the form of a lower depreciation, or depreciation-like deduction, in subsequent periods. The objective of Investment Boost is to encourage capital investment in New Zealand, and greater capital investment would increase New Zealand’s capital intensity, which, in turn, increases labour productivity and wage growth. There are a number of other aspects in the context of Part 1, and I’m happy to take questions.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Mr Chair, thank you for the call. I want to spend a little bit of time just setting out how the Opposition intends to focus on this bill and then to move to questions on a particular clause. Now, this bill is part of the Budget tax measures. We’ve had it in our hands since about, oh, sometime earlier today, sometime this afternoon, which is fine—very considerately, we actually got the bill itself during the afternoon, but we only were able to access the regulatory impact statement, the departmental disclosure statement, and so on, at about 4.45 p.m.

Now, of course, this is all going through under urgency. It’s not actually clear to me exactly why this particular bill needs to go through in urgency. The Minister of Revenue has said it’s so that there weren’t people delaying investment decisions in order to take advantage of a tax credit, but he could’ve just set the tax credit date to start from today, but we could still have debated the legislation through to tidy up some of the details and things like that. It wasn’t strictly necessary to have that going through in urgency. However, that’s the Minister’s decision.

What it does mean is that we haven’t had a select committee process and we haven’t had the opportunity to examine this bill in depth. We have some very real concerns with the bill, concerns that could have been debated in select committee. I have some concerns even with some of the drafting, some of the stuff that likewise would’ve been picked up in select committee and perhaps dealt with.

What we intend to do is to go through it clause by clause. Now, rather conveniently, just on a pretty straightforward clause by clause basis, it does divide quite conveniently into three clear topics. Even just going clause by clause, it divides quite clearly, first of all, into talking about the accelerated depreciation that the Government is putting in place through this, and they’ve referred to that as an investment boost. It’s interesting, because the regulatory impact statement refers to it as partial expensing. So I’m going to talk about the partial expensing, because that seems to be the words which the experts would use—yep. So I want to talk through those partial expensing rules. That’ll be the first topic we concentrate on as the Opposition, taking our first opportunity to examine this.

Then we intend to move on to the clauses that deal with the changes to Working for Families. There are some very serious questions to be asked there, especially around the 61,000 families who are worse off as a result of those changes.

Then, finally, we want to move on to discussing the changes to KiwiSaver, which have some pretty significant changes in them around eligibility and around removing the tax credit for people earning over a certain amount of income. So a lot to talk about, some of it very technical, and, of course, we do want to discuss the policy detail.

Now, as it turns out, when we look, just going on a clause by clause basis, in terms of the partial expensing, the way that we very much want to do it—I think we do want to discuss the policy, and I think actually the best place to discuss the policy in general is going to be when we get to clause 5. Now, clause 5 inserts a whole new subpart into the bill to deal with this partial expensing. So that’s where we do want to have the general policy discussion, and I imagine that that will go on for a little bit of time, because this is a very significant policy.

Before we discuss clause 5, as it turns out, there is another clause, clause 4, and it’s new section CC 15 that is inserted into the Income Tax Act. Now, this takes a little bit of explanation, and I will be seeking an extra call just to get to the question on this one. So you can see we clearly—

Carl Bates: Well, you could’ve done it in the first minute.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: We haven’t had a select committee; shush over there. So, having set out quite clearly—quite clearly—how the Opposition intends to deal with this bill, and I’ve given us a really clear road map so everyone knows what to expect, I want to turn to CC 15. Before I was interrupted, I was going to explain to the members over there, who’ll probably need this explanation, that Part C of the Income Tax Act is where there are rules around income and how we measure income. That seems odd, because, of course, this is all about getting an extra tax deduction.

The point of this partial expensing is to give an extra tax deduction, but then, immediately, the very first clause sitting in here inserts a new section into CC—[Bell rung] Mr Chair, I would like to carry on. Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to understand: first of all, there’s this new section CC 15, and what it is doing is, if a new investment asset—so there’s a whole new entity of assets, our investment assets, and there’s obviously a case, when people buy assets for a business, often there’s a split between using the asset for a business and using the asset for personal use. The obvious instance in that, Mr Bates, would be a car or something like that that is used for, you know, a business use and for personal use. But, of course, an entity can buy an asset and have the split between business and personal use, but then they need to change it, all right? So there’s a change that goes on. So maybe after a year or so, instead of it being a 50/50 split, it’s a 30/70 split or something like that, or maybe it’s a 40/60. So you need a change-of-use formula.

Now, there’s a couple of questions I have here, and the first one, having got into it, is CC 15(1)(b), “The change results in a 25 or more percent reduction in the amount of the deduction if the asset were treated as acquired by the person on the original terms and conditions immediately after the change of use.” I think that maybe there’s a comma missing, maybe the phrases are in an odd order, but just reading that, just as an ordinary reading of it, we’re trying to adjust and we have to have a reduction in the amount of the deduction that would be allowed if the asset were treated as acquired by the person on the original terms and conditions immediately after the terms of use.

What I don’t get is—I guess I almost want a plain English explanation of that, because I can’t quite read the phrases through, I feel as though—“acquired by the person on the original”. This is where I’m losing it. You know, I read tax law, and I can’t quite read this particular clause through. The original terms and conditions—acquired by the business, acquired by the person for personal use. What do we mean on the original terms and conditions? I’m just finding it really hard to parse that particular phrase. I wonder if the Minister could actually just explain it to me a little. So—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, could you just tell us where you are?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: CC 15(1)(b); it’s in clause 4 of the bill, and it’s the phrase that says, “if the asset were treated as acquired by the person on the original terms and conditions immediately after the change of use.” I don’t know whether that means we treat it as the person as they originally acquired it, but they originally acquired it and then split it between business and personal use. Or is it the split between business and personal use on the day after the change of use? This is genuine. I’ve tried to understand what the officials were trying to get at here, and I think there’s an odd phrasing. Maybe it just takes a comma, maybe a phrase needs to be flipped around in a different way; maybe a drafter could fix this one up.

Again, it’s one of those things we could’ve kind of worked our way through in select committee. I get the reason for urgency, but I do want to get the explanation here. If I’m getting confused by it, I’m going to suggest that other people could get confused by it, too. This could end up in a court if we don’t get the phrasing right, so I’m going to invite the Minister to allay that concern.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I’ll keep my contribution short because it really does pick up on the point made by my colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell in “New investment assets: change of use”, new section CC 15, subsection (1)(b). Again, when we’re looking, it would result in a 25 percent or more reduction. I’m interested to know why the Minister of Revenue has landed on that particular threshold. It feels unusual: often they will have 20 percent. It feels like it has a granularity to it or specificity that means that it has to be a very precise amount. Often, in tax law, we would expect it to be a more proximate amount.

My second question is just around if the asset were treated—again, supplementary to Dr Russell’s questions—treated by whom? As treated by the purchaser, treated by the user, or treated by IRD? That’s not clear.

We also talk about the person on the original terms and conditions immediately after the change of use. Change of use: does that refer to the change of use from personal to business—which I suspect it does but is not clear from the phrasing—or does it mean that there could be a different use? For example, if there was a vehicle and it was originally used on a farm for a particular purpose—might have been a business purpose—and then it is used for a different business purpose, does that qualify? What about if it was a personal use and then changed to a business use, but, actually, the functions were the same? So the vehicle might be doing exactly the same rotation around the farm or doing exactly the same action, but one action is for personal use and one is for business. Then what is the methodology that the Minister is using to assess that? Is it to do with the time frame in which it is used? Is it to do with the output of the activity? Is it to do with who is using the equipment? How is that recorded?

Again, going back—given it’s all one phrasing to the specificity of 25 percent—how confident is he that this is going to be something that can actually be accountable and that we’re not just relying on returns and the goodwill of people to do this because they are going to get, effectively, a tax break and we do want to incentivise productivity. But it would be very easy, if this is not clear and if there’s not a way of accounting for it, for people to game the system. So I’m really keen to hear those answers.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I just want to, if I may, just in the context of back and forth, clarify the clause, because the member quoted 15(1)(b). We can see 15(1), but not a (b). Can we just clarify, that is what you said? Sorry, I just want to make sure we’re answering your question.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: I’m happy to bring this to you.

Hon SIMON WATTS: From the bill?

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Yeah.

Hon SIMON WATTS: Page 2?

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Oh, so it’s clause—oh. Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Happy to have a back and forth, of course—back and forth call.

Hon SIMON WATTS: Back and forth. Yeah, I want to answer your question.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): It’s clause 4 of the bill, and it inserts new section CC 15. So it’s new section CC 15(1)(b), OK? I’m sorry, it’s because I’ve got notes on it.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): No, that’s no problem. Thank you, member, for clarifying that. We’ll come back, just in the context of that.

To the question just asked in regards to the change in the use of the asset, as the member is assumed, she has assumed correctly that in the context of a personal asset, then that asset use can change and, therefore, it is subject to no longer being a personal asset, and, likewise, it can go the other way from a business asset to a personal asset. So I’m just confirming the member’s point around that.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I know that we are all currently still focusing on clause 4, inserting new section CC 15, but I think if you’re looking at a broader question now, the other side asks us, “Read the regulatory impact statement (RIS).”, which is what we’re doing. I think, if you go past the first page, there are some questions that I have that do raise concerns, particularly around the fact that, yes, I think, on balance, based on the regulatory impact statement, the partial expensing may show as a simple way or an easier way of dealing with it. I guess the first question is: why, then, were large structural reforms potentially not considered as an option? Because that seems to be coming through, apparently, in the RIS.

The main thing about this is actually on page 4 of the regulatory impact statement, where it does say that there is significant uncertainty about the magnitude of effect and how benefits would be distributed across the economy. I guess, on a broader scale—again, we’re doing this under urgency—how would the Minister foresee the mitigation or potentially the lower variability in terms of the magnitude of effect? As in, how do we know that this is genuinely going to do what the Government wants it to do? Also, how would you then ensure that there is equal distribution across the economy, and not disproportionate distribution across the economy, depending on industry? So that’s one of my broader, policy-based questions.

I guess the other question is—here, it says Treasury, IRD, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment are the only three that have not been consulted. So I’m just confirming that these are indeed the only three that have not been consulted, and no other agencies were consulted?

In terms of the risk questions: lastly, again on page 4, it does say that the practical risks potentially are mitigated, but a number of other countries have implemented similar regimes. Would the Minister be able to list some of the countries that have implemented similar regimes? So that way we are able to at least know, on balance, whether the broader tax ecosystems in these countries are actually comparable, as opposed to siloing the partial expensing specifically in this context. Now, those are three of my questions in terms of the regulatory impact statement.

Moving on to the bill itself, we’ve heard our colleagues—the Hon Dr Deborah Russell as well as Ingrid Leary—asking a number of questions around CC 15(1). I actually have a question around new subsection (2), in terms of the calculation for less than 25 percent change in deductible use, and on whether—I’m using the example that is on the bottom of page 4—25 percent is the right balance there. So I wanted to check with the Minister if anything other than 25 percent was considered when looking at the formula for deductible use between new use and previous use? Then there are a number of questions around the definition of “new use” and “previous use” as well.

My final question when it comes to—at this stage—CC 15, is new subsection (4), and new subsections (4)(a) and (4)(b). This is the thing that I think is a little bit confusing and potentially could cause confusion, which is at the end of new subsections(4)(a) and (4)(b), on the “new use” and “previous use”, it talks about “expressed as a decimal”, whereas I was interpreting it not as a decimal but as a percentage. I assume the meaning over here is expressed as a single decimal as opposed to a number of decimal places. So, if that was the case, I wondered if the Minister would consider my amendment on this just to clarify that it is a single decimal place rather than decimal as a concept or as a mathematical concept, as opposed to a percentage. So those are my two questions at this stage on new section CC 15.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’ll just acknowledge that, actually, this tax bill is 15 pages in total length, including all parts, and, as we know, most tax bills are in the hundreds of pages. So it’s a very succinct and tight bill.

In regards to questions around what other countries use partial expensing, Canada and the US are two examples that come to mind. There is a large number of other countries that also consider using those jurisdictions.

In regards to the amendment regarding clause 4 inserting new section CC 15(4)(a) and (b), no, I won’t be taking up the amendment by the member in regards to restricting it to one decimal place.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): In the spirit of responding to what the Minister of Revenue has said, the bill might only be—how many pages? Did you say 15 pages? It may be small, but it is of great significance. It is a major Budget measure in there. We actually need to discuss it thoroughly and I believe we certainly need to discuss this very, very new piece of legislation on tax measures.

I, too, have a question, and it follows on from my colleague Mr Xu-Nan’s question—and I have an amendment, which will be on the Table at some stage, being prepared—around new clause CC 15(2), inserted by clause 4, with the 25 percent or more deduction in terms of a change of use. Now, I get you have to choose some kind of threshold, but why 25 percent? Why not 50 percent? Why not 10 percent? Why 25 percent? How does that relate to other change-of-use thresholds? In the Income Tax Act, for example, when you have various mixed-use assets which are used sometimes for personal use, sometimes for business use and if there’s a change in use there—I’m thinking of holiday homes and things like that. What is the kind of point of flex? I’m just trying to seek a little bit of assurance around the flex on that as to why 25 percent rather than 33 percent or 10 percent or whatever.

Someone a little bit more familiar with the new way of doing mathematics and doing the operating order in mathematics—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: BODMAS.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —might be able to—modern maths?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: BODMAS.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Oh, right. OK—

Carl Bates: Back to basics. One hour of reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I have to say I don’t need the back to basics; I did get bursary maths. So in new section CC 15(3) we’ve got a formula there: “DI 5 deduction − (new use ÷ previous use × DI 5 deduction).” I’m old-school mathematics; I need the braces and the brackets and the operands and things like that. I’ve just couldn’t quite make that formula work. If the Minister is able to explain it—I sort of do it—

Hon David Seymour: Is this about the bill or the member?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: The way I do it is typically the divide and multiply done before deduction. So I’m just checking that I’ve got that sort of thing right. So those are just a couple of quite technical questions on that. If the Minister is able to answer that, that’s great.

I think what might be very important—and I think we’re going to need to spend a little bit of time on this—is to move on to a discussion of the policy here. It’s an interesting policy. To be honest, having some form of accelerated depreciation is something that of course has been done in many cases. We used to have accelerated depreciation on new assets, then that was taken away. So I think we do need to start talking about the general policy here.

In particular, I think I want to move us on to clause 5. Now, this is the clause that actually does the work, that does the work of getting that extra deduction. The previous one is just kind of quite technical. It’s a clawback type of thing. Clause 5 inserts an entirely new subpart DI and, helpfully, it has a purpose—so new section DI 1 “New investment assets”, and it’s got a purpose clause. So this, I think, is the ideal place to discuss this policy.

I think the first question I want to ask the Minister on this is: why partial expensing now as opposed to accelerated depreciation, which we’ve done before, and which might have been simpler to bring back in, just a range of accelerated depreciation rates? Why this chunky partial expensing instead of accelerated depreciation? Why not something just as simple as if we want to give business a boost along, it could have been done just as simply by reverting to the $5,000 thresholds for the low-value asset write-off threshold? Now, that could have been done just as well as well. Now, people in the House will recall that measure was brought in during COVID. The low-value asset write-off threshold had been $500 for a very long time—certainly needed to be fixed during—[Time expired]

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. I still just want to get to the bottom of some of the questions that the Minister didn’t answer. I appreciate his previous answer, but around the 25 percent, we have not heard a response on why that number was chosen. I’m really interested, given what Dr Deborah Russell has raised, why it goes to deduction of 20 percent in clause 5. The second question is around the calculation in the definition of items in the formula in subsection (3) of new section CC 15, inserted by clause 4. There is an example, and it’s interesting that the example is actually placed in the bill and, therefore, will be used for interpretation. There’s a really important sentence in there when it says since it has a 90 percent nexus with his business, and then it’s got new sections DI 5(3) and DI 1, inserted by clause 5.

I’m wondering if the Minister can explain to us the calculation in relation to nexus and the significance of that when it comes to how apportionment is done between personal and business use, because that will need some clarifying, and this will be a chance to get on the Hansard. Currently, it’s not clear. Then the second part of that is the burden to prove that. Obviously, audits could show it, but there will be a requirement for—I’m assuming—the person who is claiming the nexus and claiming the deduction to do it. What kind of evidence will they need in order to be able to make that case?

I would also like to know whether the Minister considered a different formula, a carve-out, or the equity in this presentation in relation to second-hand goods, particularly when somebody has purchased something from personal use and apportioning it to business or, probably more so, the converse, and whether there should have been a different formula to be able to make that fit with that section.

Finally, yeah, just really trying to understand the deduction of 20 percent versus 25 percent in the previous section. Why those two figures were shown, is the first question, and what is the difference between them? Why were they not the same number?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Well, thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’d like to provide a response to questions in regards to clause 4, inserting new section CC 15(2), in the context of why 25 percent was selected. Just in terms of the context and the background, if a taxpayer acquired an asset fully or partially for the purpose of deriving income and then subsequently significantly adjusted how they use that asset, they would have recovery of the income proportionate to the proportion of the asset’s use that is no longer being used for business purposes. The percentage range of 25 percent was considered as an appropriate bright line as a threshold for what would be considered as reasonable change, and that is the view of officials in the context of why the 25 percent number is there. There is important consideration in terms of integrity here, and it is the view of officials that set and recommended that that it is an appropriate right to use, to ensure that the integrity of people not unfairly or unjustifiably using that mechanism is not going to be taken advantage of.

There was a question also in regards to other considerations of other types of depreciation. Inland Revenue extensively analysed a range of measures to increase investment, including loading and partial expensing. It was actually undertaken in the long-term briefing insight in 2022, and officials subsequently recommended partial expensing as the preferable measure and this Government has followed through on that. The context in the question around second-hand goods: these are excluded, clearly, in the legislation.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Before I take the next call, I just want to, optimistically, ask members—if they wish to do short questions and answers and we can get it going, we’ll try to do that. But otherwise—it’s up to the members, but if they start doing longer calls, it will move the calls around more quickly.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chair. I largely want to focus my questions to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Watts, on clause 5. Now, obviously, clause 5 is a very large clause in the bill—“New subpart DI inserted”—and goes through many aspects of it.

Just before I do that, one of the things that I want to ask the Minister about in terms of clause 4 is that the regulatory impact statement has quite a large section about the new capital investments and being restricted to New Zealand. Obviously, the policy intent is that you couldn’t have one business use the partial expensing, then on-sell that asset, and another business then again partially expenses it as well, accruing that benefit twice. This is covered off in paragraph 31 of the regulatory impact statement. I just want to know from the Minister whether that is picked up with the provisions in clause 4 of the bill. So that is my first question.

Mr Chair, I’m not going to adhere strictly to the guidance you just gave the committee, because I do have a couple of tabled amendments in my name to clause 5 of the bill which I would like to speak to. One of those goes into clause 5, new section DI 5(1). DI 5(1) is the deduction “For the income year in which an asset becomes a new investment asset, a person is allowed a deduction equal to the amount calculated by the following formula: 0.2 × (expenditure − contribution).” Putting aside BODMAS on there—brackets, order, division, multiplication, addition, and subtraction—my amendment is to put 0.27 as one amendment to change the formula there, and another is 0.3 outside of the brackets.

Now, the reason why these amendments have been put up is that we really want to understand the formula and how it intersects with the policy intent of the legislation we’re seeing here. We’ve seen at various parts in the regulatory impact statement that the advice that was offered basically says that the 20 percent formula arrived at was largely driven by the fiscal envelope which policymakers were presented with. So what we would like to understand, given we don’t have the chance in select committee, is the shape of the curve of benefits of such a policy. Does what was arrived at in terms of the fiscal envelope and the decision that drove it to be 20 percent, mean that only an incremental change may see a whole lot more benefit would accrue? And we might see more than that 1 percent over 20 years in terms of GDP growth, or 1.5 percent increase in wages. So I’m just really wanting to understand the—[Sneezes] Excuse me, Mr Chair.

Hon Members: Bless you.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Thank you. It’s so nice to have such affirmation from all sides of the Chamber.

So I’m really wanting to understand those intersections in terms of policy intent. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much. In the context of what you’ve asked, let’s do a little bit of back and forth. For the amendment in regards to clause 5, inserting new section DI 5(1), the member is asking whether the Government is going to be willing to accept an amendment that increases the deduction from 20 percent which we have made and put in the legislation to 27 percent or 30 percent. The short answer is no. The Government is being very prudent in the context of balancing a number of policies in this Budget, as has been outlined today, and that it’s not an amendment that we will be considering. Obviously, we did consider a range of scenarios, which is outlined in terms of the context of the regulatory impact statement, and there’s a range of cost implications in regards to that, alongside economic growth. But the decision in the legislation states that we’ve landed at 20 percent, and that’s where we are.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thank the Minister of Revenue for the answer to that, but what I would like to understand a little more is that I understand—and the regulatory impact statement makes that clear—that it is the fiscal envelope that was available that really did set the 20 percent rate. But one of the things, given we don’t have the chance to explore this in select committee, is to understand whether changes a little bit above or a little bit below around that 20 percent formula means a difference in the accrual of the benefits that we might see.

I understand and accept that the Minister’s not going to accept those amendments. But for the purposes of thoroughly scrutinising this bill, this committee does need to understand what the trade-offs—in terms of a change in that rate—would be, and I invite the Minister to elucidate the committee.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m also speaking to new section DI 4, inserted by clause 5, “Meaning of new investment asset”. The new investment assets are those subject to the 20 percent of the cost of the asset deduction and the amount of the usual depreciation deduction or depreciation-like deduction that would otherwise apply, but calculated as if the cost of the asset were reduced by 20 percent.

I’m speaking to new section DI 4(a)(vi), “an asset that is acquired with petroleum development expenditure:” and new section DI 4(a)(vii), “an asset that is acquired with mining development expenditure:” Now, this is the bit of the bill that looks very much like it’s got the hands of Minister Shane Jones all over it. I did see that the Minister was here earlier in this evening’s session in his blue suit, and it struck me that the blue suit is as retrograde and tasteless as the extractive mind-set of this Government. It had to be said—it had to be said.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Was that necessary, Mr Abel?

STEVE ABEL: Well, I’m sure Mr Jones would appreciate me noticing his blue suit.

I have a couple of amendments in regard to those particular clauses. But speaking to the point, it reminds me of a cartoon where there are a couple of gentlemen standing under the baking sun and the sweat is dripping from their brows and they’re both digging and they’re digging. One of them stops and he wipes the sweat from his brow and he says, “There must be a source of energy down here somewhere.” The Minister spoke earlier: “Don’t talk to me about the sun and the wind.” There are a trillion terabytes of sun energy that hit the Earth every instance; it’s an obvious source of solutions.

My proposal is that we amend new section DI 4(vi) and DI 4(vii), that they be removed, because they explicitly act, Minister, as a fossil fuel subsidy. My question is whether, in your consideration of inclusion of this, you took into account—and it’s convenient that you also happen to be the Minister of Climate Change—the fossil fuel subsidy reform group that New Zealand is part of. New Zealand is a leading advocate for the reduction and, ultimately, elimination of fossil fuel subsidies internationally, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT). What was the advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade on including these effective subsidies to the petroleum industry and the mining industry?

May I outline what is on the MFAT website right now. It says, “What’s wrong with fossil fuel subsidies? Subsidies for fossil fuel consumption and production create trade and investment distortions. Making greenhouse gas emitting fuels cheaper to produce or buy is an incentive to use more and discourages investment in renewable energy. Subsidising fossil fuels also uses money that governments could spend on health, education, development, and climate adaptation.” That is the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade on exactly why New Zealand does not traditionally support fossil fuel subsidies.

What advice did the Minister get, or the Government get, on this effective significant changing of New Zealand’s position on being opposed, in the international community, to fossil fuel subsidies? Because these clauses clearly are a means, through the 20 percent of cost asset deductions, to support increased petroleum and mining development. Thank you.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It’s not a pleasure to speak on a tax bill, especially this one. I’m going to talk about clause 5 here and the very issue, of course, of incentives and new investment. In principle, I support this. It’s not a new concept. In fact, I can remember in the 1970s studying a little bit of accountancy where, in agriculture, the initial depreciation, I think, was up to about 50 percent. The equivalent here is 20 percent.

The questions I have for the Minister, as was put by my colleague: why not 25 percent or why not 50 percent? If the objective, indeed, was to lift productivity, Minister, and I can see that, in principle, this is fine, but the definition of the asset as in the bill here doesn’t require any new or additional technology. So it could very well be a new asset replacing an old asset. So the question for the Minister is: did he consider that there should be a requirement around new technology linked to that new asset?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’ll keep the cadence of the questions a bit. Just in regards to the questions raised by the member in the context of allegations that the member felt that this was a subsidy—well, it’s not a subsidy. The depreciation is, obviously, an accounting principle. This is non-bias to any specific type of assets. It applies to all assets, and, obviously, a subsidy is generally preferential in its context and the way in which it’s applied, so we are not biased in any types of assets—all assets are in scope, and any value of assets are also in scope. So we won’t be seeking or supporting the amendment, as raised by the member, in regards to clause 5, inserting new sections DI 4(a)(vi) and (vii).

In regards to the point again raised that I answered before, but I’ll give a little bit more clarity in the context of the percentage range of why the Government landed on 20 percent versus any other range. I can, for context, note that if you applied 100 percent loading in this, the fiscal cost would be in the region of $34 billion, so you can pretty much draw the curve in the context of the range of that. As I said, the Government made a policy decision in the context of the fiscal constraints we’re operating under, and we believe that 20 percent is the appropriate level that balances out the costs and benefits consideration, particularly around economic growth.

In regards to the last question around new assets replacing old assets, and whether technology should have been a factor: again, we have not constrained the manner in which this accelerated or partial depreciation regime will apply. It will be the case that, generally—and I would hate to assume—new assets are probably more technologically advanced than old assets, just by their very nature. So, again, we’re not biasing that. Any asset is going to be in scope, unless it’s specifically excluded under the legislation.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Look, I just wanted to speak to the Minister in the chair. I had a bit of confusion earlier on about clause 4, new section CC 15—whatever it was—(1)(b). I’ve worked it out. The Minister earlier on today—or his officials—circulated a version of the bill as a courtesy, so that we were given it as a courtesy before it was tabled. But, as it turns out, I think, Minister, an old version of the bill might have been circulated. So what seemed like a courtesy was perhaps not quite so much of a courtesy as it might have been.

However, I have checked through and I have looked at the newer version of the table. So I do thank the Minister for that courtesy, because we do appreciate it. Indeed, the new way that clause 4, new section CC 15 is drafted is actually much clearer. Ha, ha! I could see that your officials were confused as well as to what on earth I was talking about. Well, there we are.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Shared across the front row here, it was.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Cleared up that confusion, so I appreciate it.

Look, so I do want to talk—I see that many of the Minister’s colleagues are rather bored, so off they go then. So I do want to talk policy on this bill. It is actually quite important. Going to the regulatory impact statement and the economic analysis, this is quite an important point. I referenced it in my second reading speech on this bill, and that is just the level of uncertainty around this. So the justification for this is economic growth. Now—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: 1 percent over 20 years.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Yeah. Well, the justification is economic growth. So we want to be sure, but with this level of expenditure, a lot of money is going into this particular measure. And let’s not forget that that money came from some pretty sad sources, so it has to be worth it.

Hon David Seymour: The Government doesn’t own all the money to start with.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: But sitting in here, for the benefit of Mr Seymour, in paragraph 62, it says, “There is, however, a high level of uncertainty as to the precise magnitude of impacts”. So we think it will be positive, but what I am interested in knowing is the range of the impact that it might be thought to have been. Did his officials present him with advice saying, “Well, look, the impact might be between 0.2 percent and 1.9 percent or 3 percent or whatever”?

I know there’s been talk in the Budget documents that we’re thinking it’s going to be about 1 percent growth. Was that an average of the various possible growth rates that were projected as a result of this change in policy? Or was it—I don’t want to call it an educated guess, because that’s unfair to our Treasury officials, but was it sort of the assessment of their knowledge, based on the bits of research they’d been able to rely on and so on? I’m trying to get at just how that 1 percent was come up with, given that the regulatory impact statement itself says that it is highly uncertain. How uncertain? What was the range? Can we be sure that it is worth going through all this, worth the cost to women, worth the cost to KiwiSavers, worth the cost to a whole lot of people to get this economic growth?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): The Treasury operates comprehensive models in which it uses to make estimates in regards to the correlation between changes in tax rates and economic growth numbers in which we have used here based upon that modelling. We are the view that they are comprehensive and appropriate.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just before I take the next call, just a matter of House management. I wonder if members would be aware that when someone is speaking, if they’re coming to get papers off the Table, feel free to go around the other side so we can see who’s speaking. You won’t be accused of crossing the floor.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Look, thank you very much. I realise that where I’m sitting here, your lateral vision may be limited, and you may start to develop some tunnel vision. I’d hate to think that, Mr Chair.

If I can follow on from the questions that the Minister of Revenue attempted to ask and use the scenario, for example, of a farm. Some assets can be replaced but, indeed, not add to productivity at all. You can buy new tractors, you can buy new mowers, you can buy new harrows, you can replace every bit of machinery on your farm and have very little progress and productivity, because, ultimately, it comes from the cows and the grass and the system that you run.

I go back to the Minister and the assumption that this is going to drive economic growth—and we accept that there’s a potential to do this, but the absence of any qualifying statement around the assets in particular does not give any guarantee at all. Given that the fiscal cost of this has been the constraint of whether you go beyond the 20 percent—and that there are going to be hundreds of thousands of women in this country who will be paying for this—then we need to ensure that there is progress from this change in depreciation.

The question is still not really answered. It’s 20 percent because of the fiscal constraints. How does that affect productivity? Indeed, will we have a whole lot of depreciable assets that don’t deliver any increase in productivity, particularly given the example I use, which is quite feasible in a farming operation where you can replace the tractors, you can replace the trucks, all the harrows, the whole lot? Ultimately, if you’ve got the same number of cows, the chances are you may or may not get increase in productivity. That means that the Crown has just lost the revenue for no significant gain in growth. So, actually, this is a waste of time. If this is the one big issue that the Government’s got, then we haven’t made much progress.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): As I said, this is a 15-page bill and we’re getting outside of any specific clauses. But I can assure the member the Hon Damien O’Connor that when I grew up and we had a David Brown 885—which was a 1975 model—that the new 250-horsepower John Deere is much more fuel-efficient today and that has a real impact on farmers’ bottom line.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate what the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Watts, is saying and that the Minister has answered a number of our questions. But, again, a lot of these questions are being teased out because, you know, we could have asked this of officials at select committee. But here we are, under urgency.

The question that I have, first of all, is just going back to the response the Minister gave me earlier, which is around what other countries this model was taken from in terms of partial expensing, and the Minister specifically mentioned Canada and the US. Now, noting that Canada, for example, has both a capital gains tax as well as a form of windfall tax, and that the US has a form of short-term capital gains tax, there is a need for some elements of incentivising through partial expensing, which potentially is what they would have used. This is what I mean: when we’re looking at something like this, or a policy like this, it can’t operate in isolation; we need to look at the bigger picture of the tax ecosystem of those other places. In that case, what is the specific New Zealand context we’re looking at here that can reassure this committee that there isn’t going to be that significant uncertainty as named in the regulatory impact statement? So that’s my first question in response to what the Minister said before.

In terms of the bill, let’s look at clause 5. I thank the Minister for answering two of my questions around clause 4. But when we’re looking at clause 5, which inserts new subpart DI, new section DI 3, which is “Meaning of new asset transferee”, one of the questions I have is: when we are looking at a transfer of asset, what happens when the transfer of asset is applied to multiple ownership? In which case, how would this particular model be applicable when multiple ownership is in question? That’s one of my first questions.

My second question is on new section DI 4, inserted by clause 5, which is “Meaning of new investment asset”. Now, my colleague Steve Abel has mentioned that when we’re looking at the inclusion of petroleum and mining development expenditure, that is, in some ways, a form of subsidy, to be honest. The Minister didn’t quite answer my question around the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT)—whether MFAT was consulted. Now, the reason I asked this is, again, when we are looking at this—which potentially people may interpret as a form of subsidy for petroleum mining—how would this work in terms of our international obligations as well, particularly to the New Zealand - European Union Free Trade Agreement? If MFAT isn’t consulted, what risk and liability are we opening ourselves up to by allowing—you can call it whatever you want; you can call it partial expensing, you can call it Investment Boost. The point is that mining and petroleum are included here. So I would like to know the risk assessment that has been done. But that is to do with new sections DI 4(a)(vi) and (vii).

My next question is actually on new section DI 4(a)(i) in terms of depreciable property, which then has included “(for example, some commercial buildings):”. There is a slight risk here. I would like to hear from the Minister on what risk assessment has been done—that we’re not going to get people who come here, investing in commercial buildings but simply land banking because, in some ways, those commercial buildings would not depreciate. We have seen a number of cases in Auckland where international or overseas landowners of commercial buildings will hold on to that land. It doesn’t really matter to them whether they have tenants or not, so it doesn’t matter to them whether they improve the local economy—particularly when we have small and medium enterprises, and small-business owners that have business where everything else around them is empty. We have heard this from business owners, or small-business owners, both in Epsom and also in Auckland Central, when it comes to international investors.

So, I guess, the question to the Minister is: what risk assessment has been done to show that this isn’t going to be increasing or exacerbating the already problematic situation we have in certain parts of Auckland? So those are my questions.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): The legislation does not apply to land. It does apply to new commercial building construction, and it would be fair to say that that would derive economic value and benefit for the broader economy.

I’ve already answered the questions in regards to the other countries and jurisdictions that used it. There are a number of other countries that have comparative regimes in place that are also being put in place for the same purpose, which is to derive economic growth.

The other points that have been raised, I’ve already covered.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Again, before I just make another call: just bearing in mind, members, when you stand up and talk about another member having asked the same question, you are giving yourself up a little bit about repetition. What I’ll just go back to, we’ve had an indication that we’re going to move through this, but we are now getting a little bogged down. Bearing in mind I know there is some more material here.

Hon Members: Mr Chair!

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): If that is a closure motion to my right, I suggest that it not be. It may be an abuse of process for it to be. There is a long way to go in this, and I think if members are getting anxious on the other side, they should actually follow the bill, and you’ll see there’s still quite a wee way to go. But, of course, I will take a motion if anyone did want one.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thank the Minister of Revenue for his explanation around some of the different asset classes. I take the Minister’s point that this is, in terms of relativity with other tax bills, a relatively slim piece of legislation. But I would also make the point to the committee, as we understand, that, really, the bulk of the policy is in this clause 5—this is the clause of the bill that does insert the new investment assets, and that cuts to the heart of this part of the change that we’re seeing. So this really is the clause where that broad range of policy can be discussed.

My first question for the Minister—and I appreciate I’m clarifying that, of course, land isn’t an asset that is defined within this, but new commercial buildings can be. I wondered if the Minister could tell the committee whether or not build-to-rent developments, new commercial buildings, will be included in here as well, because, of course, build-to-rent developments have their own bespoke legislation where there are bespoke tax arrangements that are set out for them. So what is the intersection in terms of this legislation?

The other question in terms of this policy, in this broader scope of clause 5, is really that what we’ve seen in the regulatory impact statement is that it’s really put up against changes to the corporate tax rate—is the comparative policy throughout the regulatory impact statement for assessment. My question to the Minister is: although the final regulatory impact statement only compared this partial expensing with changes to the corporate tax rate, were there other forms of increasing productivity that were considered in the development of this?

Further to that, even within that partial expensing, were there other forms and more targeting of partial expensing? What we’ve seen from some of the questions is a very broad range of activities and assets that could be brought in.

The committee is still waiting for an answer on whether or not the supply to oil and gas assets would bring us into contradiction with some of our free-trade agreements that we have in place. Was there any thought of targeting this to particular areas of the economy? We can see that it’s very broad-based. But was any consideration given to targeting this policy?

My final question for the Minister, in this contribution, is around the table that appears within the regulatory impact statement. It is on page 12 of the regulatory impact statement. It lays out the different options. Obviously, status quo, then partial expensing, and then the company tax reduction. One of the things that the officials have identified in this table is that the partial expensing, the chosen policy does create some integrity risks. I just wonder if the Minister could elucidate the committee on what those integrity risks are. What are the mitigations? What are the ways in which we’re going to be able to track whether or not we are mitigating those integrity risks, and how will the transparency around that come into play?

In terms of the coherence of the policy—it is identified in the regulatory impact statement that the investment incentive creates risks around capture by interest groups. What interest groups? Was that discussed in terms of which interest groups may be at risk of capturing this policy? And, again, what mitigation is being put into place to ensure that we don’t have capture by specific interest groups? How is that going to be reported on and monitored? And what are the transparency arrangements around that? The advice says that it is minimised for the broad-based regime, but whether or not there are further mitigations that are being put into place.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): I thank the member for the question. In regards to new section DI 4(b)(i), the question in regards to the build-to-rent, that clause of the bill, of which I’ve just referenced, notes that dwellings are excluded as an asset, in the context of this legislation, and that will clarify that point.

In regards to other forms considered, I think the member answered their own question in the context of the fourth question she asked in regards to that, but we did consider a corporate tax rate change; however, the view of the fiscal cost, and the fact that it was untargeted, meant that that wasn’t carried forward. Again, we reinforce that this is not a subsidy, it’s an accounting depreciation adjustment; it is unbiased to any particular asset, it is untargeted, and, therefore, by not biasing any particular asset, we don’t have any concerns in the context of what is being noted.

The last question, in regards to integrity risk, examples of that may be where assets are used for unintended purposes or, potentially, where one of the asset classifications is excluded, and there can be potential integrity issues of people trying to push the limits in that regard. The way in which we’ve mitigated that risk is we’ve just put around $35 million of additional funding into IRD to increase compliance activities, and we believe that will be satisfactory.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve been wondering about the interaction of this new measure with the low-value asset write-off threshold, and so I’ve just worked some pretty simple numbers through—I just want to take the Minister through them, and it’s simple enough math to do in your head, I hope—well, I had to write it down. Think of an asset: purchasing costs $1,200. The low-value asset threshold which you can write off is $1,000. Now, under this new policy—so the asset costs $1,200 and the business owner can get an immediate write-off of 20 percent; that’s $240. All right. So asset cost: $1,200, then you deduct the $240, and that gives a remaining depreciable asset amount of $960.

Now, that’s interesting, because under this policy, as it’s written, that $960 would have to be written off over the life of the asset. Imagine it’s an asset that is going to last 10 years. If you did it Straight Line—I know most people do Diminishing Value rather than Straight Line—but it would be $960 a year and gone. The thing is, that $960 is now below the low-value asset threshold. So could the business owner then say, “Hey, I’ve got this asset. I bought it for $1,200, I applied the new partial expensing, and that takes its value below the low-value asset threshold.” Could that business owner then use that to write off the whole amount in that first year? Now, I’m assuming not, but I wonder if the Minister could just talk me through that and talk me through how the legislation either enables or prevents that. Thresholds are always interesting—and we’ve got more to talk about as we go through this bill—but that’s just a neat little puzzle there. I’m quite pleased that the $1,200 minus $240 gives $960. Does that then get written off as though it were a low-value asset?

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to just begin my contribution by reminding the committee that this is, effectively, the select committee phase, and normally in a select committee, we would see various iterations of the bill. As Dr Deborah Russell has alluded to, there was an earlier copy of the bill that was circulated today, and when I looked at the formula in new section CC 15, inserted by clause 4, in particular, there are quite big variations. I would like this to be the opportunity for the Minister of Revenue to explain some of the thinking around the changes in words, because they are quite significant, and, in fact, the example that has been given is completely different and this is in the space of a few hours.

My supposition is that there have been very, very hard-working officials doing a lot of work very quickly, but I want to understand, in the formulas, in particular, in subsection (3) of the original one, it talked about change of use, and then in the formula in subsection (4), as it now is in the later iteration—the current one of the bill—it says “new use”, and it also includes the phrase “permissions and limitations applicable”, which has not been referred to in the previous iteration, but I note it is referred to in the beginning of that section. So what are the permissions and limitations?

If I may, Mr Chair, I’d be happy to sit down and have an answer and jump up, because there are a number of these quite quick questions.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Yeah, carry on with your questions.

INGRID LEARY: OK, my second question—thank you very much—talks about original use. The term “original use” was originally used and now it’s “previous use”, and I’m just wondering what the change of wording is there. Then, again in new subsection (4)(c)(ii), it talks about “the amount given by the terms in the round brackets”, and it’s a much more complicated scenario than we had originally, which talked about depreciable property. I’m wondering if there was an issue, because it seems to me that the fact that the words “depreciable property” were taken out means that there was a taxation definition in there that was problematic.

I would also like to ask the Minister why the two examples have changed so significantly. On example 1 in the earlier iteration, just a few hours ago, we had Adam purchasing a new investment asset for $10,000. In example 2 in the current bill, we’ve got Thomas buying a new yacht for $100,000, and we don’t have any reference to the nexus, and the nexus seemed to be a really important part of the formula as it was explained in the previous iteration.

The other question I have is that the Minister himself talked about partial expensing and said that the rationale for that was out of previous research that had been done and that there were a number of scenarios looked at. But he did not give us an explanation as to why partial expensing was landed on, and so it would be good to understand why that was the preferred option, given there were a number of other ways of doing it.

Finally, picking up on the point from the Hon Damien O’Connor around the level of the 25 percent—and the Minister himself used the words, saying that from a policy and cost-benefit status, it seemed to be about the right weighting, or otherwise it was going to be too significantly expensive. I just want to know: did the Minister do a cost-benefit analysis—a formal one—and, if so, can we please see the cost-benefit analysis? Or is this something that the Government or Treasury officials felt from a sort of intuitive level, or based on some other analogue scenarios—is that where they landed?

Was there actually a formal cost-benefit analysis done, because it does seem it’s been pretty rushed, particularly the significant number of changes on this fundamental formula, by which everybody is going to be making these deductions, and which has significantly changed in language over the course of about three or four hours. Minister, I’d really appreciate your answers.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I have quite a specific question for the Minister of Revenue, and it is around clause 5 and inserted new section DI 4(vi)—“asset that is acquired with petroleum development expenditure:”—and I just want an understanding of how this change fits with other announcements that have come in the Budget today. We’ve seen the establishment of the $200 million fund where the Government will take equity shares in new oil and gas developments.

What I want to know from the Minister is: is it correct that someone could invest a billion dollars in a new rig here, get $200 million from the Government in terms of the provisions under this pledge, and not have to give up an equity stake to the Government?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just one final question, on the purpose—so that’s in clause 5, inserting new section DI 1, where we do have a purpose clause—and it refers back to the regulatory impact statement (RIS). I refer, in particular, around this significant policy—I want to refer to paragraphs 72 through to 76 of the distributional analysis. It’s sitting in the partial expensing (Investment Boost) regulatory impact statement, and it says here, in part of the justification of this policy, that it is expected that this partial expensing regime will reflect an improvement of economic outcomes in terms of “wages and NNI”—I’m not quite sure what NNI is—for New Zealanders. It suggests wage growth and an increase to productivity. So the thought is that there will be an increase in the national income, an increase in business earnings, and so on.

It says here, “Our view is that the majority of the increase in national income will flow to workers in the long run as a result of increased capital intensity and labour productivity.” Now, that’s in paragraph 74. But that’s kind of a curious thing to say in light of the work that has been done by Thomas Piketty, which has shown that since the war, really, increases in income and in wealth have largely flowed to capital rather than to labour. That kind of contradicts that thesis, which has been quite widely celebrated.

I’m going to point to paragraph 75 in the regulatory impact statement, which says, “International evidence provides mixed results on how the specific benefits of investment-targeted tax measures are shared between workers and capital owners. This makes it difficult to better assess the distributional impacts.” But part of the justification for this policy—this policy that is built off the backs of working women—has been that it was going to increase wages for workers. But the international evidence contradicts that. The evidence of, you know, the economies in the 20th century contradicts that. The evidence from the major study that was done by Inland Revenue under the former Minister of Revenue contradicts that. So I wonder how it is possible to say, in this regulatory impact statement, as part of a justification for this policy, that it will increase the wages of workers.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I do think that this policy will result in economic growth, even though we’re uncertain about how much it’s going to be. It is something that I think will actually have a positive impact on economic growth. That is a really straightforward conclusion there. But the question is: how much of that economic growth will actually go to the benefit of workers, especially when this economic wealth has been created by cutting the future wages of women? It’s a really important question and it goes to the heart of the policy around this Budget and it goes to whether or not this is a policy that ought to be pursued. On its own, in isolation, probably. But to justify it by saying it’s going to increase workers’ wages? I think that’s a pretty brave thing to be saying. I’d like to understand from the Minister whether he agrees with the analysis and the regulatory impact statement. Possibly he does; he possibly doesn’t. But given that analysis in the RIS saying that this is very uncertain that it might actually go to workers, why then has this Budget justified this off the backs of workers?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Yeah, well, thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just in answer to a number of questions: there is no cap to the value of assets in regards to deductions, so it’s as simple as that in the context of the example given before.

The question in regards to wage growth in the context of the regulatory impact statement, paragraphs 72 to 74. For the member’s benefit, the key way in which this policy will work will be to drive greater capital intensity, and the follow-through of that is higher wages. So I am confident in the context of the way in which this benefit will flow through and lead to increased economic growth and higher wages for working New Zealanders.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just before I leave the Chair, I will be indicating to the incoming Chair tomorrow that the three parts of Part 1, indicated by Ms Russell at the beginning, that we’re coming very close to the end of the first of those three parts, come the morning. So I would expect, come the morning, after a good night’s sleep, there’ll be probably an indication to move through Part 1 a little bit quicker.

The time has come for me to leave the Chair, and the House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow. Have a good evening.

Sitting suspended from 9.58 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Friday)

THURSDAY, 22 MAY 2025

(continued on Friday, 23 May 2025)

Bills

Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2)

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007 (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the committee is resumed. When we suspended last night, we were considering Part 1 of the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2). Just to remind members, in the past, one approach has been for members to work through provisions or policies in sequence so that this tends to produce a more useful and focused debate. If members are wanting to discuss particular provisions, it would be useful to cite the clause number. That will assist other members who want to speak about the same provision. Part 1 contains the Investment Boost policy, changes to Working for Families, including Best Start, and KiwiSaver is in Part 2.

I did speak to the Chairperson who was in here last night, who feels that we are largely working through the Investment Boost, and I know that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell has set out a bit of a context for how we should work. He also indicated that we’d had quite a number of questions on it, so what I really want to do this morning, for the very first little part, is just focus on anything that might tidy up that Investment Boost section that’s new and that wasn’t asked last night—it isn’t a speech, but it’s a question—and I suggest we then start moving on to the Working for Families changes, following that. So this is in no way trying to shut anything down, but just to keep going with the process that we were up to.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Madam Chair, thank you for those directions. I think it’s a really important direction. I want to focus specifically on clause 5. The particular part of clause 5 is the introduction of new Subpart DI 4, “Meaning of new investment asset”, and what I am deeply concerned about is the fiscal risks associated with this particular policy. Now, this is not something we discussed yesterday. The reason we didn’t discuss it yesterday is because it takes time to get to grips with new legislation and understand the import of what is going on.

The interesting thing about this partial expensing is that it offers a substantial tax benefit for new assets in New Zealand. It means that people can get an immediate tax benefit from a new asset, and amongst the new assets that could be considered there are things like commercial buildings and, in particular—

Sam Uffindell: We discussed this yesterday.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Shush, and let the adults talk. Now, I want to—[Interruption] And here is the problem.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s what we get with interjections, so let’s come back to Subpart DI 4.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: So we’re talking about the fiscal risk. We did not talk about the fiscal risk at all yesterday, and it is substantial. It is $1.5 billion a year allocated for the tax break that comes through the partial expensing, but that particular tax break could be eaten up very, very quickly by just one or two mines or by a few commercial buildings, and, as Newsroom has pointed out overnight, if every single small business invests $10,000, there goes the tax break, just like that.

I looked in the statement of fiscal risks in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update, and I couldn’t find a specific fiscal risk associated with this particular policy. What I want to know from the Minister of Revenue is to what extent he and the Minister of Finance thought about whether or not this policy could just blow out—that there is a really substantial fiscal risk associated with it. We actually need to know, because the Minister of Finance has promised us she is going to balance the books by about 2028, but if this policy blows out, we’ve got a real problem.

This tax break can apply to a whole new commercial building, and we know what they cost to build. They can apply to an oil rig. We could just get a few oil rigs in there, new to New Zealand, and suddenly—

Arena Williams: A convention centre.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —it’s gone—or a convention centre.

So I really want the Minister to now talk about something we haven’t talked about at all, and that is the extent to which he and the Minister of Finance have considered the fiscal risks associated with this. It is serious, and I would like to know.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and, look, a very good morning, everyone. Welcome back to the growth Budget, and what a great Budget it is.

I don’t mind doing a basic lesson in what depreciation is for the member because, in effect, what we are doing is increasing the rate at which people can claim a tax deduction by increasing it in the first year and the balance will be claimed for the rest of the asset life. This is a timing difference. We are bringing forward that ability to claim that tax deduction. We’re not creating some new world or new paradigm of other aspect; we are simply moving that benefit forward so that New Zealand businesses can achieve a tax deduction from yesterday, and get the benefit of that in terms of less tax this year. That is a significant investment and opportunity for them as a business, but it in no way has any impact on what would be a normal rate of depreciation on any economic asset over the life of that asset. So the whole premise of the question is uninformed and without basis.

Our policy is very much focused on delivering that economic growth, and, heck, I mean, I guess some people in the House are concerned about too much economic growth. But on this side of the House, we think a little bit differently. We think economic growth is a good thing. It sort of helps us with a range of factors, including higher-paid jobs, a better standard of living, and more tax revenue flows, and—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s true, but that’s not what the member asked the Minister, thank you.

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, the member asked about the risks in regards to the policy, and I have clarified that it is a depreciation policy which is well articulated in accounting standards.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. As it turns out, I don’t need a lesson in how depreciation works, and I am well aware that this is a timing difference only, so the actual fiscal cost comes from the time value of money. However, I remind the Minister that yesterday, when we were talking about the rate sitting in here, we asked why it was set at 20 percent and why wasn’t it 25 percent, why wasn’t it 50 percent, why wasn’t it 10 percent, and so on—why were we doing this partial expensing at 20 percent? The response the Minister gave—and I don’t have the exact words—was that that value was particularly set at 20 percent partial expensing because it was to do with containing the fiscal expense that was associated with this policy. In other words, he said that we couldn’t set it higher because we needed to set it at a level that contains the fiscal expense.

Now, that suggests that there is a fiscal risk associated with this policy and that there has been some analysis of how much it was going to cost. We know it is going to cost. According to the Minister’s own figures, the Treasury officials and the IRD officials have projected that it’s going to cost $1.5 billion a year, but in the midst of all that, the implication there is that this cost could well blow out. That’s the analysis that has come to us from other tax experts overnight. It’s the analysis that’s from a number of places, and I’m going to refer to Newsroom and to interest.co.nz. These people have identified that this is a fiscal risk. Why is this fiscal risk not listed in the statement of specific fiscal risks in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update?

Now, I’ve had a look at the specific fiscal risks and it is simply not there, yet it seems to me that this is a fiscal risk. Even if it can’t be quantified, it should be listed. There is a risk—why is not listed there?

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Mōrena to the Minister of Revenue. I’ve got a number of questions, and I’d like to start with new section DI 4 in new Subpart DI, “New investment assets”, in clause 5. I would ask the Minister whether we’re talking about planting here—“listed horticultural plants”. I can imagine some that we might have some different lists of there, but what I want to ask is whether it would be appropriate to add native plants intended for regeneration. There are some quite bulk planting ideas either for carbon sequestration or, if we get there—and I think the parties are relatively united in this—eventually, biodiversity credits. I think it would be a shame if it didn’t also apply to those.

On the broader issues of the effect of this bill, I heard yesterday evening the Minister saying that he didn’t intend to create any distortion across different businesses. However, surely this 20 percent expensing allowance means that you are helping capital-intensive businesses, rather than the creative industry, and what we’re talking about there are the arts, fashion, publishing, film, software, gaming—I have members of my caucus that are experts in some of those areas, and that is an opportunity for high-paid jobs, good jobs, and fulfilling jobs that actually are very light on the environment.

You know, here we are in the smart, green capital. We’ve got fantastic industry here, and I don’t think they’re getting the opportunity. This is about one kind of industry, not the other. So addressing that issue of distortion of markets, and what kind of businesses are likely to be invested in because of this, is one issue.

With the last question I have for the Minister, I didn’t even realise it was a change to the example. In the example used in new section CC 15 in clause 4, why on earth was the change made to put in a yacht as a great example of business deduction? I mean, who, when they’re trying to struggle to feed their kids and when they’re struggling to pay for early childhood care, is really pleased to see a yacht being used for business purposes? Now, there are some dolphin-watching yachts, there are some yachts that go round the Wellington Harbour, but I would argue that the majority of the yachts are really not a prime investment economic growth. This looks really dodgy. I’d like to know the Minister’s opinion on yachts for business deduction.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just before I call the Hon Simon Watts, I have to tell the people on my right that when you all talk at once, no one can hear a word any of you are saying, so please just be a bit more toned down in your interjections. As I keep saying, interjections are fine, but that was a barrage.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much, members, for those comments, particularly from my left. In regards to the specific risks that were noted by the prior member, I had referenced disclosures on page 74 of the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update which outline the general policy changes and the implications in regards to the question around risks.

There was also a question in regards to horticultural plants. The view in that context is that those are generally available and are defined as part of the Income Tax Act in the context of what plants are there.

To the comments in regards to yachts: well, look, the reality is—and to all those New Zealand tourism businesses out there that do great things for our country, and they do so on our oceans and in our harbours and assets—yeah, it’s an example of a mixed-use asset, and the rule covers that context as well. I won’t cover anything more on that.

In regards to new Subpart DI in clause 5, and also in regards to the questions by members on new investment assets, I think we’ve had a number of those questions, including last night as well, but I’ll go through it again, just for the benefit of doubt. Investment Boost is available for most assets that are eligible for depreciation or for depreciation-like deductions. These assets include most depreciable property, including improvements to depreciable property, improvements to farm and forestry land and aquacultural businesses, and also, as noted, expenditure on the planting of horticultural products. Investment Boost would also be available for assets acquired in petroleum development expenditure and mining development expenditure, as this Government has outlined.

Investment Boost would not be available for assets that are residential property or fixed-life intangible property, including permits and rights. For assets that are used for deriving income and for some other purpose—so, in effect, a mixed-use asset such as the yacht example that I have noted—Investment Boost would only be claimable to the extent that the asset is being used for the purpose of deriving income.

I hope that that sufficiently covers the questions in regards to new investment assets, the definition, and the clauses, as asked.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is someone wanting to take a call over this side—

Hon Member: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): —because we have not finished Part 1. So if it’s a call, I’ll—

Hon Member: They’re all trying to take a call!

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you. I’m going to call the Hon Dr Deborah Russell because I think we really are getting towards the end of Investment Boost and I do want to move on to Working for Families. I am going to allow another call, and then I think we will move on.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you for the direction, Madam Chair. I do have one more very specific question, but before I go to that, I do want to carry on with this issue of fiscal risk. It is important. The Minister directed me to page 74, I think, of the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update. Could I direct the Minister to page 89 of the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update, where it says, under the heading “Forecast Dependent on a Status Quo that is Uncertain”, and then under “Revenue”, it has “Investment Boost (Revenue)”, and it says, for the Minister’s benefit, “The fiscal and economic impacts of Investment Boost are significant and have been based on some assumptions and judgements which have a degree of uncertainty. The modelled impacts use aggregate macroeconomic data as an input together with assumptions on coverage within the tax base, and forecasts of growth in investment. Variations in any of these factors can materially affect the fiscal and economic impacts of the policy.”

That’s a pretty significant fiscal risk sitting right there, and it says it’s an unquantifiable fiscal risk, so I really am asking the Minister to address this issue. Is there a downside risk that not as much will be invested in this policy as the Minister and his colleagues had hoped? What impact will that have on the projected growth? On the other hand, what is the upside risk of that—that much more will be spent on this policy than the Minister had thought was going to be the case? What impact is that going to have on the Budget deficit over time? Does it mean that the Minister of Finance’s projections of when we will be back into surplus, using either her spurious little OBEGALx or the traditional OBEGAL measure—does it put those projections at risk?

Sitting here, on page 89 in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update, is an acknowledgment that there is a fiscal risk associated with this policy. I want to know more about the possible upsides and downsides, and to what extent this could actually impact on the growth projections or impact on when this country gets back to surplus.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Yeah, thanks very much, Madam Chair. Acknowledging that this question isn’t about a specific clause in Part 1 and it is also a repeat of a question already asked, I will simply state the obvious, which is that all economic models have assumptions and judgments built into them, and that is standard practice in the calculation of economic growth and in deriving the implications and decisions that some 600,000 businesses may make from yesterday in regards to their investment decision-making. That is standard practice for any Government, and the assumptions and judgments made as part of that are considered appropriate by this Government.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I now am asking for questions on Working for Families, including Best Start. So we are moving on from Investment Boost and we are going to Working for Families, including Best Start.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Madam Chair, thank you for your very clear directions, and I do genuinely appreciate them. It’s much easier to work this process through in an orderly manner with those directions.

We do have some serious questions about the Working for Families policy. Now, the interesting thing is that it’s only really a couple of clauses in the bill, but they have a really significant impact. I want to open with a policy discussion. This is where we get to discuss the policy around Working for Families and the changes here. What we know from the regulatory impact statement—and it’s on page 3, I think, of the regulatory impact statement, looking at the costs and benefits of this policy. We know that—here it is, at page 3—around 61,000 families would receive a reduction of income in these changes to Working for Families. So I want to know from the Minister why he thought it was acceptable for 61,000 families to end up with less income rather than more, and to what extent these families are ending up worse off in order to pay for other expenses within the Budget. Thank you.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Just a very quick question from me to the Minister. Regarding where the threshold has changed around the Working for Families tax credit, we’ve heard commentary to say that in some ways this just lifts the threshold and, therefore, the squeezed area has moved upward. In terms of incentivising and encouraging families, when we think about economic growth and about productivity, it is, arguably, a disincentive for people to be able to increase their income when they are in that slightly higher bracket, because as soon as they do, they would be in the 64,000 families that would lose the credit.

I’m wanting to understand what consideration was given—again, as a policy question—to how to make sure that there are adequate incentives in the system to not have people then drop out of, for example, secondary employment or have them not want to move up into a higher, more specialised field in their current employment because they then risk losing this abatement. It really just is about the thresholds changing, but there has been commentary about this on Radio New Zealand this morning, which I think is quite appropriate, and I’d like to know what thought the Minister and his officials have given to that.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much, members, for the question, and I’ll take a little bit of time just to outline some of the key points in regard to this. First and foremost, it is really, really important to acknowledge that no families will see an actual reduction in income as a result of the Best Start change, as only children that are born on or after 1 April 2026—next April—are going to be subject to that. So that is a really important aspect in terms of family impact.

Treasury estimate that 61,000 families will receive less than they would under current settings, by an average of $43 a fortnight in 2026-27, and of these families, 89 percent will have taxable income of over $100,000. This includes 53,000 families not eligible for Best Start following implementation, and 9,000 families earning between $79,000 and $97,276, who would receive an abated amount of Best Start in the first year of the child’s life. Of those 9,000 families who will receive an abated Best Start in the first year, they have incomes of between $79,000 and $97,000, as I’ve noted. The $79,000 is the Best Start abatement threshold and the $97,000 is the point at which entitlements are cut off—just to clarify those two points.

Lastly, it’s important to note that of the 53,000 families who became ineligible for Best Start, those families are already earning over the Best Start cut-off point, which is $97,000. These are targeted interventions. No families will see an actual reduction as a result of the Best Start change, as they only apply to children born on or after 1 April 2026.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I want to engage with this issue of families earning—I think the Minister said—over $97,000. The trouble is that I think that’s two workers within the family on minimum wage, so these are some pretty low-income families who are working quite hard, or it may be someone who’s on a little bit more than that, maybe. So they are actually quite low-income families, and, in effect, what we’re saying is that these families are rich enough not to need any assistance from the State.

Now, in terms of, I think it was, 53,000 families on Best Start, here’s the curious thing: if a family is working minimum wage jobs or if they’re working just slightly above minimum wage—maybe they’re a library assistant, so they’re not even getting pay equity these days; they might be getting the living wage, but it’s still a comparatively low wage—and then, when a baby arrives in that family, no matter what, there are extra expenses. Is the Minister saying to us that families who are earning two minimum-wage incomes are, in fact, rich families and are rich enough not to need assistance from the State? That seems to be the implication of what he was saying in that particular call.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): No, we’re not saying that. What we are saying is that we are targeting this policy in a way which ensures that those on low and medium incomes are the most benefited by the context of the changes that we’ve made. We make no apology for targeting the benefits of our policy to those who need it most, and we can argue all day long in the context of where that threshold is. But this Government has set the abatement threshold at $97,276, and we believe that that’s an appropriate level to ensure that that policy is targeted to those who need it most.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions for the Minister around clause 7 of the bill, around the family credit abatement. Now, I hear what the Minister is saying, and I also think that adjusting the threshold from $42,700 to $44,900 is a good step. However, I wondered—looking at the regulatory impact statement (RIS), it seems like that was the only threshold that was considered and there was no other threshold that was considered. What we’re seeing here is not so much in terms of where we are looking at something that is going to benefit lots of lower-income earners, as opposed to us just, basically, catching up with the Consumers Price Index, which is what I’m seeing here—so if I can get that clarification from the Minister. In which case, my question is: why did the Minister not consider a higher threshold, where, again, more families would be able to benefit? That’s the first question.

The second one is around the second part, which is around the abatement rates. Currently, when we’re looking at Working for Families payments, we’re looking at an abatement of 27c in the dollar—so, for every dollar earned over that, the payment reduces by 27c, and that’s being increased to 27.5c. In fact, that is, I feel, going to be a harsher punishment in some ways, because it’s 0.5c more per dollar, whereas, again, looking through the RIS and looking through the thing, didn’t we see a reduction in terms of that particular abatement rate—making it lower, for example—to make it more accessible for families who are above the abatement threshold? So that’s my second question.

My two questions are around the fact that we didn’t consider higher thresholds in the first place—because it doesn’t seem to be an option that was mentioned in the RIS—and also in terms of the 27c going up to 27.5c. Why didn’t we consider making it a little bit lower?

With that, my final question is whether the Minister would consider my amendment on this, which would then adjust the abatement rate to $61,000, which is a higher increase, and would also reduce gradually the rate to 18c in the dollar, as opposed to the proposed 27.5c in the dollar, because this would mean that, I think, hundreds of thousands of families would then have more money through a simple and improved Working for Families system, as opposed to what we’re seeing here. Would the Minister, then, finally consider my amendment?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Could you please quote the number of your amendment?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I don’t think I have a number, because it’s a tabled amendment.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh, OK. You’ve outlined it anyway, so we’ll find it.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I’ve outlined it. It should be on the Table.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you. We’ll find it.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Yeah, no, I’m familiar with the member’s amendment. Sadly, I won’t be accepting that change, and I’ll give some context on the reasons why. The point around the threshold is also in the context of ensuring that the changes that the Government has made are fiscally neutral—so, therefore, ensuring that the changes are targeted—and then the threshold is set.

There was a question in regard to the minimum wage. Well, the threshold is set above what a two-couple family who are both on minimum wage would be earning, which is in region of around $96,000. The threshold is set above that level and, again, is representing that the Government wants to target these initiatives to low and middle income earners.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): There are a couple of quite technical points I would like to consider. One is that there is, as we know, quite an interaction between the various Working for Families tax credits, and one of them is the minimum family tax credit—the MFTC. Anyway, what it does is that it ensures that the minimum income earned by someone in work is just a little bit higher than the income earned by someone on benefit. The objective is to ensure that it is actually worth going into work, and it’s a particular tax credit that’s been there since, I think, very early on in the start of the Working for Families scheme. It’s actually a really complicated interaction between the other Working for Families tax credits and the benefit system, and so on.

What I’d like to know from the Minister—now, I know that the minimum family income tax credit gets adjusted every year. But I’d just like to know to what extent his officials engaged with how that particular tax credit is going to need to be adjusted and when we’re going to see that adjustment coming through in legislation. Because it’s so complicated, I can’t work it backwards myself, so I’m not saying it ought to have been in this legislation, but, presumably, some work has been done to make sure that that minimum family tax credit still works in the way that it was intended to work through. So that’s a little complicated, but I’m hoping that the Minister can just shed a wee bit of light on that.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Ata mārie tātou. I just wanted to take a brief call in support of my tabled amendment. My tabled amendment is really about the honour and integrity of the New Zealand National Party, because in their pre-election fiscal plan, they said that they would have the abatement rate at $50,000. I’m not saying that they’ve deliberately misled the country before the last election. I think it’s probably just a minor oversight of $5,100, but it’s an oversight, none the less, and I think it needs to be corrected. I’d encourage the Minister to accept the tabled amendment and uphold the mana of the New Zealand National Party. Tēnā tātou.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have a couple of questions in relation to clause 7, which amends section MD 13, and that is specifically relating to raising the threshold at which Working for Families tax credits start to abate, and also the rate at which they abate. I acknowledge that some of this has been done in order to recognise inflation, but it’s important. I just would like to know from the Minister of Revenue: back in 2023, National made some promises in terms of that, and I would just like to ask him to go back and check his notes to see what specifically was promised back in 2023 and whether that actually meets what’s being delivered in this bill.

My main point that I’d like to speak to in relation to those abatement thresholds is that we know that they’re clearly defined in the tax Act, and we know that the threshold is not indexed to wage growth or inflation and they can, in fact, be amended by primary or even secondary legislation. The abatement rate can be amended, and so as part of looking back at the 2004 and 2007 Working for Families introduction, a single abatement threshold was set at $35,000, with an abatement rate of 20 percent. Since 2006, the abatement threshold has been increased on three occasions, with the latest being in 2018 with that increase to the current threshold of $42,700.

Now, with the legislation that has already been processed that relates to pay equity, there will be a number of people who are earning and currently claiming the Working for Families benefit who will continue to need that support because their wages won’t increase. They may have been entitled under the previous pay equity legislation to be in line for a pay equity claim that would have raised their wages.

So my question to the Minister is this. If it goes to this level of calculating the abatement thresholds, the Government must have done some calculations to understand what the impact was not only of not providing pay equity settlements for the 33 claims that were under way but also for all of the other areas that had the potential to proceed through the pay equity process. We do note that changing that threshold for those female-dominated professions and lifting that up to 70 percent has excluded some professions like high school teachers, and I think also that some corrections workers fall into that area, as well—there are a couple that are at 68 percent or 67 percent—and so now those areas are excluded from being able to make a pay equity claim.

So my question is this: if we’re looking at this part of Working for Families, surely the public of New Zealand, who are not able to submit at select committee because of the urgency motion—surely, we should have an ability to understand how much more taxpayers in Working for Families will be paying as a result of those 33 different claims now having to need Working for Families tax credits, and also needing to qualify for it, because if their wages had increased over time through pay equity claims, then many of those women would be at a higher level, where they would have been financially independent and been able to keep paying for butter at $10—or it’s a bit cheaper at Costco—if those claims had proceeded.

The Minister must have some notes there about understanding what the cost to New Zealanders is under additional Working for Families payments, given the fact that those pay equity claims have, effectively, been shelved by this Budget. I’d also like to point out that a lot of measures in this Budget have been paid for by working women.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a short question for the Minister that I will preface with a little bit of commentary just for context around Best Start. Just for the Minister’s reference, I’m working off the commentary on the bill from Inland Revenue, at the final page—page 26—and then I’m also working off the regulatory impact statement, at page 15, bullet points 40 and 41. So that’s just for the Minister’s reference, and I’m noting that these are the kinds of questions I would have asked in a select committee process to be included in the departmental report, just in terms of the impact of the policy. The bill commentary, obviously, discusses the impact on the different tax years but also what applicants will need to undertake to be compliant and to access the Best Start payment—particularly with the changes in years—and it gives some examples of a family in terms of when their child was born. But the change to the section in the Act is, essentially, saying that prior to a child turning one, it’s now being means-tested, so there will need to be an application.

My concern, and my question for the Minister, is—I’m just noting if the Minister is noting this, hopefully—the calculations—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You carry on.

RACHEL BOYACK: Great, excellent—two working ears.

Hon Simon Watts: I can hear out of this ear, as well.

RACHEL BOYACK: I’m very pleased to hear it, Minister. My question is about the calculations on how many families may end up not applying as a result. So what it states in bullet point 41 of the regulatory impact statement on page 15 is that income testing the first year of Best Start will mean that families will have to apply via a separate Inland Revenue form, and, as such, fewer families may apply due to increased compliance costs in the application process, resulting in fewer families being identified as being eligible for other Working for Families tax credits.

So what I’m asking is whether there has been a thorough assessment, because it doesn’t then go into the detail of the impact of extra administration and burden being required on families to apply for Best Start and those that then might drop out, and then, as a result, end up not being able to access the benefit that they’re entitled to. I’d like to know if the Minister has looked at those calculations and has had advice on how many families may then drop out of that application process, and, furthermore, what would the impact be on child poverty, because, obviously, the Best Start payment is a policy that is designed to address child poverty.

That first year is designed to be universal so that more families can access it, so I’m concerned, on reading this regulatory impact statement, that fewer families may apply and, therefore, fewer families may get access to their entitlement, particularly in the first year of a child’s life. That means less nappies being purchased and less formula, if they’re not breastfeeding, and the like. So my specific question is: how many families will it be, has he had those actual calculations given to him, and what is the specific impact on child poverty?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and for those questions. To those tuning in at home—and I know there will be a lot of people watching the tax bill this morning because it’s such a good piece of legislation—I say good morning, and I hope you’re having a great day, wherever you are in the country.

Let’s answer the question—and it’s a technical question—in regards to the minimum family tax credit. Just to the member’s point there, that was adjusted to match increases in main benefits by inflation, and it was adjusted by Government in Budget 2024.

In regards to the amendment put forward by the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe, we will not be considering that amendment in the context of the point that has been noted.

In regards to the question by the Hon Ginny Andersen, pay equity is out of the scope of this bill. The scenario given was hypothetical and, therefore, is not something that one would be able to calculate, even if it was in scope.

Lastly, the question from Rachel Boyack in the context of whether there has been a thorough assessment in regards to this policy, the short answer is yes.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a first call on this bill. An important bill it is, and I look forward to the Minister of Revenue’s engagement on my first question about clause 7, which I hope will be a back and forth with the Minister. Minister, under clause 7(1), what number in 2023 did the National Party promise New Zealanders would be in—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I think we’re getting to the point on clause 7 where we’ve had several questions on clause 7. It’s the third time I’ve heard the question around the National Party, and the Minister has actually just answered that one. So do you have some other questions on the actual clauses in the bill?

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Just a very quick question about what—

Sam Uffindell: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh, was that a point of order?

Sam Uffindell: No, no, no, I thought—I didn’t see her. I apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh, OK—sorry.

INGRID LEARY: What cross-agency work has been done regarding the Best Start payment. This is simply because the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) published a report last week that showed a clear corelation between school attendance and families that were receiving this payment. It is so strong, in fact, that they almost—if you read the wording of the report—say that it’s causal.

So, given that this Government has put money in this Budget for school attendance, what analysis did the Minister do or what conversations did he have with MSD officials to find out what the benefits would be to keep the payment in place, or, if there was going to be this change in threshold, what impact would that have on school attendance? Did he actually have those conversations, because it would seem really illogical to be putting money in another part of the Budget to boost that when the Government’s own advice shows a clear corelation between the Best Start payment and school attendance?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): I am now getting into a little bit of repetition. But, as the member will be aware if she has read the regulatory impact statement, that cross-agency work has been undertaken in the context of all elements of this Budget, and the reporting, in the context of the way in which these policies interact, has been undertaken and will continue to be undertaken.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Dr Deborah Russell—new questions, please.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Yep, thank you, Madam Chair. I do have one last question on Best Start, and then the next set of clauses in Part 1 are to do with KiwiSaver. So I’m pretty ready to move on to the KiwiSaver discussion in Part 1 in just a moment because there are clauses there that do that. Just looking at Best Start, and it is a question—I’ve already asked about the interaction of the minimum family tax credit, and I think the Minister answered that it was adjusted in Budget 2024. As far as I can tell, that’s usually an annual adjustment, at times—so I guess it’ll turn up in a future tax bill, or in something like that.

However, having said that, we are taking Best Start away from a number of families and there is another interaction there, and that is with last year’s FamilyBoost, which came through in Budget 2024. I just want to understand if some work was done on the interaction between the FamilyBoost policy and this new policy taking Best Start away from however many families it takes it away from. I think it is 53,000 families—no, that can’t be right.

Ingrid Leary: 61,000.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: It’s 61,000 in total, with these abatement changes. That’s a lot of families who are now losing out, so I’d like to know if there was some interaction there.

However, having said all that, I do think it is time for us to move on to look at some of the KiwiSaver changes. Now, the KiwiSaver changes in Part 1 are in clauses—let me see—clause 9 through to clause 16, which are all to do with KiwiSaver. It’s quite a significant change to KiwiSaver, so I think we do need to talk about the policy here, as well. There are three significant changes that we need to talk about. The first is the extension of the KiwiSaver tax to—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just ask a question here, on the KiwiSaver part? There’s a large chunk of KiwiSaver in Part 2, so if there’s something specific to Part 1, could you point to exactly where it is—

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Oh, absolutely.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): —because we’ll have the large part of the discussion on KiwiSaver in Part 2.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Well, I disagree, Madam Chair. If we look at clause 13, that is exactly where the—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s what I’m asking it for—I just want the committee to be clear as to what’s in Part 1 and what’s in Part 2.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: In Part 1, we have the place where, in clause 13, it’s where the actual change to the tax credit sits. That’s the clause that does the actual work, and we actually need to look at that tax credit there. Clause 9 introduces the threshold—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s fine—I’m not disagreeing with the member. I know the member understands this very well, but I’m just making it clear for the committee—OK?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Thank you. To be honest, it’s a bit hard getting up to speed with it just overnight, but we’re getting there—we’re getting there.

Arena Williams: You are means-testing retirements savings—justify that.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Well, right—OK.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I think we’ll leave the member who is speaking to ask the questions, thank you. The Hon Dr Deborah Russell is speaking.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Thank you, Madam Chair. So I do want to talk about the general policy, and there are three policy changes. One is extending KiwiSaver to 16- and 17-year-olds, so the tax credit part of it, and that’s sitting in clause 10. We need to talk about introducing an upper threshold for KiwiSaver, and that’s introducing the $180,000 threshold, which is sitting in clause 10(3), and the other one is the actual change in the tax credit, which is sitting in there.

I would like to talk to the Minister and ask, first, why—why? KiwiSaver has been an enormously successful policy. It has been enormously successful in getting people to save for their retirement. It has been enormously successful in helping people to build their retirement changes. It was introduced by Sir Michael Cullen, and it was a far-sighted policy. People are now engaging with saving, and so on. So why, then, turn around and knock some of the incentives for KiwiSaver? Why turn around and say that it’s important to have a threshold in there now? Why turn around and reduce the member tax credit now?

I tautoko the change to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to participate in KiwiSaver. That’s an excellent change and it gets people going early, so of course we agree with that change and we really support it. But we, nevertheless, look at the disincentives now, and I want to know from the Minister why, when we are all deeply concerned about retirement savings, would they introduce this sort of policy.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m not going to engage in a deep degree of policy, because Part 2 of this bill deals with KiwiSaver. But the aim of the changes made is primarily to ensure that KiwiSaver is more sustainable. The impact of the Government contribution on the overall retirement savings is likely to be small, and the change actually increases value for money.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move—

Glen Bennett: Point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ve got a point of order coming from my left.

Glen Bennett: Kia ora, Madam Chair. I’m just seeing the excitement of the Government MPs, and looking at Speaker’s ruling 68/4, because we’re in urgency, I notice there are at least two members from the two other Opposition parties that have not spoken on this, so I just wanted to clarify.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, can I make the point that I’ve had a discussion with the Clerk about this, and I know that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell has asked some specific questions to Part 1, but most of the clauses on KiwiSaver are in Part 2. We’re not going to shut down the conversation on KiwiSaver, and if there’s something in Part 2 that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell refers to in Part 1 as a result of asking her questions in Part 2, then we can build on that. Tom—

Glen Bennett: Speaking to the point of order, I guess the clarification was from Speaker’s ruling 68/4 that there are still members who are seeking the call that haven’t actually had the opportunity to speak, so we don’t yet know what they’re going to talk about. That was my—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, I do get that, but I am going to accept a call from Tom Rutherford because I do believe we’re going to get ourselves into a bind here. I fully believe we can answer the questions, and members are welcome to bring them up in Part 2.

TOM RUTHERFORD: I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, to delete new section CC 15, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section CC 15, to change 25 percent to 40 percent, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section CC 15(4), to insert “single”, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, to delete new section DI 1, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, to delete new section DI 2, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, to delete new section DI 3, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, to delete new section DI 4, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, to delete new section DI 4(a)(i), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section DI 4(a)(iii), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, to delete new section DI 4(a)(vi), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 5, to delete new section DI 4(a)(vi) and (viii), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, to delete new section DI 4(a)(vii), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that

the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section DI 4(b), to insert subparagraph (v), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, to delete new section DI 5, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section DI 5(1), to replace “0.2” with “0.1”, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that

the Hon Dr Megan Woods’ tabled amendment to clause 5, new section DI 5(1), to change the formula to “0.27 x (expenditure - contribution)”, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that

Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section DI 5(1), to change the formula to “0.25 x (expenditure - contribution)”, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that

Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section DI 5(1), to change the formula to “0.22 x (expenditure - contribution)”, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that

Hon Dr Megan Woods’ tabled amendment to clause 5, new section DI 5(1), to change the formula to “0.3 x (expenditure - contribution)”, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, to delete new section DI 6, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section DI 6(b), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 7(1) and (2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7(1), to replace “$44,900” with “$50,000”, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe’s tabled amendment to clause 7(1) and (2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7(2), to replace $44,900 with $50,000, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 8, section MG 3(2)(b)(i), to replace “1 April 2026” with “22 May 2025”, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Barbara Edmonds’ tabled amendment to delete clause 8 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 11, to delete new section MK 2B, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 13, to delete subclauses (2)(a) and (3), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to clause 13, to delete subclauses (2) and (4), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Barbara Edmonds’ tabled amendment to clause 13(2)(a) and (b) is out of order as being inconsistent with the principle and objects of the bill.

The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to clause 13(2)(b), to replace “$260.72” with “$450”, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to clause 13(2)(b), to replace “$260.72” with “$400”, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to clause 13(2)(b), to replace “$260.72” with “$500.00”, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 16(1) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to other enactments

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 17 to 30, the “Amendments to other enactments”. Part 2 contains changes to the KiwiSaver regime as well as changes to the Tax Administration Act 1994. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I refer to two matters. Before the closure motion and the vote on Part 1, the Chair seemed to indicate that, despite the end of Part 1, those elements of KiwiSaver from Part 1 could be debated in Part 2. I just want to confirm that that’s the case, mainly because it is a bit odd given that we’ve voted on amendments to KiwiSaver clauses—but that’s what she indicated. There were very few calls on KiwiSaver and I note that colleagues from the Green Party and Te Pāti Māori were seeking calls but were not given the opportunities to speak on that part of Part 1—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I understand.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE: So my question, just for clarity of the committee, is: have I heard that correctly?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): You have heard that correctly, sir. I was watching the debate and I heard the previous Chair make reference to being able to go back, where relevant, into clause 1 as it relates to KiwiSaver.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Speaking to the point of order. I just want to really, really clarify this because, with respect, the operative changes to the KiwiSaver regime actually occurred in Part 1. The Chair seemed to think that we could, in actual fact, discuss those operative changes in Part 2, but that’s going to be very hard because we can’t relate them to a clause in Part 2—they actually sit in Part 1. The amendments in Part 2 are very, very technical and just to do with a very small part of the changes. So may I suggest, provided we bring up new points, that we have a rather more thematic debate in Part 2 around KiwiSaver? We could confine it to KiwiSaver and always make sure we are bringing up a new idea rather than repeating ideas, rather than trying to relate specifically to clauses.

Tim van de Molen: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’ll just take some advice from the Clerk. Speaking to the point of order, Tim van de Molen.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. There is, obviously, under Part 2, clause 17, which relates to KiwiSaver. My understanding of the comments from the Chair during the previous part were that KiwiSaver can, of course, be debated in Part 2 because there is a clause for that. But it would not be appropriate to give the committee the ability to rehash everything in the clause 1 aspects of KiwiSaver because, of course, that’s been dealt with and voted on and completed under that part. So it should indeed be constrained to this part.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We’re all in agreement. I think everyone understands as it—and I did listen to the previous Chair and she has provided me with confirmation of her ruling. So I think you’re correct, Dr Russell, that we can refer back to clause 1 as it relates to KiwiSaver. But I think we’ll just see how the substantive questions come through. To your point about the repetition, we will be very alert to that. Thank you.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Speaking to the amendments to KiwiSaver in general, there is some debate that we need to have around the substantive changes. Now, in actual fact, there are three substantive changes, and I think we’ll need to speak to the policy intent behind them. The three substantive changes are: one, the change to the member tax credit, which is being halved, so it’s going down to two hundred and forty-something-or-other dollars. The second substantial change, and it’s a change that this party, at least, supports, is the change to enable 16- and 17-year-olds to participate in KiwiSaver, to receive employer contributions, and to receive the member tax credit. Now, given that we agree to that, in this party, my party doesn’t feel the need, particularly, to discuss that particular change for 16- and 17-year-olds, other than to endorse it. But the third substantive change is the change that puts in a top threshold for KiwiSaver, and it says that people earning over $180,000 may not receive the member tax credit.

I have two points I want to make about that one. The two points are these—the first question is: why $180,000? What was the particular policy rationale around $180,000? Now, it’s clear that it links to the top tax threshold. The top tax threshold is also $180,000. It’s an interesting point, because people earning over $180,000—and that is a substantial income in New Zealand—first of all, their tax rate increases after $180,000, and now they don’t get the KiwiSaver tax credit, either. I’m hoping it wasn’t just a convenience thing at $180,000, that there was actually some substantial fiscal analysis that said that, in actual fact, we think people earning over or roundabout that amount of money are likely to be able to save without needing that extra credit from the Government, that they would be in a position to do that anyway. So I’d just like to know, from the Minister of Revenue, what advice they got around that substantive change, around $180,000. That’s the first question I have to ask around that threshold change.

The other one around the threshold change is a very precise one. It just seems to me, from the way it’s written, that a person who earns $179,999 will get the member tax credit, but a person who earns $180,001 will not get the member tax credit. There’s just a little flex point there, where, in actual fact, you’re going to end up worse off earning a tiny bit more money than if you earned a tiny bit less money. Now, in other places in the income tax system, we try really hard to make sure that people do not end up worse off because of a tax change that pushes them up or over a threshold—an example of that is the minimum family tax credit. I just want to know what happens to people who sit right on that cusp, who, if they just get a tiny wage increase or a tiny salary increase, end up earning just a little too much to get the member tax credit. What was the thinking around that? Was there, again, any analysis done around that? I get we have to draw a line somewhere.

So the two questions: why was the line drawn there, and what happens to people who just fall on either side of that threshold?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. My question is similar to what the Hon Dr Deborah Russell has mentioned as well. Again, we’re really appreciative, Madam Chair, of your clarity around this. I think, when we’re looking at the operative elements of this—I know we have voted on this. My question is around, in Part 1, tying into Part 2—because Part 2, in terms of KiwiSaver, sometimes we’re looking at the contribution rate adjustment and also the reduction rate; so it’s mainly the operationalisation of what the KiwiSaver will look like, from the employer and employee perspective.

But, I guess, the fundamental question we’re looking at in Part 1—although I think there is this narrative that we’re looking at making sure that more people are putting into KiwiSaver, etc., fundamentally we’re seeing that we are asking, if I am correct, New Zealanders to pay more out of their wages, which would affect people on the minimum wage as it is, in order that the Government isn’t going to be able to contribute as much, which is what we’re seeing in clause 13 of Part 1. Hence, we’re looking at increasing the contribution rate adjustment from a baseline 3 percent to a baseline 4 percent. I wanted to check with the Minister of Revenue: if the Government is really looking at wanting to ensure that New Zealanders can save up enough for their KiwiSaver, why has the Government considered reducing the Government contribution from $521.43 to $260.72, by half, and also, as a result of that, adjusting the threshold from a half to a quarter. That’s kind of my first question regarding some of the broader policy questions on the Government contribution element.

I also wanted to check, in terms of—let’s say, with Part 2, when we’re looking at clause 18—when we’re looking at the idea of this transition, in terms of the reduction rate going from 3 percent to 3.5 percent to 4 percent. Why was the increase going up to 4 percent? Why was 1 April 2026, as a figure, picked? Again, we’re looking at this sort of arbitrary—unless it’s a specific policy requirement or rationale that the Minister could highlight, it seems like an arbitrary date that has been put across, in terms of some of this.

So those are my two questions for the time being. Again, we’re kind of dancing back and forth between Parts 1 and 2 a little bit, but, in the broader scope of things, when we’re looking at the Government contribution changes, why has the Government decided to contribute less towards people’s KiwiSaver? Then, also, in terms of the rate reduction, as a starting point, why were those particular dates chosen to transition from 3 percent to 3.5 percent to 4 percent?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In answer to the questions regarding income thresholds relating to clauses 20 and 22, the income thresholds were considered. The Government decided that $180,000 was the appropriate level in which earners do not need additional Government support. The benefit and value for money in providing Government contributions to low and medium income earners under $180,000 was seen as the most targeted mechanism in order to achieve that.

In addition to that, research suggests that low to medium income earners need more support than higher-income earners as they have other forms of savings. So that is the policy rationale in regard to clauses 20 and 22 in regards to the income threshold.

The question raised in regard to people that sit above and below $180,000—it is no different to any other brightline number used in regard to taxation; there is a threshold and those above will be subject to it and those below will not.

In regard to clause 20, in regard to the question on the threshold increasing from 3 to 3.5 percent and the timing of that, the Government considered to ensure that there was appropriate time for both employers and employees to be prepared to increase those contributions and, hence, why the date—just under a year out from today—was considered appropriate. That was then balanced with the further increase over the period of the next three years—providing certainty to business is a key objective of this Government.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you. Just a quick question on new Subpart 3B, “Rate reduction”, inserted by clause 23, which talks about “[may] be required be no less than 92 days and no more than 1 year.” I understand the philosophy around 92 days is probably around not having frivolous applications. Interesting number, 92, so keen to understand the rationale. Also, no more than a year—there seems to be an assumption that the circumstances will have changed or a pressure, if you like, to make it that the amount will change after that one year. I’m wondering what happens in the event that circumstances haven’t changed. Will they have to do a new application? Will they have to submit all the information that is required under new section 101L(2), or would they just be able to seek some kind of an extension? What is the policy reason for that? Thank you.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I just want to follow on from my colleague Ingrid Leary’s question. It’s not so much around the policy around that but I’m just thinking of the compliance costs that are associated with these rate reductions. Now, it’s interesting because a rate can be reduced from 4 percent to 3 percent—so a difference of 1 percent—in what a person contributes to KiwiSaver, and the implication is that that will help with the cost of living. It seems like a fairly small amount to be changing around there, but I get that some people may feel the need to do that. Particularly we’ve seen just reported in the news today that, in the last year or so, more people have been withdrawing KiwiSaver for hardship reasons than for housing reasons. But given that quite small economic benefit, what was the trade-off with compliance costs there? Part 2 has concerned itself very largely with that rate change, and it’s quite a complicated procedure. There’s quite a significant compliance cost for an individual to go through and get that rate reduction, so I wonder what thought was given to the trade-off there between compliance costs and the benefits to the individual.

But it’s not just the compliance costs either. It’s for the individual but also for the employer, so there’s a set of compliance costs there, but then there’s some work that must need to be done within Inland Revenue’s own systems to enable those changes to take place as well. So there’s a set of costs to the Government in terms of how it actually sets up the systems in order to accommodate this particular change in the rates. I’d just like to hear from the Minister of Revenue what consideration was given to those three sets of costs—compliance costs for the individual, compliance costs for the employer, compliance costs for Inland Revenue and Government systems—in that space.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the call. I hope you can hear me from all the way back here. I’ve chosen to sit here because I have the theory that you’re more likely to get called when you’re in the Speaker’s line of sight.

But on to my questions. I have specific questions around the general, cumulative impact of the changes, some in Part 1, as the previous speakers have already articulated, and some in Part 2. My questions relate specifically to what the impacts of these changes might be on migrant communities. We know that migrants come here later on in their life, so won’t have had the opportunity to contribute to KiwiSaver as much as, for example, if someone was born in New Zealand, they were here all their lives, they would have been contributing to KiwiSaver from when they started working—I started working when I was 13 years old, I was a paper boy—so from 13 years old to, potentially, when they retire, to 65, some end up working longer than that. But we know that some migrants end up coming here later in their lives—for example, someone who comes here when they’re 30 or 35. So they would have had less opportunities to contribute to their KiwiSaver.

What are the impacts of having the contribution rate that the Government has set; will that have the potential to create disparities in terms of communities that are more likely to come from migrant backgrounds—for example, the Asian community? Acknowledging, of course, that just because you’re migrant doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re Asian, and vice versa. Some communities here are actually quite well-established from the Asian communities, and I’m thinking, for example, in Dunedin, some of the families there have been there since the era of Chinese goldmining, since the 1800s. We can’t necessarily equate the two, but we do know that there are likelihoods.

I also have questions about whether there’s been much engagement in terms of whether there was specific feedback from the Retirement Commission on the impact of these changes. I’m looking at a body of work that they did a few years ago, and it’s titled “Research highlights widespread disparities in the experiences Māori have in retirement.” This is a series of papers that they issued regarding the gaps in wealth between Māori and non-Māori, and how that might impact the potential for Māori in retirement. Paper one goes over the structural, historical, and political factors. Paper two is a literature review by Dr Margaret Kempton that acknowledges that, obviously, Māori are—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can you come to the question, please, Francisco?

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: This is part of the question. Was there engagement in terms of the Retirement Commission, and were the four papers that the Retirement Commission did—in terms of research that highlights widespread disparities and experience Māori have in retirement—factored into the sort of analysis and the work that the department did in terms of estimating the broad impact of these changes? I’ll leave my contribution there. I might want to take some follow-up calls depending on how the Minister of Revenue answers, but thank you for the opportunity.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much, members. In regards to answers to questions relating to the temporary rate reduction in regards to individuals being able to select, for a period of time, a reduction back to 3 percent—these are clauses 18,19, 23, 24, and 25; all of those clauses relate to the temporary rate reduction point—this is providing choice for employees, depending on their financial circumstances. They have a 92-day period, which is, in effect, three months, to be able to apply for that rate reduction; that would be based on their personal circumstances. They can reapply as many times as they wish in regards to that rate reduction. The process that will be involved is considered appropriate and is not overwhelming in the context of administration.

In regards to the questions around compliance and burden, IRD did consider the costs in the context of compliance. They also will be managing the administration costs of this through baselines. We did take on board feedback from the Retirement Commissioner, who also noted and has made statements in the context of the benefits of increased savings which will result as a result of this policy.

Lastly, to the question in regards to working parents, if I use a working-parent family with children as an example, under the status quo versus under this policy, a working parent, at the time at which they purchased a first home or used the KiwiSaver for a first-home deposit, would have 9 percent more savings, from $15,800 to $17,281. At retirement age, a working-parent family will have 26 percent more savings, from $397,000 for the household to $500,000. These changes will drive a significant uplift in benefits for New Zealanders in the context of retirement and also in regards to their KiwiSaver balances, which they can use to buy their first home.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Thank you. Mōrena, Madam Chair; thank you. I think I heard a comment earlier around tax and this whole debate this morning and how it can—it does leave me a bit cold in reality, but, in fact, unfortunately, in this context, it’ll probably leave too many Māori families out in the cold. So I want to start my discussion in that way.

Minister, if you can—and it’s a little bit, I think, in the previous part, but I’ll land with this section now, regarding Adrian Rurawhe’s discussion earlier. Has the Government considered the cumulative impact of the changes alongside rising living costs, housing pressures, and other benefit changes affecting low-income and Māori whānau?

I live in the community up in Te Tai Tokerau—that is, Northland—and, like many of my colleagues, rural Māori communities, and urban communities, actually, are of a particular interest to me—all families are, actually. So this is the context of my questions. What assessment was made of how this policy affects equity outcomes? Will the Minister of Revenue release the full cost-benefit analysis or distributional impact modelling used to inform this policy change? And how does the Minister justify a faster reduction in support for struggling families?

There’s a phrase up in the Far North—we talk about “Living in poverty in paradise”; sadly, too many are forced and struggling in this thing called a “poverty reality”, Minister. I don’t see them in these ideas which are now policy and now will be made law, sadly. What protections of transitional measures are in place to ensure families don’t suddenly lose crucial financial support? How will the Government monitor and evaluate the impact?

Now, I’m going to come to clause 18—if I may—which amends section 4, by inserting the definition of “rate reduction”. This allows for a formal process where individuals can temporarily lower their contribution rate due to financial need in clause 19, which amends section 22 to insert section (22)(1)(c)(ia) on the evidence of rate reduction needed for new employees. How will these amendments ensure that Māori participation and retention in KiwiSaver are not adversely affected? Has an impact assessment—an actual impact assessment—been done specifically on and with whānau Māori regarding these amendments? What measures are in place to monitor if these legislative changes disproportionately disadvantage—and they will—Māori whānau? What mechanisms, Minister, if you can answer, does the Government have in place to remove barriers to applying for rate reductions? Minister, it is difficult for Māori to engage with these processes in plain language, whether the language is—well, more often than not, it’s English, and it’s not Māori enough, sadly. And how is Government going to mitigate these issues for Māori communities?

These are real and actual issues for whānau Māori in rural communities and urban communities. Many of the processes, the clinical, technical processes that you’re forced down into a lane, Minister, are already alienating and they are difficult to navigate. When processes like this are that difficult, the end result will always be either frustration, anger, or just basically giving up and doing-what-you-need-to-do - type of processes, Minister. So I am really interested and keen. I hope that you can give some genuine thought to these questions, these places that I’m talking about, particularly our Māori places and people, and that they are understood in some of your responses. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just in regard to the last two questions, as we know, a large proportion of youth in New Zealand are Māori and Pasifika, and, as a direct result of this Government’s changes in the context of KiwiSaver changes related this clause, allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to be eligible for KiwiSaver, a large proportion of youth who are Māori and Pasifika will now be more better off in the context of KiwiSaver than they were under the status quo, and that should be celebrated.

The IRD provides its services in multiple languages, including in print and by phone, and including, obviously, Māori and other languages. If any individual in New Zealand is not fluent in English, then they can call the IRD on 0800 700 342.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Chair. In the spirit of back and forth with the Minister of Revenue, I’d just like to acknowledge that he has put on the record, in Hansard, the ability for people to apply as many times as they would like for what is, essentially, a kind of hardship allowance to be able to go to the 3 percent. I guess my points would be picking up on the previous speaker: the ability for those who need that 3 percent—because of cost of living pressures—is likely to be less than for those who are in higher income brackets. So I wonder if the Minister would consider, perhaps, whether a reapplication process could be put in place or whether he would be prepared to put in the Hansard that there would be no jeopardy for those people, that every application would be considered either as a starting point so that the commissioner would not look back and go, “Well, you’ve already applied 10 times, and, therefore, we’re going to get hard on you.” If the circumstances have not changed, then they have not changed, and, perhaps, there could be a process that just enables that access, because, currently, as has been pointed out, there is a difficulty with access.

The other point I would like to go into is just around the refund if the person cannot apply—in new Subpart 3B, new section 101T. It’s really interesting language here where it says, “The employer … may refund the amount” to the person, and then, again, in new subsection (6), it says, “The Commissioner may refund the amount determined under subsection (2) … if the money is held by the Commissioner.” To some extent, I understand the new subsection (6) more because it would seem that a discretion like that for a commissioner is probably appropriate. But I would like to understand, still, in that subsection, why the commissioner “must not”. For subsection (2), I think very different principles apply, because here the legislation is giving the employer a kind of discretion around refunding moneys to people who cannot comply, and there is a clear set-out formula in the legislation about “contributions deducted - rate reduction amount.” I don’t understand why this legislation would create this kind of discretion, which just makes it even more difficult for the employee to be able to get moneys if they cannot comply. It also puts a bit of an unfair pressure on the employer, who now becomes judge and juror of the situation. To my mind, it would be better, really, if the moneys either had to go back to the employee or had to go to the commissioner, who would then apply that discretion. The employer is not an agent of the State, and it is putting an unfair burden, in my view, on the employee but also on the employer to have to make those decisions.

So, really, the wording, Minister—I haven’t got a formal amendment to this, as far as I’m aware, but would the Minister consider making it that the employer must give that refund, or would the Minister consider striking that out and replacing it with something that requires those moneys to go to the commissioner, who would then apply that appropriate discretion? Although, even then, the way the legislation is meant to be operating, if I understand it, really the commissioner should be giving that money back to the person who cannot comply.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’ve just got a question regarding new section 15B, “Rate reduction”, inserted by clause 26. It’s good that, obviously, Kiwis will have a choice to opt back or down. That’s quite good for us on this side of the House; we’re all about personal responsibility. I just wonder if the Minister of Revenue is satisfied with the way it’s worded in new section 101L(3), inserted by clause 23, “For the purposes of subsection (2)(c), the period for which the rate reduction is required must be no less than 92 days [before] and no more than 1 year.” I just want to check that the Minister’s happy with the way that’s landed in legislation.

As we’re just about at the end of Part 2—just at the very end—I’ve just got a question for clarification from the Minister. This is replacement section 80KB, “Section 80KB amended (Contents of application)”, inserted by clause 29. For reference, it’s on page 16 of the bill. Again, I’m just seeking clarification from the Minister on clause 29(1): “In section 80KB(1)(c), in the words before the subparagraphs, replace ‘on the last day of the tax year’ with ‘on the last day of the tax year and that tax year is before the 2026-27 tax year’.” Also, clause 29(3)—just at the bottom of page 16, just for your reference, Madam Chair, and Minister—“In section 80KB(1)(g), replace ‘on the last day of the tax year’ with ‘on the last day of the tax year and that tax year is before the 2026-27 tax year’.” Similarly, it goes on in replacement section 80KV, inserted by clause 30, which actually brings us right to the end of the whole bill and part. Just before we go to deliberation, I just really was after some clarification from the Minister, and we’d really appreciate his response on that. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Cunning plan, Mr Hamilton, but we’re not there yet.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I am—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Good try!

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Yeah, good try—trying to jump right ahead to the end. I am wanting to ask follow-up questions to the Minister of Revenue’s response to the questions from Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, and, in particular, around the impact that these changes will have on Māori. The point that the Minister made was the inclusion of 16- and 17-year-olds and the number of Māori who make up that group.

But what I want to ask the Minister is: what does he say to the Retirement Commissioner, Jane Wrightson, who said that low-income earners, Māori, women, and self-employed people would be the hardest hit by the reduction of the member tax credit? What impact can the Minister tell us that these changes will have, in particular, for Māori?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): I’ve already provided an answer in regards to that question, so I won’t repeat myself.

In regards to the question on the rate reduction, I want to confirm that the process will be an automatic approval and there is no hardship criteria in regard to taxpayers that are seeking a rate reduction. The protocol in regards to the timeline for a rate reduction is also consistent with existing savings suspension protocol under KiwiSaver, and that therefore ensures that compliance costs are saved.

I want to answer the question by the member Ryan Hamilton in regards to section 29. Just to clarify, this provides for different dates of birth for individuals and the drafting of the rates reduction. They all follow standard processes for saving suspension, so I hope that clarifies the questions asked in regards to all of clause 29.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up on something the Minister of Revenue said before, and, again, it comes back to 16- and 17-year-olds being eligible for KiwiSaver. I think, from what we’re hearing and what the Minister has said, it is a good idea. But one of the things that one of the previous speakers picked up on, and this is a different perspective of that—he was talking about KiwiSaver in the context of the Government’s attendance package. However, one of the things we have found, particularly during the pandemic and due to the cost of living crisis post-pandemic—and this, again, follows on from Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s question around Māori and Pasifika and also rural families’ perspective—is that we do see 16- and 17-year-olds, or potentially younger, having to leave school, or who are no longer able to attend school, because of the fact that they have to work to support their families.

Although 16- and 17-year-olds being eligible for KiwiSaver is a good idea, I wondered if the Minister had any advice around the fact of whether this will have, I guess, an adverse response in the sense that we’re then going to be seeing more and more people who will leave school early, or more and more people who are not even leaving school but are simply not attending school because then they would need to go and work, because now they have this new incentive, which is that their salary will be contributing towards their KiwiSaver. So that’s one of my first questions to the Minister.

But picking up on what the member opposite was talking about in terms of people being able to opt out of the rate reduction, I wanted to check with the Minister on what the rationale was behind allowing people to only do it for one year and having to reapply for it every single year. Now, yes, I agree that having people being able to opt out is a good idea, but people who are probably doing that are already working two, three, or sometimes four jobs. They’re working 60 to 80 hours a week, and yet now we’re adding on this additional administrative burden for them that they have to now do it every single year, or opt in every single year and reapply and go through all of the process. As we have seen with the saga that is FamilyBoost, people don’t necessarily have the time to do that, and IRD is not the most user-friendly department in terms of application process. So when they do something like this—and you’re asking people to do it once every year—would that then put, unfortunately, undue burden on people having to do that?

I wonder if the Minister would consider my amendment, which is that people then do this to opt out, and they are opted out for as long as they want to until they are happy to opt back into the system again—and it would increase their rate reduction to go back up to 4 percent as opposed to 3 percent—as opposed to having to do it on an annual basis.

I know there are some other questions that other people have asked in terms of 90 days, but I’ll leave that to the Minister. But those are my two questions on whether there’s been any advice the Minister has received around the adverse effect of 16- and 17-year-olds no longer attending school because they’ve now got this additional incentive of being opted into KiwiSaver, and also whether the Minister will consider my amendments in terms of the rate reduction opt-out to be longer than one year.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Well, thank you very much, Mr Chair. Well, firstly, I’m disappointed that members of the Opposition, particularly the Greens, are voting against this legislation, voting against 16- and 17-year-old New Zealanders to be eligible for KiwiSaver. I don’t think that that sends a very positive signal, but I do acknowledge Government for taking a step—about 85,000 young people will now benefit from KiwiSaver, something that you are opposing.

In the context of the points around section 102 of the KiwiSaver Act 2006, the ability to take a savings reduction—in the context that this provides members with choice, and the context around the 12-month element ensures that we want to be able to boost members’ ability to save in KiwiSaver and, therefore, the need to have to reapply does provide an opportunity to reconsider one’s position and whether they want to continue to invest or not.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have a question for the Minister of Revenue around clause 23, which is also on the rate reduction section, where this is specified. My colleague from the Green Party has asked about whether there was any consideration of not having to reapply every year. But my question for the Minister is about whether any modelling has been done around the need to reapply every year to qualify for a lower rate of, say, 3 percent, and whether or not this is going to disincentivise people being involved in KiwiSaver at all—whether it will mean they stop their contributions and they aren’t participating in the scheme, and whether the Minister received any advice around withdrawal from KiwiSaver because of the administrative burden, and what the distributional impacts of that would be.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): You can see that the Opposition parties have an issue with the compliance burden and, also, just the restrictive nature of new Subpart 3B, inserted by clause 23. I’m wondering, if we look at new section 101M, “Grant of rate reduction”, where the commissioner must give the rate reduction for the period specified, if it has been applied in that way.

If we look separately at new section 101N, the “Commissioner must give notice of grant of rate reduction”—under (a)(ii)—“of the date on which the rate reduction will end”. As it is written, and without clarification, it does appear that there could be a discretion for the commissioner to actually give that reduction for a period longer. It is only the previous section that requires it to be for the period which was applied for. I’m wondering if the Minister could clarify whether, in his view, that might be a way that the commissioner, with his or her discretion, would be able to actually overcome these issues of equity that are going to impact Māori, women, and so on, or would he amend new section 101N to clarify the restrictive nature of that section, if he believes that it must be pegged to new section 101M, the previous section before it?

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Possibly I missed the answer—or maybe I didn’t put the question, so here it goes again. Can the Minister of Revenue explain, please—no, let me just go back to clause 17 and KiwiSaver and how it seems that the Minister thinks we don’t get that. We get that. I’m interested, therefore, to know the actual numbers of young Māori 16- and 17-year-olds in KiwiSaver. What are those numbers? I’d be interested to know if the Minister knows those. That would be helpful for me to be able to get a better picture on that. Has an impact assessment been done specifically on Māori whānau regarding these particular amendments?

All measures have a direct impact on whānau Māori when systems often alienate. So, with that in mind, what measures are in place to monitor these changes disproportionately disadvantaging Māori? I might have said something similar in a previous question, Minister, but I didn’t hear the answer clearly enough, possibly. Also, what mechanisms does the Government have in place to remove the barriers to applying these rate reductions?

You might have heard me mention the other day this thing called “DWB”—driving while brown. It’s very much in the 16- to 20-year-old Māori young people band. So when you’re driving while brown and you get stopped, when you’re profiled and lots of photos are taken—sorry, I don’t mean to cause the Minister’s face to change quite like that, but that is the context, and unless you understand it, the ideas that come out of the mind that produces this are simply going to fail. So I am doing my best to assist the Minister by asking these really useful questions, and I’m looking forward to reciprocal responses.

It is difficult to engage with these systems—I’ve said that, and I hope that’s understood. How, Minister, will you mitigate these issues for Māori communities in a Māori way? I appreciate the responses.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just looking at clause 25 of the bill. That clause deals with non-compliance of financial institutions with the Financial Markets Conduct Act and financial markets legislation and the Fair Trading Act. As I understand it, and the Minister can correct me if I’m wrong, this is to allow for the fact that there is this raft of changes to KiwiSaver contribution rates, what have you, and Government contributions, and there will be material out there—disclosure statements, advertisements, fliers, what have you—and it will say things like if you contribute a thousand and something dollars, you will get the Government contribution of $500, and that’s no longer accurate.

So I get that, but I guess one of the questions I have—or the real question—is that new section 244(b) says that “the non-compliance relates to a product disclosure statement or other disclosure document, … and does not continue on or after 1 January 2026.” So we’re here in May, and it appears that these documents are, by definition, misleading. These are critical documents to the financial decision-making of New Zealanders. This provision says, in essence, up until 1 January next year, you can give people misleading information about investment decisions.

Now, I can understand a short period of grace, because of the way this is done, but the fact is that they’re $66,000 worse off over their careers as a result of this reduction in the Government contribution, and that’s not being put to them. In fact, the opposite is being put to them: that they’re being presented with a disclosure document or going online and clicking on the disclosure document and going, “Oh, goody! The Government will give me $500 a year.”, and it hasn’t been changed.

Now, I guess the question is this: have I got that right, and why is it not that best endeavours must be used, and why is the period so long? If it’s a website—an electronic document—it could be edited within days or weeks, and yet there’s over six months when this information can be in the public domain, and that’s how most disclosure happens nowadays, electronically. The days of having boxes of prospectuses and disclosure statements are well past us, and I accept that there are going to be some fliers and some leaflets, and, in fact, they should be shredded. The short answer is that they should be shredded because they’re no longer accurate; they’re, in fact, misleading. I wouldn’t want to hold the financial institutions liable if in some office, in the back corner, someone forgets to shred them and one accidentally gets out, but what this does is it says, “You don’t need to do anything for over six months.” So it’s really quite problematic.

Now, I’m hoping that good financial institutions, to comply with their Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Act obligations, will immediately inform their investors and potential clients that these changes are being made and that the long-term contributions of the Government will fall and that there’s a different contribution framework for employer and employee contributions going forward. But the suggestion that there’s no need to amend those disclosures—whether those new provisions come into force immediately or not, the fact is that KiwiSaver is a long-term investment strategy and the rules appertaining to their entire investment—the Government contributions across the life of it, the employer contributions across the life of it, and so on—are needed. So I’d be very interested indeed if the Minister could elucidate that. Thank you, Minister.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much to the member the Hon Dr Duncan Webb for the question in regard to clause 25. I can assure the member that the time period provided is consistent with the usual period for KiwiSaver changes. The Financial Markets Authority was consulted in the context of this change and confirmed that it was a suitable period. And it is acknowledged in clause 25 that we are looking to provide a limited protection for non-compliance with financial markets legislation, acknowledging that some of these changes relate to changes in product disclosure statements under the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 and that they will have until the date noted. It is sufficient time in order to make those changes.

In regards to the questions regarding clause 23, new Subpart 3B, new section 101M and 101N, the Inland Revenue has no discretion on changing those; those statements are consistent with other aspects of legislation.

In regards to the questions from Te Pāti Māori, I will not repeat answers that I’ve already given to questions, and I didn’t have any clause numbers to be able to give any specifics.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 18, section 4(1), to replace “1 April 2026” with “1 April 2028”, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 19, section 22(1)(c)(ia), to delete “give or”, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 20 to insert subclause (5) is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 23, to delete new section 101L, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 23, to delete new section 101M, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 23, to delete new section 101N, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 23, to delete new section 101O, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 23, new section 101P, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 23, to delete new section 101P, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 23, to delete new section 101Q, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 23, to delete new section 101R, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 23, to delete new section 101S, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 23, to delete new section 101T, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 244(a), to replace “1 November 2025” with “1 October 2025”, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 244(b), to replace “1 January 2026” with “1 December 2025”, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 26, Schedule 1, to delete new clause 15B, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clause 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to the debate on clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I’m speaking to an amendment to clause 2, “Commencement”, that will be tabled in a couple of minutes—and here it comes. What this amendment does is it asks that the commencement of the sections that are to do with the Investment Boost be delayed for implementation to 1 April 2026, and the reason for this is because the Government needs time to understand the fiscal risks of what has been put in place.

What has become apparent is this is an uncapped expenditure. It’s listed on page 89 of the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update—the BEFU. What that says is, “The fiscal and economic impacts of Investment Boost are significant and have been based on some assumptions and judgements which have a degree of uncertainty. The modelled impacts use aggregate macroeconomic data as an input together with assumptions on coverage within the tax base, and forecasts of growth in investment. Variations in any of these factors can materially affect the fiscal and economic impacts of the policy.”

I think that over the last 24 hours, it’s just become apparent how broad this category is. It has been confirmed by the Minister of Revenue this morning that everything is into it. What was put in the committee last night is that if someone wanted to bring in a billion-dollar oil and gas rig, they would be eligible for a $200 million tax break without the Government taking any equity share in this. In fact, the Minister, who is bringing another subsidy for the oil and gas industry, was talking yesterday with great pride about how this is a return to Muldoon-style co-investment with industry.

But what has also become apparent—and we’ve seen arguably the country’s most senior tax accountant, John Cuthbertson, this morning saying, “I think everybody is somewhat surprised at the breadth of this particular tax break that is in that.” He is described as being bemused at the inclusion of things like company cars and office buildings, which aren’t even eligible for depreciation these days but are included within this, and the very uncapped nature of this and the fact that the Government doesn’t have a handle on what is going to happen if costs blow out on this.

What we’re seeing is that businesses are being told that they can start spending from yesterday and, basically, they’ll be able to claim this 20 percent. But the Minister of Finance, the Minister in the chair, or indeed the Government has not been able to explain to anyone what happens if costs blow out on this. Is everybody who files, using this, guaranteed that they are going to get it no matter what the costs blow out to?

What everybody is suspecting is that the Government is going to have to do some latter-day patch-up on this and actually put some parameters around this, because, as we’re seeing, it is in the specified fiscal risk section of the BEFU. The Government needs to actually go and do the work around understanding what the cost to New Zealand is going to be. What is the pressure that it is going to put—and the risk that it puts—in terms of Crown expenditure?

That’s why we’re bringing this amendment saying to let’s defer the implementation of this so that the Government can actually go away and do the hard work that is required to get a handle on what the expenditure is going to be, because there have been many questions put to the Government over the last 24 hours. They haven’t been able to answer them, and what we do need to understand is what happens if this does blow out. What is going to happen: are there just going to be cuts elsewhere to pick up the slack on this, or is the Government going to come in and put parameters around it—which would mean that people that have, rightly, gone out and invested, thinking that they were eligible for this 20 percent break, will no longer be eligible, and they’re going to get a nasty surprise when they go to claim their 20 percent. For that reason, we are asking that the Government give the thought that should have been put into this before a policy was announced.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a number of questions for the Minister of Revenue regarding clause 2, “Commencement”, as well as clause 1, “Title”. I’m also just noticing that the clock hasn’t quite adjusted yet, but I’m going to start anyway.

In terms of the commencement date, I echo what the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, has mentioned. Particularly, we’re looking at clause 2(2) on the coming into force on 22 May 2025. Understandably, in this House, we’re still on the 22nd, but outside of this House, it’s already on the 23rd. So the idea of the fact that we are making a retrospective application of the legislation never really sits well in the context of how we do things in this House. But I want to check with the Minister: what is so urgent that that date can’t be the day of Royal assent, and it has to be yesterday? How many people have applied, or is the Investment Boost eligible for, that were required to start yesterday and not the day of the Royal assent? I think, constitutionally, that raises a really interesting issue in terms of the retrospectivity of the commencement date. And I wanted to check if the Minister would consider my amendment, which is just to bring it in line to say that, “You know what? Two days doesn’t really affect things all that much.”, unless it’s something that we miss, which we didn’t cover in this debate—in which case, would the Minister consider my amendment, which changes the day of Royal assent?

The second question is around clause 2(4), coming into force on 1 February 2026. I guess some of the other dates—you know, limited understanding of the taxation system, I admit—but 1 July 2025, in terms of the Budget year, and 1 April 2026, in terms of the financial year, that makes sense. But 1 February 2026 as a date doesn’t seem to make that sense and does seem to have a level of opportunity to it in terms of the rate reduction that is going to be introduced. I also have an amendment on this, which I wondered if the Minister would consider.

But finally, going on to the title of this bill, and I understand that the title is “Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2)”. But, in fact, “Budget Measures”—although it is somewhat a loose description of what this bill does—doesn’t actually capture some of the specificity, as we have discussed throughout this debate around the Investment Boost, around KiwiSaver, around the rate reduction of KiwiSaver, family credits, Best Start. So I have some amendments on this as well, if the Minister wouldn’t mind considering.

But I think, fundamentally, something that we have heard the Minister say over this—and then when we are having this debate under urgency, which means that we didn’t hear from the New Zealand public, and indeed, as we see in the regulatory impact statement, we only heard from three agencies and not even all of the agencies, such as the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Trade—is the fact that this Budget, we simply do not know this bill, we simply don’t know all of the fish-hooks around it, but it seems to be something that is primarily going to benefit, yet again, the wealthy of this country, as opposed to people who are working and the lowest-earning New Zealanders in Aotearoa New Zealand. So I wonder if the Minister would consider my amendment to the title, which is to replace “Budget Measures” with “National Is Rich and They Are Sorted Bill”? I think this is a more accurate description based on what the Prime Minister himself has said publicly, so this is just an extrapolation of that.

Alternatively, I wonder if the Minister would consider—because the Minister, right at the end of answering my question for the previous part, made it into a thing, where he was like, “If the Greens really care about 16- and 17-year-olds, they will vote for this bill.” But I would challenge that Minister to say that if the Government really cares about 16- and 17-year-olds, they will allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote. So if they do not allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote, then what we are doing here is we’re asking the 16- and 17-year-olds of this country to pay for this country without the eligibility to vote under our fundamental constitutional arrangement in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. If that is the case, would the Minister consider my amendment, which is changing “Budget Measures” to “We Want 16 and 17 Year Olds to Pay for the Country Just Not to Vote”?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Well, thank you very much, Mr Chair. I won’t be responding to what are not serious suggestions in regards to the title and in regards to clause 1.

In regards to questions regarding the commencement date, and the recommendation by the senior Labour front bench member the Hon Megan Woods that we should look to delay initiatives that will bring economic growth to this country, the answer is no. We will not delay initiatives that will increase economic growth, by a year. And there is no cap or limit, other than the integrity measures outlined in the context of this bill, therefore, there cannot be any cost blowout in the context of this. This will significantly increase economic growth. For the benefit of the member: an increase in productivity leads to increases in income. Increases in income lead to increases in tax revenue. Productivity is good for an economy. Economic growth is good for an economy. This Government does not at all accept any initiative to delay such benefits that will benefit the good people of New Zealand.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair and thank you, Minister, for letting us know your theory of change, which does sound quite a lot like trickle-down economics. I have a suggestion for a new name for the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2). I would not do something frivolous because that is against Standing Orders, so I wouldn’t consider calling it the “Taxation (Paid for by Women) Bill”, or I wouldn’t suggest the “Taxation (Corporate Welfare) Bill”. However, I would like to seriously suggest—following on from some of the other comments—that we just change it to the “Interim Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill” because we have not seen a cost-benefit analysis on any of the three initiatives that have been proposed by this bill.

This is a committee stage; there has been no select committee. One would expect at least a CBAx to be able to test the risk appetite of the Government, the questions around blowout, and the very tenuous links—and this has been brought up by the Minister of Revenue himself in his last contribution and I note how engaged the Government members were—that this is going to help increase productivity and facilitate economic growth.

Now, the economic growth that I think he is alluding to is 1 percent over 20 years, which is hardly ambitious. But in terms of increasing productivity, there is no nexus between the capital investment and the level of productivity that the Minister is claiming is going to lead to the economic growth. Maybe that evidence is there, but we have not seen the cost-benefit analysis. So we do not know whether his assertion is something that can be validated; what the risks are; and also all those questions that have been raised in previous contributions about the equity impacts on marginalised communities, on women, on Māori, and so on. Without that CBAx and without that analysis having been done—and I’m assuming it hasn’t because we have asked repeatedly for that at each stage of this discussion—then it would appear that there are going to be unintended consequences and there is going to be a fix.

So I would ask the Minister, please, if we can call it the “Interim Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill”, then if he could please commit to coming back with the CBAx—maybe today even—so we could finalise it after the analysis has been done and those checks can be done to ensure that there are not going to be changes. Because if I was a betting woman, I would say we will be back here very soon, wasting the House’s time trying to make the changes that will flow from the CBAx that we have not seen.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): A regulatory impact statement is available for the member, which will support understanding of the matters raised. Disclosures by officials and analysis, including risks, are included within that document, and I’ve noted that before.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just before I take the next call, we’ve had a couple of good general debate - type speeches relating to a topic, but we’d now really like to get a little bit more specific, please.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I really want the Minister of Revenue to take this point on board; so far, he hasn’t. We do not know how much this is going to cost. We have been warned by senior tax accountants, by senior thinkers about our economy that this could blow out. It is listed in the fiscal risks that this particular partial expensing could blow out. So here’s the sequence of events: it blows out—seeing as the Minister likes to talk sequences of events—it means the fiscal deficit becomes greater, the need to borrow becomes greater, the Minister then has to come back and change the rules retrospectively. What does that then do to investment certainty? What does that do to investment growth? The Minister needs to take this suggestion very, very seriously that we delay the commencement of this bill.

We agree, Minister, economic growth is a good thing; increases in wages are a good thing; making our country more productive is a good thing. The thing is, there is massive uncertainty around this measure. Any wise investor will be holding their breath for a bit until the Government comes back with a little bit more certainty about it. Take the time, Minister, defer the start date of the partial expensing until 1 April 2026.

NANCY LU (National): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thank the Minister of Revenue for his response to my amendment to clause 2, and he raised some very interesting new information to the committee, in the course of his contribution in response to my amendment to clause 2 of this bill.

When asked about how the Government was going to deal with the cost blowout—which has been, in the last 24 hours, very clearly signalled as a risk—the Minister said, and the Minister can correct me if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick, but to paraphrase, it seemed to me that he was saying that there was going to be increased revenue as a consequence of the changes, because of the increases to productivity that partial expensing would bring into play. So, therefore, he did not see a risk to the commencement date, as specified in clause 2 of the bill, being where it is in the text and the reason why he should not support the amendment for us saying that we’d like to have a bit more of a look at it.

I just want to reiterate that nobody is arguing that actually having productivity measures for the country is good; what we have questioned through the course of this debate is whether we’ve looked at all of the options. But now what we’re really concerned about is the suggestions that we’re seeing emerge in the media that the Government may have to come back and narrow the parameters of this measure because of the risk that it poses. This isn’t just Labour saying this; this is a range of commentators that are sharing this concern that there will be businesses that go out, from today, and expense things, rightly thinking that they could claim 20 percent. The Minister is saying that there’s no need to worry about that—and he’s introduced in the debate on this part of the bill—because there will be increased revenue. Now, what we’ve been told in other documentation with this bill is that we can see a 1 percent growth in GDP over 20 years.

I’d like to know from the Minister: what is the modelled increased revenue per year that is going to come because of the lifts in productivity in this bill, and how is that being shown to mitigate the fiscal risk that has already been clearly signalled in the Government’s own Budget Economic and Fiscal Update? The Minister must be basing his claims on some modelling and some knowledge, so I think the committee needs to hear that.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Scott Willis—on title and commencement.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. It is a relief because this is the first time I’ve been able to take a call on this bill, and I have had a number of questions that I have wanted to put to the Minister of Revenue. I know we’re on the title and commencement and I do have a suggestion for the Minister, and, in relation to that, one of the questions I wanted to put to the Minister was in relation to the Investment Boost. I wanted to ask whether the Investment Boost would apply to installing, for example, in at-home businesses solar panels, batteries, and electric vehicle (EV) chargers—whether that would apply.

What I have seen in the bill so far is that it certainly does apply to things that the Minister believes will boost economic growth, such as oil and gas exploration, and this is something that really relates to the title that I think is most appropriate for this bill, because we are seeing a Government that is designing policy that wants to take us to a world where we will not be able to provide for our future. This is really where the Government is heading.

My proposal for the Minister—and I hope the Minister will take this seriously, because it is seriously intended—is that in clause 1, “Title”, we replace the words “Budget Measures” with the words “We Love Oil Rigs” and that would make the title the “Taxation (We Love Oil Rigs) Act”.

This is an attempt to accurately describe the Government’s purpose in this bill and this Budget—

Francisco Hernandez: And this Government.

SCOTT WILLIS: —and this Government—and to make sure this is on the record, and if we really want to get to the guts of it, Minister, we should say it like it is. We should say it like it is. This is about expanding our fossil fuel dedication. This Government has its head in the sand on climate. [Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The members opposite might like to save their voices for a closure motion, and I might be able to hear something.

SCOTT WILLIS: I’d quite like the Minister to consider whether we want to have accurate naming, and, if not, why not. So if the Minister could give me a response, that would be really appreciated.

I have another suggestion following the Minister’s response, and I’m looking forward to hearing from the Minister. I’d like to discuss this further, and perhaps the Minister might also like to respond to my question that I didn’t get to ask earlier, which was around the Investment Boost. Does that apply to homeowners who have installed solar panels, batteries, and EV chargers? Does it apply—so the Minister might want to reply.

NANCY LU (National): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on the question now close.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 to change “Taxation” to “KiwiShaver” and Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to the amendment to insert “Close” before “KiwiShaver” are out of order as not being serious amendments.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 to change “Budget” to “Austerity” and Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to the amendment to insert “Cruel” before “Austerity” are out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 to insert “Cutting” after “Budget” and Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to the amendment to insert “Deeply” after “Cutting” are out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 to insert “Blown” before “Budget” and Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to the amendment to insert “and Bungled” before “Budget” are out of order as not being serious amendments.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Budget Measures” with “Anti-savings Plan” and Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to the amendment to replace “Anti-savings Plan” with “Cuts for Kiwis” are out of order as not being serious amendments.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 to insert “Pro-wealth” before “Taxation” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to Arena Williams’ amendment to clause 1 to replace “Equity Optional” with “Equity Busting” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 to insert “Equity Optional” before “Budget Measures” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change “Budget Measures” to “National is Rich, and They are Sorted” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change “Budget Measures” to “Investment Boost and Other Matters” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change “Budget Measures” to “Family Credit Abatement and Other Matters” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change “Budget Measures” to “Best Start and Other Matters” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change “Budget Measures” to “KiwiSaver Adjustments and Other Measures” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change “Budget Measures” to “Taking Money from Babies to Give Tax Breaks for Utes” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change “Budget Measures” to “Manifesting Trickle Down Economics” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change “Budget Measures” to “Hoping Businesses’ Savings are Passed Down as Wages” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change “Budget Measures” to “Let Them Eat Cake Budget Measures” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change “Budget Measures” to “Let Them Buy Yachts Budget Measures” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change “Budget Measures” to “Robbing from the Poor to Give to the Rich” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change “Budget Measures” to “Petroleum on the Nature Bonfire Budget” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Scott Willis’ tabled amendment to clause 1 to change “Budget Measures” to “We Love Oil Rigs” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change “Budget Measures” to “Budget Measures: Income Tax Amendment, KiwiSaver Act Amendment, Tax Administration Act Amendment” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Scott Willis’ tabled amendment to clause 1 to change “Budget Measures” to “No Upper Limit to Climate Disasters” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change “Budget Measures” to “We Forgot Nature Is The Foundation of Our Economy” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change “Budget Measures” to “We Want 16 and 17 Year Olds to Pay for the Country Just Not to Vote” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2(2) to change “22 May 2025” to “the day of Royal assent” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Megan Woods’ tabled amendment to clause 2(2) to change “22 May 2025” to “1 April 2026” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2(4) to change “1 February 2026” to “1 April 2026” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2(5) to change “1 April 2026” to “1 July 2026” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2(6) to change “1 April 2028” to “1 July 2028” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2) and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): I move, That the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.

I would like to thank the House, again, for considering this bill as urgent, and for the contributions from members that have brought us to this stage. This Government fully recognises the immense pressure many hard-working Kiwis are under due to the rising cost of living. This is a real, urgent issue confronting households every day. That is why this Government is moving at pace to grow the economy so that we can ease the burden on households, drive down the cost of living, and give every Kiwi a fair shot at getting ahead. By growing the economy, we accelerate the recovery and deliver real support to New Zealand households and businesses.

This bill is designed to support households and businesses by implementing measures to boost investment, increase productivity, raise wages, and encourage savings. These are all the things that will put New Zealand on an accelerated pathway to recover and have a stronger economy.

I want to take a moment now to reflect on what we’ve heard from people and the communities that these changes are designed to support. One voice that particularly stands out is that of Issie Mullen-Winiata. Issie is a bright, passionate 17-year-old who has advocated for ensuring that under-18-year-olds have the same KiwiSaver rights as everyone else. She brought a petition to Parliament last September. I want to share her words directly with you, because we deserve that they are heard: “I am petitioning because, as an under-18-year-old worker, I find it unjust that I miss out on KiwiSaver contributions while doing the same work as those over 18. I believe this change is essential for young workers, as buying a first home in New Zealand is incredibly challenging, and this change would ensure equal access to retirement savings and support first-home buyers. In my opinion, allowing us to start saving earlier is vital to both buying a first home and ensuring retirement savings.”

Mr Speaker and honourable members, Issie is exactly right. I am very proud to be part of a Government that is supporting the bill because it provides equal opportunities to our young people to start saving sooner. It will mean young people like Issie and their KiwiSaver accounts will be able to grow, and it would allow them to buy their first house or to enjoy their retirement income more comfortably.

The positive feedback for measures in this bill, particularly regarding KiwiSaver, has been overwhelming. Brendan Ward, executive head of distribution for NZ Funds says: “Including 16- and 17-year-olds is a fantastic step, a great initiative to get young people into their investment journey.” He also said, “Lifting the default contribution rate to 4 percent is smart. Kiwis aren’t saving enough.” Robyn Walker, tax partner at Deloitte New Zealand, says: “It’s good to see some active thought given to improving retirement savings. When small changes are compounded over a working life, they can make a material change to what is available at retirement.”

The feedback does speak for itself. No one gets to retirement wishing they had saved less. We all need to save more, and these changes will make a significant difference when people retire, allowing them to go off and enjoy their retirement how they want.

I also want to touch on Investment Boost. New Zealand needs to get the wheels of economic growth turning. This Government wants businesses to invest in their businesses, and new assets, to hire more workers, to pay higher wages, and get more money flowing through the system. That is why this Government is making it easier for businesses to invest through Investment Boost. This tax incentive will allow businesses to immediately deduct 20 percent of the cost of new capital assets. This is all about growth. With 600,000 businesses in New Zealand, Investment Boost will allow them to have a better access to tools that they need to increase productivity.

Dylan Bentley, relationship associate at ANZ bank, said, “Investment Boost is a helpful change for Kiwis. For businesses looking to expand and boost productivity, this is a clear signal that now’s the time to invest.” Ifran Nabi, a tax adviser, said, “I think this policy is a winner. The last time New Zealand businesses had such a big win in respect of a tax announcement would have been 15 years ago.”

Investment Boost is a win for Kiwi businesses and it is a win for Kiwi workers. It’s going to have significant benefits, higher wages, more job opportunities, and we are very, very proud of a Government that is bringing in this tangible change for hard-working Kiwis across this country.

I am humbled to be the Minister of Revenue of this Government. I want to acknowledge my Inland Revenue Department officials and our Treasury officials for the significant amount of work that they have put in in preparation and supporting this bill and the broader Budget. I acknowledge my teams and the broader teams of the Minister of Finance for that work and the context in which they have played.

Together, these measures and this Budget sets a clear course for New Zealand’s economic recovery and sustained growth. With economic growth comes higher wages, more job opportunities, higher living standards, and more thriving businesses and thriving Kiwi households. That is why I am proud to commend the bill to the House and I look forward to its positive impact in our beautiful nation.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): This is, in the final analysis, a disappointing bill. There are some aspects of this bill that, of course, we agree with—there are, you know, some good things in this bill. But overall, it is disappointing and it is worrying.

Let’s start with one of the things that is a real positive in this bill. As the Minister of Revenue said, extending KiwiSaver to 16- and 17-year-olds is a very good move. We do know that getting people in earlier, enabling them to start their savings earlier, has a long, long-term benefit for them, and I think the Minister quoted Robyn Walker, a tax partner at Deloitte, who said that “Small changes are compounded over a working life and they make a big difference in the long run.” So, yes, it is a wonderful idea to get 16- and 17-year-olds enrolled and contributing to KiwiSaver.

But as small changes compound over a working life, what about big changes? What about $250 less every year in the KiwiSaver tax credit? What about the Government cutting the KiwiSaver tax credit in half? That small change, compounded over a working life—well, that’s going to work out to $66,000 less for someone over a lifetime for someone who’s aged 20. That’s the effect of compounding. This is why this is a disappointing bill. It’s a good measure on one hand, putting 16- and 17-year-olds into KiwiSaver, but then it’s taking away even more with the other hand. That is a very disappointing move.

Then there were the changes to Working for Families—so, again, some changes there. Now, here is a good change: lifting the abatement threshold up to $47,000, I think, was the change that went through. That is a good thing. It means that people get to keep more of what they receive in Working for Families before it gets abated away. A good move, but at the same time the abatement rate was lifted so that money gets taken away faster. It was described as being fiscally neutral—it could be. But here’s the other change that went through, and it is quite a significant change in that regard: this Government has stepped away from universality for children.

You know, people still talk about the old family benefit and what a difference it made to families, and one of the reasons that it made a real difference was it was simple, it was straightforward, and it was universal. We had started to work back towards that concept of universality, which we have in place for our senior citizens, and we were starting to get it in place again for our children with the Best Start payment. Every family, no matter what, received Best Start for the first year of a child’s life. It was a universal payment, and it spoke to the importance of children—the importance of ensuring that children get a good start.

A Government that actually cared about children would be looking to increase the length of time for which Best Start could be received—no questions asked. Instead, this Government has chosen to turn it around, and sitting in their own regulatory impact statement, it turns out that with this Government’s changes to Working for Families, 61,000 families are worse off. That’s one of the changes in this tax bill: 61,000 families who are worse off.

Then there’s the Government’s partial expensing of asset purchases. It’s a really interesting move, and of course on this side of the House, we do agree with trying to do something to enhance business productivity. We do agree with trying to do something around capital intensity. What that means is ensuring that firms have a stronger asset base so that then each worker is more productive. These are good things to do, but is this the right way to do it?

We found out through questioning of the Minister during the committee stage of the bill that they had not considered alternative measures. They’d considered maybe decreasing the company tax rate, but they hadn’t considered specific measures around increasing capital intensity, around ensuring that we have a better capital base. The only one they considered was partial expensing. Where was the work on increasing the low-value asset write-off threshold? That would have helped firms, and, in particular, it would have helped smaller firms. Where was the work around accelerated depreciation—not just having this partial write-off in the first year, but an overall increase in depreciation rate? That too would have given a boost to firms.

Now, a responsible Government would have done the analysis comparing these alternative measures—not just between the company tax rate and partial expensing, but between partial expensing, increasing the low-value asset write-off threshold, and accelerated depreciation rate. Those matters should have been considered, as well. But the real problem here is that this Government has not adequately considered the risks of a blowout. We have leading thinkers in this country, leading tax people, saying that there is one hell of a risk here. John Cuthbertson, who heads up the tax division within Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, has said that he is worried that there is no cap on the value of the investments that can get this tax break. That could lead to a blowout.

Sitting in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update, there is an acknowledgment that this is indeed a substantial risk. Let me read it again—it needs to be in the Hansard. Sitting on page 89 of the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update, under “Revenue”, is a specific fiscal risk, and we don’t even know how big it is because the projections are uncertain. It says, “The fiscal and economic impacts of Investment Boost are significant and have been based on some assumptions and judgments which have a degree of uncertainty. The modelled impacts use aggregate macroeconomic data as an input together with assumptions on coverage within the tax base, and forecasts of growth in investment. Variations in any of these factors can materially affect the fiscal and economic impacts of the policy.”

It’s all very, very uncertain. There is a substantial fiscal risk, and we just don’t know. This is a good move to try to increase productivity, but is this move the best move that could be made? We don’t know, because the alternative analysis wasn’t done, and what about all the risks associated with it? Then we were told that it would have a long-term benefit on wages, as well. But, again, sitting in the Government’s own regulatory impact statement, at paragraph 75: “International evidence provides mixed results on how the specific benefits of investment targeted tax measures are shared between workers and capital owners. This makes it difficult to better assess the distributional impacts.” They say it will flow to wages, but the reality is that the evidence shows that workers never get the benefit of these changes, that the benefit of changes in the last 20 or 30 years has overwhelmingly flowed to capital, and that workers’ wages have remained largely static.

It is heroic to claim that this will flow through to workers. What we do know will flow through to workers is the changes in pay equity that have made this Investment Boost possible. This Investment Boost—this partial expensing—is being paid for on the backs of the women who hold this country together. That is absolutely shameful. It should never have happened. This is a very dubious bill, and we simply cannot support it.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. You know, we consider this Budget to be a bit of a lolly scramble. But let us be clear: this bill is not only a lolly scramble but for the workers and wage earners of Aotearoa there aren’t even any lollies in there, just sadness and despair. That’s what we are seeing with this bill and that’s what I’ve seen throughout the committee stages.

Let’s unpack what exactly happened during the committee stage because, again, we are pushing this bill through under urgency. There is no select committee stage. We didn’t hear from the people of Aotearoa. Indeed, in the regulatory impact statement, only three departments were consulted: the Treasury, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and also the Inland Revenue Department (IRD). That is significant later.

Let’s start with the first part of what this bill set out to do in terms of the Investment Boost. The first issue that we have with Investment Boost is the fact that it blatantly allows subsidies for the oil and gas industry, which is fundamentally against our international obligations and also some of our free-trade agreements, particularly with the EU and the UK. This is significant risk to Aotearoa in terms of our trade potential because of the fact that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade wasn’t even consulted, according to the regulatory impact statement. That is a risk. As the previous speaker, Deborah Russell, has already mentioned, we also simply do not know the magnitude. In the impact statement it states, “There is a significant uncertainty about the magnitude of the effect and how the benefits will be distributed across the economy.”

I think the second part of this—how this will be distributed across the economy—is the crux of the issue that the Green Party has with the Investment Boost, because like we have seen leading up to this Budget, the Government will do anything other than reset the tax and be transformative in the way that we look at tax in Aotearoa, but instead will take money from the lowest-paid workers, from our women workers, and all of those by cancelling 33 pay equity claims. We are seeing the Government is willing to take money from our young people. We’re seeing the Government is willing to take money from our young parents and from our children. This is what is pushing forward this Investment Boost.

When we are looking at the Investment Boost, there was also none of that other clarity around it, which the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, has mentioned in terms of the potential blowout. All of these are a concern and that’s just one part of the issue with this bill.

Let’s talk about family credit and Best Start. What we are seeing with the family credit—yes, there is an increase in terms of the abatement rate, from $42,000 roughly to $44,900 a year. In terms of when we are looking at the gradual reduction in terms of the 27 cents in the dollar for Working for Families, we’re seeing that being increased to 27 cents, 50 in the dollar, which means for every dollar earned over the threshold of $44,900, payment is reduced by 27.5 cents, which is an increase. That means that working people and young parents who are struggling, who are doing multiple jobs, will see even less money in their back pocket. That is what we are seeing when we look at the family credit because it is adjusted possibly to the level of the Consumers Price Index, but it is not adjusted to the point that our communities and the people of Aotearoa actually need.

Let’s talk about Best Start. We saw in the latest report in the regulatory impact statement 61,000 families will be worse off with this bill. Not individuals—61,000 families will be worse off with this. For a Government that likes to talk the talk about how much they care for the people of Aotearoa, how do they justify this? There is no justification for this.

Lastly, when we are looking at KiwiSaver, this is also incredibly problematic because yes, increasing the contribution from 3 percent to 4 percent on the surface might seem like a good thing; expanding it to 16- and 17-year-olds is a good thing and is a good move. However, as we were also trying to ask the Minister of Revenue and we have got no response, how would this affect the poorest families, and also students, and also people who are just already trying to support their families? How would this work with this Government’s own educational outcome achievement targets? It doesn’t match up and it doesn’t line up.

When we’re looking at KiwiSaver, we can talk about the fact that, yes, employers can increase to 4 percent and employees increase to 4 percent. For those people who are on minimum wage, they’re already struggling as it is. For them to match that, they have to also increase their contribution to 4 percent. Not only that, we are also still seeing employers who take the employer contribution out from the remuneration of their employee, which means that for some employees, particularly those in really vulnerable employment situations such as retail and hospitality, we’re seeing that rather than contributing 6 percent, they’re now looking at contributing the 8 percent without any signal from this Government that their salary will be significantly increased. That itself is an issue.

Second issue with the KiwiSaver that has been introduced under this bill is the fact that the Government paints this beautiful picture about the fact that yes, people will save more, but they themselves have chickened out on contributing more for New Zealanders. They themselves have halved their Government contribution from over $500 to $250. That is cowardice. If you really care about the people of Aotearoa, you would have highlighted that. If you’re going to take money from New Zealanders, you might as well come out and say it proudly. Don’t hide behind all of this other smokescreen that is being created trying to say that what you’re doing is a good thing. In fact, it is not for the people of Aotearoa.

The final issue when it comes to the KiwiSaver readjustment that we see here is the fact that the Government has once again created more blue tape for people to try and get rate reduction if they say, “We simply can’t afford to pay 4 percent.”; “Well, here’s an option for you to remain at 3 percent, but you have to do it every single year and you have to keep on reapplying for it.” As we have seen with the shambles that was FamilyBoost, introduced by this Government last year, $14 million was done through admin. We haven’t even got out of this Minister how much this Kiwi boost and this rate reduction application is going to cost IRD. That wasn’t even something we were able to get out of the Minister during the committee stage. But what we do know is more and more people may potentially opt out of KiwiSaver because it simply is too hard for them to try and apply for a rate reduction on a year-to-year basis.

This is a Government that does not care for New Zealanders. This is a Government that doesn’t care about young people. Again, if you really care about the 16- and 17-year-olds, if you really think that they’re going to be working, they’re going to be contributing to KiwiSaver, let them vote—let them vote. Instead, what we are seeing is once again cosmetic changes and smokescreens have been created.

In our Green Budget that we have announced, we want to see a variation, a transformative change to the way we look at tax. The Investment Boost that the Government and the Minister said is based on the US and Canada—guess what! They have a capital gains tax. Canada has a form of windfall tax. We do not even have that. There is no barrier to investment; there is no risky investment in Aotearoa. Under our Budget, we’ll see a transformative tax system that benefits the people of Aotearoa. We see that benefiting hundreds and thousands more families because we will increase that abatement rate and we will increase what people get. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it’s a pleasure to stand on behalf of ACT and talk on the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2)—the first bill in what was a very responsible, sensible, and future-looking Budget that was delivered yesterday. ACT is very proud to be standing on this side of the House with our Government partners and actually putting in place a Budget not just for today but for the future, and this bill is a very important part of that.

What we have clearly signalled to New Zealanders in this Budget is this: we understand there are still cost of living pressures, we understand that we need to invest in the public services they expect, but we also need to put in place the foundations for a growing economy to deliver higher-paying jobs and wages and also get our education settings right.

Of course, in this bill we see the Investment Boost, which is an amazing policy to actually get our productive sector, allow them to invest in capital, make sure we’re actually building the jobs and getting the technology to address things like our productivity deficit under control. So that’s great.

There’s obviously some important changes in KiwiSaver, which I think across the House everyone universally accepts that New Zealanders need to be saving for their future and some important changes being made, including some very important Working for Families changes.

What I’ve taken out of the very positive Budget that this side of the House and this Government has delivered is exactly that: it’s a positive Budget by a positive Government which actually is looking to grow New Zealand, ensure we have the right skills, we have actually a productive sector and deliver for businesses and families and farms and actually make sure our children have the skills and education for the future.

It’s very clear to see, when you look in the Budget, where we’re investing the money that things like this bill are delivering and ensuring we get in place. That’s in health, that is in the Investment Boost, that is in defence, and that is in education. This Budget is a Budget for today, but it’s also a Budget for their future and I commend it to the House.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in this third reading of the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2). I think it’s oozing from the other side of the House—I think they like this policy; I think they like Investment Boost. I started to hear them warming up to it during the committee of the whole House—and also the KiwiSaver changes. I think, deep down, they wish that they had come up with those ideas that this Government has come up with in this Budget.

I want to say, firstly, congratulations to our finance Minister and our Minister of Revenue, who have put this together, and congratulations to the Associate Ministers that have worked on this. Investment Boost: starting today, investing into capital; 600,000 businesses, 50,000 farm holdings across this country—they get can get out and start investing into capital, into productive assets that will employ people, that will change the dial, that will put out economy back on track.

This is a flagship policy. This is something we will come back into this House—2025: what did this Government deliver? They delivered Investment Boost. It is, as I said yesterday, a game-changer. This side of the House thought of it; that side of the House is going, “Oh no, they’ve come up with something.” A game-changer for business; a game-changer for our economy. And what a game-changer in KiwiSaver for our young people, 16- and 17-year-olds, those contributions from the Government and their employer. They’re going to be able to get their first home sooner. They’re going to save more. We’ve come up with it. Support us. You should be on board with this. I commend it to the House.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to share our—and show our—fierce opposition to this bill, the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2). This is a Budget that attacks the poor. It attacks Māori, attacks beneficiaries, attacks parents. It’s the “no BS Budget”, the “no fudge-it Budget”, the “yeah, nah Budget”. The Budget that is built on the suffering and misery of our people. E te iwi: we represent 1 million people of this population.

Hon Member: No, you don’t.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP: We are 20 percent of this population. Yes, we are; we are 20 percent. The total Budget, $188 billion, and this Government only sees Māori to be represented at 0.27 percent of its annual Budget. Wow, that’s all we’re worth to this country, yet this country was built on our people.

Let’s talk KiwiSaver. KiwiSaver, the scheme for our kaumātua and kuia. They’ve worked hard. They have been part of a scheme that is there to be available for them to access at age 25. They’ve worked hard so that they can—

Todd Stephenson: Twenty-five?

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP: Age 65, sorry—65, I correct myself. Oh, we’re good at maths. We’re good at mathing. Age 65—but our people don’t live that long. We don’t even get to access our KiwiSaver. Yet this Government shared yesterday that they’re going to halve their contribution because they’re saving—saving on the backs of our people. We will no longer get the contribution of $500. It’s been halved. We’re now going to get 25 percent of that. It’s now gone down to $260—$260. What is that worth?

KiwiSaver was meant to be there for our retirement. It’s meant to be there so that we can have access to the future—the future of our mokopuna. But we will no longer live to access the KiwiSaver. That’s why it’s a “yeah, nah Budget”.

E te iwi: we’ve got a cost of living crisis. I don’t hear anything from this Government to help us improve the cost of living.

Hon Member: It’s because you’re not here.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP: Oh, I’m here. We are not hearing anything that is going to improve the cost of living. Our people are starving. They’re lining up to the food banks. There’s no increase for food banks. There are 2.8 million people living under the minimum wage; that’s 59 percent of this population. There are 3.2 million living under the living wage; that’s 68 percent of this country. The cost of living pressures are hard. They’re stressing our people out. Our whānau are struggling out on the streets. It’s increasing mental health issues, it’s increasing health issues, but we see no increase in pūtea for Māori health in this country, again; another part of this “yeah, nah Budget”.

They say parents are going to get an increase of $14 a fortnight. That’s $7 a week. That doesn’t even buy you a pound of butter. That doesn’t help with the bread and butter issues that our people are facing. It’s $11 for butter. It’s $12, apparently, in Te Kao. We’ve got an increase in homelessness. There’s 113,000 people homeless in this country. There are 246,000 vacant houses. Te Pāti Māori want to introduce a vacant house policy; we’re going to make sure that our whānau are housed. E te iwi: this is a “yeah, nah Budget”. We’re getting nothing from this Budget of 2025.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on this bill—

Hon David Seymour: Here we go.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Yes, here we go, indeed, Mr Seymour. There’s been a lot of rhetoric from this Government about how they are the better economic managers, about how they are going to create productivity, how they are going to create economic growth, and how they are going to attract capital to New Zealand. But what’s actually been the net result of their 18 months of misgovernance? Minus 0.5 percent rate of annual growth.

They keep attacking us, on the Government benches, for degrowth, but they are the ones that have actually practised degrowth. This Government continues to perpetuate that outdated economic thinking, which has led to New Zealand’s worst economic growth in recent memory. What is that outdated economic thinking? It’s that outdated economic thinking which this Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2) confirms. And what is that? It’s that outdated thinking which views extractive institutions as the primary way to generate economic growth. That was thoroughly debunked by the Nobel Prize winner Daron Acemoglu last year—forgive my pronunciation of his surname. His central thesis was that extractive institutions, like this Government is seeking to perpetuate by their handouts to landlords, by their handouts to fossil fuel companies, by their handouts to the sorts of institutions that have actually led New Zealand to the state it is in now, versus the economic institutions that actually generate real growth.

Let’s go through how this bill actually doesn’t do what they’re saying that it does. It is really telling—really telling—in their example in this legislation that they referred to “Thomas”—“Thomas” who bought a yacht. How relatable to so many New Zealanders, who are out there buying yachts! Now “Thomas” with the yacht, he’s bought a yacht for $100,000—I don’t even know; I think yachts are more expensive than that. That thinking and their example of “Thomas” shows who they’re actually governing for. They are governing in the interest of these extractive institutions, they are governing in the interests of overseas buyers, who they are selling our conservation land to. They are not governing for the needs and interests of everyday New Zealanders. That’s why they’ve gone silent. They’ve stopped heckling because they know I have them dead to rights. They know that they can’t defend what they’re doing. We know that this bill and their policies leave 61,000 families worse off. We know that in the regulatory impact statement, it states that the changes to KiwiSaver and the options that were considered will decrease disposable income, reduce profitability, and may lead to—I can’t actually read my handwriting, but it leads to bad things.

I just want to reflect the echoes of what has already been said before: this Government is, actually, fundamentally serious. The halving of the contribution rate actually shows that they are prioritising—they have this idea that they want to increase savings for people, but in reality, the reducing of the Government contribution rate will disincentivise people from saving; that’s what the regulatory impact states. And it’s more likely to reduce the saving rates of people that actually can’t afford the higher contribution rate. Look, we’ve heard that they can just opt out of that, but as we’ve heard in the contribution from my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, they’ve put in a sea of blue, black, and yellow tape to actually stop people from being able to automatically opt into the higher rate. They’ve put in a lot of barriers for people. That fundamentally shows—and we’ve seen this in the Budget, we’ve seen this in the Budget bill—who they’re governing in the interests of.

You’ve heard my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, and you heard from my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick yesterday, talk about what the alternative vision is. Instead of having bills like this, and instead of having an economy that prioritises the extractive institutions, instead of having an economy that prioritises overseas investors and landlords and tobacco companies, we could have an economy that invests in people and planet through the Green Budget. Kia ora.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): How disappointing it is that this Opposition is voting against these fantastic KiwiSaver measures. They go on about losing the Government contribution, but that Government contribution is being reduced by $5 a week—it is being reduced by $5 a week, and that is being swamped by the fact that we are lifting the default rate from 3 percent to 4 percent. For the average person at the end of their working life at retirement, their nest egg will be more than 20 percent larger. For a working parent on the average income, their nest egg when they get to 65 will go from $397,000 to over $500,000. They will be over $100,000 better off, and you’re arguing about $5 a week. That’s how ridiculous it is.

The KiwiSaver changes, the lift of the—oh geez, I’m losing my place here—our changes to KiwiSaver will lift the value of the nest eggs by over $3.3 million, “$3 million Kiwis”. Labour brought in KiwiSaver, and they are now voting against this. The Green Party voted for the 2006 legislation, and they are now voting against this. They are voting against 16- and 17-year-olds being able to join this scheme. It’s an absolute disgrace. I commend the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the lunch break. The House will resume at 2 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 12.56 p.m. to 2 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Good afternoon, members. When we broke for the lunch break, we were up to the third reading of the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2), and we were up to call No. 8, which is the Labour Party call.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to come back and spell out exactly why it is that Labour is not supporting this bill.

Just before we broke for the lunch break, we were hearing from one of the Government speakers about what a boon $5 a week would be for people. Now, we cannot underestimate the compounding value of $5 a week, what that means to people, and they were talking about the cost to that. But I want this House and I want all of those watching to put that against the cost that this Budget comes at, and that is nearly $3 billion a year for working women and the way their work is valued in this country. Because that is what is paying for these Budget initiatives. Let’s not make any mistake: it is the money that has been set aside in the Budget that this Budget lays bare is gone, that has been cut by this Budget to make sure that our hospice nurses, our Plunket nurses, our care and support workers—that these people’s work that hold up our country is valued and paid fairly—that is what is paying for this Budget.

This is being touted as the centre piece of National’s so-called growth Budget. It lost favour even before the Budget was released; the finance Minister was having to try and find new names for the Budget, couldn’t carry through with the charade of the “growth Budget” moniker that the Prime Minister had come up with—that was even too much for her to bear. So let’s have a look at what lies at the heart of this so-called growth agenda for the Government. This legislation that we’ve been debating is the first piece and does three things. It puts in place the Investment Boost, it makes changes to the KiwiSaver regime, and it makes changes to Best Start.

Let’s start with the Investment Boost. This is a $6 billion policy that the Government has said sits at the heart of what they want to achieve for New Zealand. Now, on this side of the House we’ve been very clear: we are not opposed to measures that will increase productivity. We just want some certainty about them. We want to know they’ve been fully evaluated. We want to know that if we’re going to spend $6 billion, and maybe counting—we’ll get back to that—if we’re spending that much money on lifting New Zealand’s productivity, then it’s the best use of $6 billion, because $6 billion is no small change. But what we saw in the documentation with this legislation is it was only compared to cuts in the corporate tax rate.

Now, I think anybody knows that there is more than one way to skin a cat and more than one way to lift a country’s productivity. The fact is that we hadn’t looked at all the options before $6 billion was spent. Let’s be very clear: what this policy is offering is 1 percent growth on GDP over 20 years. So let’s be very clear of the extent of the ambition that this Government has for the growth of the New Zealand economy. Furthermore, the documentation that came with this legislation did warn that of the wage growth that could accompany that 1.5 percent over a 20-year period, you couldn’t be sure how much that that would actually accrue to workers. They also couldn’t be sure how much of the growth benefits would actually accrue in New Zealand, given that this was a bill that is targeting foreign investment as well. So it’s not even sure if New Zealanders are going to benefit by the economy and wages and growth growing by these small amounts over a 20-year period.

One of my real concerns about this measure is the lack of thought that this Government has put into it, so much so that one of their own Ministers had to come back to the House last night just to check that this was uncapped and could apply to everything. Now, in what we call the BEFU, the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update, it lists the fiscal risk, and that is this policy, the Investment Boost. Because this Government—I think inadvertently—has made this policy so broad that nobody is sure how much it’s going to cost, and we’re not going to know until the first round of filings are done.

Now, it is listed as a fiscal risk. But we, in the last 24 hours, have had some of the country’s top tax experts coming out and warning about the fiscal risks to the Government’s books from the lack of work that this Government had done around this piece of legislation. When Shane Jones couldn’t believe his luck, he had to come back and check with Ministers before he confirmed to media, because he couldn’t even imagine that his Government would have left the country that exposed with that big a blank cheque that had been out there. But he did seem pleased to think that this was the return to Muldoonism that New Zealand First has always been after.

Let’s have a look at the other measures in this bill and why Labour cannot support it. If we have a look at the changes to the KiwiSaver regime, we freely agree that giving access to KiwiSaver for young people, for 16- and 17-year-olds is a good thing. But what we cannot support and will not support is the cuts to the Government contribution. This is halving the amount that the Government puts in. We’ve heard all kinds of nonsense from Government members that people are going to end up with more. They’re going to end up with more because it’s their own savings, but what they are missing out on is the Government partnering with them on that.

Now, if we add up in compound what someone who is 18 or 20 years old at the moment is going to miss out on by the time they retire, it’s $66,000 that they would have otherwise had in their KiwiSaver account had the Government contribution remained in place. Let’s look at that for a 30-year-old: it’s $30,000 that they’re missing out on had the Government contribution stayed in place. We do have concerns that this is going to mean that young people are missing out and this is needed.

Let’s also have a look at the changes to Best Start. I think some of the things that the Government hasn’t addressed—this is a bill that has gone through under urgency. We’re on to the third reading. It’s 24 hours since the country learnt about it, but what is going to happen to the marginal effective tax rates? We get some clues to this within the documentation with the legislation that, actually, it is going to raise the effect of marginal tax rate of 9,000 people in New Zealand. Who are these people? Who are the people whose tax is going to increase? What are the distributional impacts of that and how is it going to occur? What we do know is that these changes are going to mean that there are thousands of families who are going to be $43 a week worse off.

We’ve had the Government tell us that some families will be $7 a week better off. That’s $7 a week. As it’s been pointed out multiple times, it’s not even enough for a block of butter. But let’s put that $7 gain against what could have occurred if pay equity funding had not been cut and if we had paid fairly our hospice nurses, our Plunket nurses, our care and support workers—the very people’s pay that is being cut in order to pay for this Government’s Budget. If you want to talk about relieving the cost of living, about making lives better for working people and working families in New Zealand, then do not cut $3 billion a year that was destined to increase the wages of people, because that is what is paying for this Budget. That is what lies at the heart of it and why Labour will not and cannot support this piece of legislation.

We’re into the third reading. I would like to see a Government Minister take to their feet and tell us how they’re going to protect New Zealand against what I think could be an inadvertent door that has been left open for a massive blank cheque for the New Zealand taxpayer. How are we going to ensure that even more cuts aren’t going to be required to pick up the tab for this? Because the risks are there, they have been signalled, but the Government will not respond to it. It is their job; it is their responsibility.

This is a Budget that really has been about a Government showing its priorities, showing its choices, and showing where it puts worth. And what it has told the women of New Zealand is they are worthless. That is what this Budget tells them. For the women of New Zealand, this will go down in history as the “worthless Budget”.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Oh, it’s so good; it’s so exciting. I just had to remind some of my colleagues to silence their phones because they are off the hook. We’re hearing from tradies and business owners. It’s just such good news about the 20 percent depreciation. Apparently, it can even work for earthquake strengthening. My colleague here Carl Bates has just had a text message from a manufacturer saying they can now invest an extra half a million dollars this year because of the incentive. It’s so good—it’s so good. And we know now—I just saw Shamubeel from Simplicity KiwiSaver say contributions will increase by $1,014 per annum because increased contributions more than offset subsidy reductions.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is the centrepiece of a Budget that is being paid for by women and young people. Listening to the committee stage over the last two days, I have real regret that the Taxation Principles Reporting Act, which was repealed last year, wasn’t in play as we could have had a proper analysis of some of the equity impacts of the bill, including things like vertical and horizontal equity. But, no, this Government doesn’t like transparency around taxation and instead they have tabled a bill that purports to lift capital investment, increase productivity, and facilitate economic growth and then has a bunch of cuts paid for by women.

Let’s look at what this bill is saying it purports to do, because the partial deductions, first of all, are made on an assumption of increased productivity. They are deemed to be, we heard—I think the Minister of Revenue said he had a feeling that it was about right at 20 percent, and we have not seen the cost-benefit analysis of that. We have quite rightly interrogated what the blowout would be if there is going to be a huge capital investment, and yet also there is the absolute lack of ambition from this Government to say that it is going to increase productivity by 1 percent over 20 years.

The point was made by the Hon Damien O’Connor about the massive leap of faith that a capital investment was going to lead to increase productivity, and we did not see any value-for-money comparators. For example, what would the similar amount of investment have done if it was put into people, into training, into keeping young people in training and tertiary institutes, or into upskilling? None of that comparative was made, because we did not see the evidence of it.

The was just a very brief analysis, and actually quite a flawed process in my view, with all due respect, where we did not get to ask questions in some of the sections—for example, why commercial buildings qualify for the partial deduction and what would happen for Airbnb units, and so on. We did not even get to pose those questions before amendments were voted on.

Then we turn to the Best Start deductions and means testing, which is effectively going to put 61,000 families back by $43 a week. Now, let’s be clear that for a family with two adults working full time and on the minimum wage, they will no longer be eligible according to the calculations. That is quite a horrendous shift. When we think about the first 2,000 days, the excellent work that’s been done by the University of Otago near my electorate on the value of investing in children, that doesn’t make sense—also the case when we consider that what the bill could have done was increase incomes for a family or recognise front-line social service providers. It could have invested in early prevention and early investment when we consider that New Zealand is No. 32 out of 36 wealthy countries when it comes to the child wellbeing statistics, which is nothing to be proud of, and that a third—27 percent—of our children go hungry. The Ministry of Social Development’s own research shows a strong correlation between this payment and attendance at school, something that this Government says it is committed to and is putting extra money into in another part of the Budget. It simply doesn’t add up.

Finally, when we look at KiwiSaver once again, 66,000 young people will have less for their retirement. The Retirement Commissioner has queried the equity of it, and in fact I would like to quote from something she said this morning, “I would at least have liked to see some of the savings from reducing Government contributions be applied to serving these groups where we see the widest gap.” And she is talking about low-income earners, Māori, Pacific, women, and people who are marginalised. None of the savings from that will go to them. Instead, what we’re hearing is that there will be a kind of lidless ability for big business, mining, farmers, and others to be able to get a partial deduction, once again paid for on the backs of women. We saw some really tricky things around being able to even access an ability to stay at the 3 percent mark for those who would like to. Clearly, the Government doesn’t care about working people. I do not commend it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Before I take the next call, can I just say to members on my right that if they want to have a full-volume conversation, please, take it out into the lobby.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): In summary, what have we learnt from this debate? This is great policy: Investment Boost, KiwiSaver—jointly, this will make a difference to New Zealand’s productivity, economic growth, and savings challenges. It’s such great policy that Labour loves it: Barbara Edmonds loves it, Deborah Russell loves it, and Megan Woods loves it. The public love this policy, but yet Labour is going to vote against it. We are focused on what matters to Kiwis; we are focused on growth. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Let’s call this Budget for what it is: it’s a slap in the face for working Kiwis. It’s a Budget written by a Minister of Finance and a Government that are out of touch with everyday Kiwis. It isn’t economic leadership; it’s political cowardice, and it’s self-serving and it’s short-sighted. Every line of this Budget shows who this Government is really working for, and it’s not working Kiwis.

This Government campaigned hard on the cost of living crisis, and the number one issue still for New Zealanders is cost of living. And there is absolutely nothing in this Budget to help Kiwis struggling to put food on the table and pay their weekly bills. That’s the most glaring betrayal in this Budget: the complete failure to address the cost of living crisis. That is why this Budget has not been well received by the people of New Zealand. Groceries, rent, electricity, rates, everything is going up, and there is nothing in this Budget to help alleviate that pain being felt every day in New Zealand.

What did this Budget give them? Let’s take a look: $7 a week—$7 a week. That’s to help 142,000 families. That’s the flagship in this Budget to households under pressure. Let’s be honest: it’s not even going to cover butter or cheese—anything substantial. But do you think those members opposite have even thought of that—how far $7 is going to go for the average New Zealander? And while families get seven bucks, businesses are able to claim $6.6 billion in tax write-offs. This Government is showing exactly who it values, and it is not the working families of New Zealand.

Best Start—let’s take a look at that. If you thought the first part was cruel, take a look at what is being done to new parents. The Best Start payment was to support families with newborn babies, and that is now being cut back and income tested in this legislation today. For families earning a combined income of above $97,000, they no longer get that. That’s not wealth. We’re talking about two average incomes: two teachers, two nurses, a tradie and a retail worker. Those people no longer get help with affording nappies, formula, and extra expenses when you have a newborn baby. “Tough luck, you’re on your own.” is what this Government is saying to those people earning that amount. In the same breath, this Budget has delivered $15 million in additional funding for private schools.

KiwiSaver—let’s have a look at that, because what the Government has done is not just short-sighted, it is shameful. The Government’s contribution to KiwiSaver is being slashed in half. As we’ve heard, that has an impact of $66,000 at the end of the line for an 18-year-old today or $30,000 less at retirement for a 30-year-old after they retire. Let’s be clear: that’s not an accounting change; it’s a direct attack on working people’s retirement. It is those people that are doing it even tougher under this Government by doing that to KiwiSaver, and further to means testing KiwiSaver as well.

Working for Families: 61,000 people are no longer entitled to Working for Families under this Budget, which is meant to help with cost of living. What happened to the catchcry of the squeezed middle that were going to be helped out by this Government? They went really hard out by saying, “The squeezed middle needs some extra assistance.” Well, the squeezed middle just got squeezed right out on this Budget.

They’re not getting any assistance with the change of those KiwiSaver levels. Already around the numbers of people withdrawing their KiwiSaver due to hardship, we’ve seen record numbers over the last few months of people drawing down their KiwiSaver because they can’t afford to make the personal contributions. Well, by decreasing the Government contribution and increasing the personal contribution, that just makes it even more likely that New Zealanders will be put under strain and be required to withdraw their KiwiSaver due to hardship, which makes it even harder down the line for New Zealanders to be able to retire comfortably. This is a short-sighted Budget that does not consider the long-term impacts to hard-working Kiwi families who are just trying to get by. It is a raid on the future of every New Zealander who’s doing the right thing: saving a little every payday and hoping they’ll be able to retire with some dignity. It puts that dream even further out of reach.

Investment Boost—let’s take a look at that. We’ve had some good analysis come through on that. Treasury analysts have had a look and said that at a $6 billion cost, GDP, increasing productivity—great, but will it really do it? One percent growth in GDP over 20 years. That’s crazy—1 percent over 20 years. And a 1.5 percent increase in wages. And we don’t even know if that’s going to go to workers or not.

Then, on top of that, as we’ve had the opportunity to take a little bit of a look at the documents, the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update has it listed as a clear fiscal risk, because there is no idea on what the cap is. In fact, we have the Minister of Finance not knowing what the actual cap is. Shane Jones didn’t know what the cap was and he had to come back downstairs and figure out what was going on last night. And so we have, with all New Zealand’s 500,000-plus small businesses, if each of them made, say, a $10,000 claim under this scheme in investment in computers or machinery or hardware, that pretty much blows the scheme—that’s the whole scheme gone; let alone if you’ve got a couple of billion-dollar oil rigs or commercial developments swallowing up most of the money. It’s noted as a fiscal risk because there is no cap on it. The Minister of Revenue, and Inland Revenue on top of this, are yet to decide whether earthquake remediation to existing commercial buildings will be included or not—we don’t even know that. All of those buildings that need earthquake remediation, we still don’t know whether they’re eligible for this investment boost for that work to be done. Looking forward to seeing if that will happen. And if it does, that’s $1.7 billion of that money swallowed up.

Now we’ve taken a look at that, let’s take a look at what’s happening with the overall view of what it means for the future of New Zealand. It really provides no hope, because it provides no vision of where we’re heading as a nation. What we’ve been told is “This is efficiency and this is fiscal discipline.”, when we all know what it is: it’s austerity. It’s a Budget that’s not just out of touch; it’s designed to make people give up. Give up on saving, give up on getting ahead, and give up on the idea that this Government might actually be on their side, when quite clearly it’s not.

And the worst part of this is the spin that we see put on it. Nicola Willis can stand up and claim that families are going to be better off after no meaningful relief, no protection for savers, no support for parents, and taking money off women. That’s what this Budget is going to go down for. You show me one family that got the $250 they were promised in the last Budget—just one—because there is not one family that this Government can show what their last promise delivered. Even the finance Minister can’t show that there’s one, because, behind the spin, behind the slogans, there’s nothing for Kiwis in this Budget, just like the previous one.

This Budget is a disaster for working people, and Labour will oppose it at every stage of the way. We believe that Budgets should be about building up, not tearing down. This Government has chosen to balance the books off the backs of working women, young people, and working families. They’ve taken the future earnings away from hard-working people. They’ve cut the KiwiSaver contribution, they’ve means tested KiwiSaver, they’ve means tested Best Start, they’ve cut 61,000 from receiving Working for Families, but New Zealanders can see through it, and we will make sure that they don’t forget this. We will stand with working people and we will oppose this Budget at every step of the way, because it will be remembered as the “Inequality Budget”, that took money away from working New Zealand women and put it into places that drove no productivity whatsoever.

NANCY LU (National): As the final Government MP to stand in support of this bill, let’s put it on record what New Zealanders really think—Opposition, listen up.

On record today: Dunedin manufacturers call this tax deduction a great step forward. Business New Zealand says that Investment Boost will drive capital upgrades. The Employers and Manufacturers Association says that it boosts productivity and puts more in workers’ pockets. BusinessDesk says that Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, has just given businesses the green light to invest. And there is more. On KiwiSaver, the Retirement Commission says that the changes could make savings last 30 percent longer. Radio New Zealand reports that 80 percent of the KiwiSaver contributors will benefit. Pie Funds calls it a game-changer for retirement.

Let’s be clear: the Opposition is voting no to business growth. The Opposition is voting no to more retirement savings. But this Government is backing business, backing savers, and building a stronger economy for all New Zealanders. So let’s make it law.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Regulatory Standards Bill

First Reading

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): I present a legislative statement on the Regulatory Standards Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I move, That the Regulatory Standards Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill, and at the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 23 December 2025.

I’m extremely excited to introduce the Regulatory Standards Bill to this House. This bill is a crucial piece of legislation for improving the long-term quality of regulation in our country and, ultimately, allowing New Zealanders to live longer, happier, healthier, and wealthier lives. But the political left have got themselves in quite a lather about the Regulatory Standards Bill. The hard left Auckland law professor Jane Kelsey helpfully explains that the bill is “basically about the protection of private property and wealth.” Well, Jane, now you’re catching on. Funnily enough, she seemed to think that her comments were a criticism, and, judging by some of the commentary I’ve heard from the other side of the House, I’m not sure that they know what’s in the bill, but, thankfully, my job is to explain it.

In a nutshell: if red tape and regulation is holding New Zealanders back because politicians find it politically rewarding to tie them in red tape, then we need to make regulating less rewarding for politicians by putting more sunlight on their activities. That is how the Regulatory Standards Bill will help New Zealand get its mojo back. This bill turns the explanation from politicians’ “Because we said so.” into “Because here is the justification, according to a set of principles.” And to the rest of my colleagues across the House: if you want to tax someone, take their property, and restrict their livelihood, you can, but you’ll actually have to show why it’s in the public interest. The bill demands you show your working.

It aims to reduce the amount of unnecessary poor-quality regulation by setting a clear standard for what good regulation should look like through a set of principles in primary legislation, and those principles of responsible regulation focus on the effect that legislation has on rights and liberties, as well as establishing processes for good lawmaking. In setting the standards this way, the bill seeks to bring the same level of discipline to regulating—that is, placing restrictions on—the use and exchange of private property as the Public Finance Act brings to public spending or the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act brings to monetary policy, with the Ministry for Regulation playing a role akin to that of the Treasury. We have a Public Finance Act to protect the taxpayer, and I guess you could say that this bill is to protect the citizen.

The need for this bill should be clear from the way New Zealanders are expected to comply with regulations when going about their work and everyday life. Those regulations should be clear if we are going to be able to produce more in the time that we each have on earth.

This bill will codify the principles of good regulatory practice for existing and future regulations, with some exclusions. The principles are focused on the effect of legislation on existing interests and liberties; the rule of law; liberties; the taking of property, taxes, fees, and levies; and the role of courts and good lawmaking processes, including consultation, problem definition, and cost-benefit analysis. In essence, there are key questions lawmakers will need to have answers to when progressing regulation—what problem are we trying to solve, what are the costs and benefits and who pays those costs and gets those benefits, what restrictions are being placed on the use and exchange of private property—and when regulation does not meet those standards, it’s reasonable for the public to expect lawmakers to be transparent about that fact.

For the bill to have an impact on the overall quality of regulation, it won’t be enough for agencies to simply say that they have considered the principles. If that was the case, regulatory impact statements, the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, and select committees would have solved the problem by now. This bill is necessary because it will require agencies to publicly confirm that the legislation and its processes for developing it have been reviewed for consistency with the principles and to summarise any inconsistencies with the principles, and the results of this assessment will need to be published in a consistency accountability statement that is required by the law.

Where an inconsistency is identified, the bill requires a statement from the responsible Minister to explain why they believe that their purpose justifies breaching the normal rules. Now, I want to be clear that this will not prevent lawmakers from making or retaining legislation inconsistent with the principles. Parliament will remain sovereign and it can pass whatever laws it chooses—we’re not changing that—nor will it prevent secondary legislation being made if it’s inconsistent with the principles. That can continue. There’s no statutory requirement for inconsistencies to be changed. The law doesn’t grant any specific rights to anybody. The discretion will remain with the responsible elected Minister, and there may well be justifications where the public accepts that there can be good policy reasons for inconsistencies. But—but—what it will do is raise the amount of scrutiny and the political cost of being that person making bad laws that are inconsistent with the principles.

The default setting of Governments for too long has been to regulate first and ask questions later, and this bill is designed to reset that culture of lawmaking. It insists on questions being asked and answered before rules are imposed about the impact, about the cost, and about the necessity, because good intentions aren’t good enough for this country of ours.

If members of the public believe legislation is inconsistent with the principles, they’ll have the ability to raise those concerns with the Regulatory Standards Board. The board will be made up of individuals who have the appropriate knowledge, skills, and experience. The board will be appointed by the Minister for Regulation, and that board will be able to independently consider the consistency of proposed and existing legislation in response to stakeholder concerns at the request of the Minister for Regulation, or on its own accord. The board will be able to make non-binding recommendations to the Minister responsible for the legislation or, in the case of a bill, to the relevant select committee. All of this will improve the accountability and transparency of our democracy when laws are being made that affect people’s rights, and the reasons for any inconsistency in relevant documents will be made publicly available.

Finally, the bill will also increase regulatory quality by supporting the Ministry for Regulation in its oversight role by allowing it to request information in aid of a system of regulatory sector reviews, and also to report on the overall regulatory management system, so that we make it a norm to stand up for people’s rights to go about their business and get things done without being needlessly tied up in red tape.

At the heart of this law is a desire for New Zealand to get its mojo back by changing the incentives for politicians so that we don’t have the kind of red tape and regulation that is holding us back in three different ways. Number one, it adds too much cost to the things that people would like to do. Too often, we have builders saying, “It takes me twice as long to get permission to build the thing as actually build it.” We get educators who say, “All I wanted to do was unleash the creativity and potential of young minds, and all I actually do is fill out papers for the Ministry of Education.” We get people in finance who say that they spend more time asking, “What sort of cat food do you buy?” than they do actually helping people achieve financial independence, which is what they went into business for. Too often, those costs make life more expensive than it needs to be, and that is part of the reason we have a cost of living crisis, which is really a productivity crisis.

But then there are the things that don’t happen at all, and the reason that they don’t happen is because people have been burnt too many times by the expensive regulatory costs that they’ve seen in other activities. I’ve talked to people who have developed properties for 30 years, and they say, “People come to me with propositions now, and I just say no, because it’s too hard.” It’s the things that don’t go ahead that have left, among other things, a generation of young New Zealanders feeling they have no pathway to owning their own part of a property-owning democracy.

Finally, all of that accumulated red tape and burden is seriously affecting our culture, and I often tell the story of the climbing walls where I understand Sir Edmund Hillary first learnt to climb in the Epsom electorate. Today, they are walled off with a sign saying, “Do not climb”. Our regulatory culture is not just adding cost to things we do and stopping us from doing things that might have otherwise given people a more affordable, happier life. It’s actually dulling our culture to the point that I’m not sure that we could any longer produce a Hillary, because it is killing the can-do Kiwi attitude and the number eight wire dream that we like to see in ourselves.

For all of these reasons, I commend this bill to the House, and I hope it will be a great piece of New Zealand’s infrastructure so we can all live better lives. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I call the Hon Dr Duncan Webb.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Matarau—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise this point of order under Standing Order 269. I’m concerned that the departmental disclosure statement for this bill has failed the transparency test under Standing Order 269. They did not properly consider the ways that this bill undermines the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—aka UNDRIP. UNDRIP is an international agreement which Aotearoa is still a party to, and the bill we are discussing today—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I interrupt the member. This is not a point of order. This is a debating point, and I suggest that you use this in your allocated time slot.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: So it’s not a point of order—sorry, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’m not taking it as a point of order.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: OK.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): It’s a debating point.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Ka pai.

Hon David Seymour: Could I speak to it, Madam Speaker?

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: But it’s not one—you don’t have to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I think I’ve just dealt with the matter. Apologies to the Hon Dr—

Hon David Seymour: God, you’re an idiot.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): —Duncan Webb. Would you like to start again.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order, Madam Speaker. I have just heard the Minister to my left—David Seymour—call a member of Te Pāti Māori an idiot. I ask that you ask him to apologise and withdraw.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I didn’t hear the comment. I was busy—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): No—excuse me, I’m speaking. I was speaking to a member on my left. If that is the case, then I invite the member to give us opinion about that.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Well, I think it’s rather rich for Te Pāti Māori—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): No, what I’m asking is: was that comment made?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Oh, was it made? Not towards Te Pāti Māori; just to anyone in the area.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): It’s a bit frivolous. Look, let’s settle it down. I’ve already called the Hon Dr Duncan Webb a couple of times—so, apologies to Mr Webb.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Musterer—Green): Point of order, Madam Speaker. Sorry, Madam Speaker. I ask that you actually treat this seriously. The words that I heard myself were “You are an idiot.” It cannot—sorry—be a generalised statement when the words being used include a “you” towards a very specific individual.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): And I made it very clear that I did not hear the comment. I have asked the member what he actually said. He has given us his feedback. In this House, we have to take members at their word, and so—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, if I may—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’m speaking. So as far as I’m concerned, that is the end of that. Fourth time lucky, Mr Webb.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Oh, and lucky—well, it’s not really lucky because this bill is an exercise in vanity. It’s wasteful and it’s unnecessary. The irony of this Government bringing a bill about good lawmaking principles and process when only last week they were rushing through—covertly—pay equity legislation which stripped hundreds of thousands of women of rights, of claims that were in process does not escape me. It’s absolutely shameful.

What does this bill say? What are the values that underpin this bill? What are the values that David Seymour wants to bake into our constitution as if it was the Public Finance Act? Property, individual rights, freedoms, equality, limited levies and taxation, costs and benefits. Just one thing: there is no cost-benefit analysis of this bill. The stupidity of a bill pitching for costs and benefits when it can’t prove its own cost or benefit is just outrageous.

That’s what the bill says. What doesn’t it say? What’s the bill silent on? What about our fundamental constitutional principles and values? Does it mention the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? No. Does it mention the Treaty of Waitangi? No. It’s entirely silent on whether a law with a good lawmaking process is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Does it mention privacy? No. Does it mention discrimination against minorities? No. Does it mention international obligations? No. It is a cherry-picked right-wing neoliberal agenda that we have in front of us.

Then what do we have? David Seymour gets to pick a handful of his mates to be on the Regulatory Standards Board—a board that will consume $18 million a year for nothing; a little personal coterie of appointed clipboard-holding bureaucrats. To do what? To do nothing that isn’t already being done. We already have the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, a committee which has a huge amount of detail as to what good lawmaking is. It provides much more balanced guidance than a few little principles of David Seymour’s.

Basically, what does the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee do? What does it say about appointing a board? Well, it says this about appointing a board: “A new public body should be created only if no existing body possesses the appropriate governance arrangements or is capable of properly performing necessary functions.” Do we need a statutory board to do this? That’s basically what it says. Don’t go making boards when you don’t need them. So once again, we’ve got a good principle there from the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, but David Seymour says, “No, no, I want my own personal board. My board that’s actually, also, not even independent.” The legislation as it stands says that the board is accountable to David Seymour, appointed by the Minister for Regulation, and accountable to the Minister. It’s David Seymour’s little pet organisation. It is wasteful, it’s duplicative, it’s bureaucratic, it’s tainted with neoliberal ideology.

But here’s another thing. In clause 24 of the bill, it says this: “This Act does not confer a legal right or impose a legal obligation on any person that is enforceable in a court of law.” Do you know what that actually means? That means we’re spending all our time passing a law which isn’t a law. It doesn’t create any legal obligations. It is an utter waste of time. All it is an exercise in flag waving, and it’s a neoliberal little flag that’s being waved.

But probably the most offensive thing about this bill is not that it seeks to promote some of those neoliberal ideologies, but it’s the fact that it is yet again an attack on Māori. Once again, we have a founding constitutional document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which sets out the partnership between Māori and the Crown. In this place, this lawmaking function is an exercise of the Crown’s powers. The idea that in doing it we shouldn’t turn and look and say, “Does this meet our obligations under the Treaty?” is absolutely shameful. As the Waitangi Tribunal has said, this should not proceed. A bill of this nature in this form should not proceed.

Of course, once again, it’s bad lawmaking. The legislation says consult with affected parties appropriately. Was there targeted consultation with Māori, with iwi, with urban authorities? No, there was not. What’s worse, the pre-introduction consultation that occurred, how did they read the submissions? With a bot—with a bot. I’m not talking about David Seymour; I’m talking about a genuine AI programme. They didn’t even read the 23,000 submissions. Why? Because they’re not interested. They’re not actually interested in the fact that over 90 percent of those people said, “This is a very bad idea, bad in so very many ways.” So they swept them aside and David Seymour had the temerity to say, “There were no really good ideas in there.” You know, he didn’t even read them. No one in the Ministry for Regulation read them. They ran them through a computer.

That is particularly shameful because he comes forward as if he’s some kind of defender of democracy. Yet when people actually want to participate in the democratic process, he’s not interested because if they don’t repeat his ideas, if they don’t reflect his values, then they’re left-wing crazies. Well, you know what? This is a bill which would increase the inequity in our society. It entrenches property rights as essentially the centrepiece of that Government. If you do that, you’re going to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Nowhere in there did I see anything about wellbeing, about social cohesion, about what the effects on our society would be, about equitable outcomes for everyone, about addressing the inequalities which exist in our society. Those are the principles that I bring to this House when I think about what good lawmaking is—not simply protecting property rights, not compensating people at every turn. Essentially, those rules—the idea that you can’t impair a property right—would have stopped us fencing swimming pools. You got to compensate them because that’s an impairment. You couldn’t require landlords to have healthy homes because it’s an impairment on a property right. This kind of, “Oh, don’t limit the free exchange of property.” is absolute bunkum. It is simply entrenching inequality that exists in our community already.

The idea that this is going to cost $18 million a year to administer when we already have the Attorney-General doing Attorney-General’s reports through the Crown Law Office, the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee—he’s already got his own pet ministry, which is supposed to be doing this work through regulatory impact statements and helping with departmental disclosure statements as well. There is a raft of effective tools out there already, but he doesn’t want to spend his time making sure that those are done. Of course, the irony is this: there are all those tools out there, but he doesn’t use them himself; his own legislation doesn’t use them.

Look at the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill and look at the poor regulatory impact statement there. Look at the poor process that was embarked on there. He can’t meet his own standards of good regulatory quality, so it is ridiculous. He says one thing and he does another. The bill is a waste of time, it’s duplicative, and it’s vain.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): By his own admission, the Minister in charge of this bill, David Seymour, puts forward that this is a culture reset. What I have to say here today is this bill is not who we are as a country. When it comes to Te Tiriti, well, we saw the multitudes turn out here and around the country time and time again to say, “Toitū Te Tiriti.” When it comes to protecting Papatūānuku, our people across all corners of this beautiful country cherish her. When it comes to caring for each other, our people show up for each other when we see others doing it tough. It is these values of manaaki and justice and creating an Aotearoa that our mokopuna deserve that hold us together now and point to where else we need to go. We believe in public good. So the Green Party is strongly opposed to this Regulatory Standards Bill because it flies in the face of everything that is good and right on this whenua we call home.

Now, this bill is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation that this House has seen. It seeks to destroy the very foundation of who we are. It seeks to remove Te Tiriti o Waitangi from lawmaking. This bill would penalise Governments by way of Government payouts if corporations’ property is impacted by any rules, including those designed to safeguard nature and people. It would put private property above protecting the environment or public safety or indigenous rights. And it is the ideological push of a minor party with a leader who we’ve just seen this morning is quite triggered by brown women in this House, with a PM unable to show true leadership against such a threat. Once again, we have a Prime Minister unable to uphold the fabric of our country. Once again, we have a Prime Minister neglecting his duty of care for the safety and wellbeing of the people and our living systems.

This guise behind this bill, the pretend rationale, is to improve lawmaking, which is, like this Government’s Budget, BS. This country already has a robust check in place for lawmaking. It has existed for decades and is considered, actually, one of the best checks in the world when it comes to non-partisan lawmaking that aligns with our founding values. It is dangerous for this Government to be overriding the non-partisan nature and the already well-established norms of good lawmaking through what is called the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee—LDAC. We have talked in this House already. We’ve got something. It has been working for a long time. We do not need this bill. It is not solving a problem. It is pushing an ideological culture reset, one that is not us.

Now, one could ask: how do we know what our country values when it comes to lawmaking? Well, history has seen this bill’s predecessors defeated three times already over the past couple of decades—defeated, because it was always clear to the masses that this bill rips apart who we are. It has failed every time so far because the legal consequences of this are nasty. This bill would put our country into a stranglehold—and I use the term purposefully, because this is legislative, constitutional, and political violence in favour of benefiting corporations and the uber-wealthy few.

What I’m trying to make clear here is that this bill has failed three times already because no one was careless enough to let it through. Elected representatives, time after time after time, were smart enough to stop it. To our Prime Minister, let me be clear: is this really the mould, the legacy, that our Prime Minister wants to leave? Finally, someone careless enough to let this bill through, a PM, who sought power at the cost of our nation’s constitutional heart. Wow. It is not too late for the PM to save his reputation from this. This scenario has the vibes and visions of countless leaders who were able to protect this Parliament from this sort of legislation until this current Prime Minister. There is still time. There is still time for him to stand against the evil of this legislation.

I am really proud, instead, that the Greens continue to offer the direction for where our country needs to be pointing, for upholding the very things that we value the most, that our people all across the country are very clear on. We care for each other; we care for mokopuna. We can have a different system that stops upholding the rights of the few. I’m proud of the Green Party for what we offer and for voting against the Regulatory Standards Bill. Thank you.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Very happy to support this first reading of the Regulatory Standards Bill and for it going off to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for submissions and for the scrutinisation of submissions. I just want to correct one thing, and the perception over here is it’s something that David Seymour’s come up with overnight and on the back of an envelope. But, as one of his previous press releases acknowledged, the long, long work put together goes right back to the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers. It goes right back to Dr Bryce Wilkinson’s book, which laid the groundwork constraining Government regulation. It goes right back to the Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce that refined this very bill back in 2009. It’s got a very long and considered history, and so I congratulate the Minister for Regulation. We look forward to the submissions, and I commend the first reading.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak also in support of the Regulatory Standards Bill at the first reading. As has been said, this is part of a process of reviewing regulation as it impacts—and we all know there are regulations that impact every aspect of our lives, every aspect of business. This is something that is an important process that has been a long time in the making and development, and we look forward to the process of the select committee and scrutinising the work that will be undertaken on this bill. Therefore, New Zealand First support the Regulatory Standards Bill. Thank you.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Kia ora. You would be not a fool to actually listen to the Minister for Regulation speak to this bill and think he was speaking to something else, because not once did he mention “Treaty”. And let me be really clear to our whānau out there: that was on purpose.

What we could be doing is spending my whole five minutes speaking to this side here; actually, I’m not going to. I’m going to remind ourselves what we’re going through. The Treaty principles bill tried to rewrite the Treaty principles. This bill is actually trying to replace them, but worse. Over here—I’m trying to learn not to point—we have a National-led Government that is going to support it. Luxon and National are happy to vote against the Treaty principles bill, but wait, whānau, they are in staunch support of this one. Why?—

Hon Casey Costello: Point of order. Madam Speaker, I’ll just raise the point that has been raised several times on the opposite side of the House: referring to a member of this House by their surname only is disrespectful.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Further, the member who recently resumed her seat also said that my earlier comments were deliberately intended to be targeted at Te Pāti Māori. I’ve told the House that they weren’t, and she’s got an obligation to take me at my word. Now, to accuse the Minister of misleading the House is disorderly, and she should withdraw and apologise, unless of course—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Thank you. No, that’s enough—that’s enough. That’s not relevant.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Appreciate it, thank you. What we have here, whānau mā—because that’s who I’m talking to. Just to explain what we’re going through, we have National, again, Prime Minister Luxon, who has supported and will continue to support this bill. And the reason why: if you look through the whole 37 pages—which I encourage that you don’t—the silence on the impact for Te Tiriti is on purpose. The bill promotes equal treatment before the law, but it opens the door for Government to attack every Māori equity initiative. It weaponises future Governments to challenge Treaty-focused laws. It refers to individual rights over collective rights of tino rangatiratanga. It deliberately—deliberately—cuts through who we are as people.

And the reason why we need to be questioning the National Government—because remember they polled their absolute worst during the Treaty principles bill—is that we have, again, the denial, and I know they’ve been pulling that Trojan horse, but I actually think it’s sneakier. We’ve got a party that is setting out to make sure that they use this as part of the deregulation agenda to increase the corporate exploitation of Aotearoa. It is really simple. There’s nothing else to explain about this bill. What we have—and sadly—is a Prime Minister in a National-led Government who struggles to understand what Te Tiriti o Waitangi means, what the opportunities for Aotearoa’s future means, and in fact has relegated economic desperation and economic development reliant on taking Te Tiriti o Waitangi out of the game.

I think we need to also be saying to our people and remind them: whānau ma, how many times do we have to show them what we’re made of? Eight percent supported the Treaty principles bill—8 percent. There were 300,000-plus submitters. We actually broke the system. The computer systems that actually sit there and work around the select committees couldn’t handle the influx of us.

The Treaty principles bill was just a warm-up. Don’t get discouraged by what this is about. Remember the difference is we have a National Government, a National Party, a National-led Government, a Prime Minister that is supporting what ACT are saying, and we need to focus on that, whānau mā. When you get up there, and I know you’re so great at submissions, and you get our kōhanga mobilised, our kura mobilised, our marae mobilised, our communities mobilised, our rangatahi mobilised, our kaumātua mobilised, our tangata Tiriti mobilised, remember that this is a Government that is fighting against unions who are protecting women. They don’t have a problem with Te Tiriti. This is a Government that has taken off any type of tautoko for rangatahi—they don’t have a problem with Te Tiriti. This is a Government that is sitting there fighting non-Māori surfers trying to fight against seabed mining—they don’t have a problem with Te Tiriti.

What we have is a Government that has a problem with every other New Zealander that wants to live in peace, that lives in dignity, and lives with pride, because we are a Tiriti-centric nation unlike every other colonised country. The poor Islands has spent 700 years getting out of that whole regime, our Welsh whānau with their whole reo, our Scottish whānau. We are lucky because, as the last of the nations colonised, we have Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and it is not something that we will give up easily.

So whānau mā, you have a few months to mobilise and get ready to make sure that you understand what’s at risk here, and eyeball—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The Speaker is not.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Sorry. Eyeball, through the Speaker, those National MPs in your backyard whose Government and whose leader is supporting this ridiculous, repugnant, revolting, anti-Tiriti, anti-Māori, anti-diversity Government.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): It’ll be great to actually talk about the bill. Some critics have attacked this as being an ideological scheme to shrink the Government. On this side of the House, we actually don’t think that’s a bad idea. We believe in less Government. Let’s take this to the select committee and see what we can do.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Well, there you go. That’s another example of how seriously National treats this Government—clearly intimidated by the leader of the ACT Party who runs the Government, as we all know. I did say some time ago that the leader of the ACT Party was the most dangerous politician in this country, and this bill is another example of that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I get the member to refer to the bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Absolutely. Thank you for that reminder, Madam Speaker. But as the Minister for Regulation knows, this is all about the ACT philosophy. So I absolutely denounce this vile piece of legislation, support all the kōrero from the Māori Party and the Green Party and, of course, our main man on it, Duncan Webb—excellent. Absolutely—absolutely—on the mark.

The Regulatory Standards Bill represents a dangerous and threatening assault on the values of this country, opening up legislation, as everyone has pointed out, to corporate influence. Just in simple terms, those are David Seymour’s mates. It’s a fringe libertarian perspective that gives private ownership—as he well knows—a level of distorted supremacy to trump Māori values, Māori concerns, environmental concerns, and community concerns.

It’s really sad that the Minister goes down this track. He likes to refer to his Māori background, but no one in his Māori background wants to refer to him. They’re not interested in him at all but he loves to quote his Māori background as it suits him, even though they want to throw him out of the tribe.

The Waitangi Tribunal ruling that this extreme legislation should be immediately halted was born from the concern that it was so far-reaching in its power and so over the top in its agenda that there was every way that it was going to breach the Treaty. There’s been no meaningful interaction with Māori and no meaningful debate with the wider public. I don’t know why the Minister is scared to consult with Māori. Maybe he’s scared of the response; I would imagine that’s the case. No meaningful engagement with NGOs or academic critics.

The Regulatory Standards Bill is another bad-faith argument from Mr Seymour, just like the Treaty principles referendum bill was. This is “Treaty principles 2”.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I really enjoy Mr Jackson’s speeches, but to say that another member is motivated by fear or lacks courage or that they are arguing in bad faith—I believe both are out of order and not the kind of references that members should make in the House.

SPEAKER: I’m sorry, we were just in a changeover for the Chair at the time, so I didn’t entirely get all of that. But, Mr Jackson, you should refrain from referring to any member of the House in the terms that have been described by Mr Seymour.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, thank you for that reminder, Mr Speaker. I know that Mr Seymour’s very sensitive so I will refrain from that.

Hon David Seymour: Well, no, I’m sorry, he’s trifling with you, Mr Speaker.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I will refrain from that, him being so sensitive about things.

SPEAKER: No, just stop there. That’s sort of like adding kind of a layer of insult, isn’t it?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: All right, I’ll just continue with my speech then.

SPEAKER: You know I’m a very tolerant man when it comes to you, Mr Jackson.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes—yes. OK, thank you, Mr Speaker. What I was saying is this is “Treaty principles 2”—this is what our people are saying. This is what the brilliant Jane Kelsey said: there’s no real debate, there’s no good-faith engagement, just another trick for ACT to slip past the public before the public know what is happening. The tribunal’s urgent hearing on the impacts of the Regulatory Standards Bill on Treaty rights is so damning that the tribunal has ordered it must be stopped immediately as, as Mr Seymour knows, its creation would challenge the Treaty in a dreadful way. The tribunal found that the Crown has breached the Treaty principles of partnership and active protection by failing to meaningfully consult with Māori before Cabinet made decisions.

The Regulatory Standards Bill is really a David Seymour right-wing fantasy, as we all know. It will allow corporations to put their property rights ahead of our human rights; it would allow polluters to pollute no matter the environmental costs; it would allow the wealthy to dictate to the community; and it would allow corporate interests into the very heart of our democracy.

I just want to know why Mr Seymour hates working together with Māoridom in our own country, yet he falls over himself to allow corporations and their property rights inside Parliament. What the general public don’t know is that it’s going to cost $20 million. This is not a nation for corporate elites to dictate their property rights to us, the Parliament of the people.

New Zealand First should be ashamed of supporting this bill. I thought Winston Peters would oppose it—they support good law, but the Regulatory Standards Bill is another bad-faith law promoted for the few, not for the many, and New Zealanders will not accept this managing of our democratic values so private property rights are promoted over our common good. We are citizens, not clients.

NANCY LU (National): Many New Zealanders have called for a regulatory responsibility law to help restrain the growth of unnecessary and poor-quality regulations, so let’s take it to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Let’s hear from the public. Let us scrutinise this bill. I support the first reading.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): We have heard from the public on this bill. There was a consultation process at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—a huge number of submissions received, and 0.33 percent support of this bill. We have heard already from the public on this bill; there is virtually no support for it. Despite that overwhelming rejection, that Minister for Regulation has had the gall to bring it to this House and to demand that this House spends their time on it, when a mere 0.33 percent of submissions supported it. What an exercise in vanity.

Not only is it an exercise in vanity, ignoring what the public have already overwhelmingly said about this bill; the analysis says that it is simply not needed. Drafts of the bill, of the Cabinet paper, were circulated to other Government agencies, and let me read from the regulatory impact statement about what those other agencies said about the bill. It says: “The main themes from the departmental feedback included some broad support for the objectives of the proposal, but a general preference for these to be achieved in other ways, such as strengthening regulatory impact analysis requirements or Parliamentary mechanisms.” They said that this bill would just duplicate existing mechanisms. It was not going to add anything to what we do in this House, in this Government, around regulatory equality—yet another sign that this is just a vanity exercise.

Let’s look, then, at the content of the bill. Why are people rejecting it? Well, I tautoko what my colleagues have said around the Treaty of Waitangi and the extent to which Māori have simply been ignored in the drafting of this bill. It’s astonishing. This bill wants to set up a system so that there can be a voice to Parliament keeping a check on the regulations and on the reviews. We have that voice already; it’s called the Waitangi Tribunal. That’s what they do for us. And yet these people reject the Waitangi Tribunal, but they are a voice to Parliament checking us and keeping us in check in terms of how we deal with our country. We have that coming through in our regulatory impact statements and the Legislative Design and Advisory Committee. We have these voices already. There’s that kind of content in it.

But then there’s the underlying philosophy here. This is a bill which sees people only as individuals—just as individuals. There seems to be no notion of society, and it’s as individuals that we hold property and as individuals that we interact with the Government. But let me give an example. We have magnificent kahikatea trees on our property at home. They are wonderful trees. Kahikatea grow in swamps, and they have great, spreading roots that hold the tree in the ground. The great, spreading roots of our kahikatea trees, which we treasure; they are beautiful on our property, but they hold the hillside together for our neighbours as well. If we took those kahikatea trees out, the impact would not be just on us—and not just obviously on our flora and fauna, on the whole ecology around our home—but it would be on our neighbours, too. We are not mere individuals. We exist in a society. We have a complex web of relationships, and this bill ignores that complex web of relationships and treats us just as individuals. Think of the kahikatea tree and what it brings to us as a neighbourhood, as a community. That is the sort of analysis we need to have.

One final point. This bill talks about not unduly diminishing a person’s liberty. But what kind of liberty? Freedom from, or freedom to? It’s really important. Liberty is enabled by the things we do for each other—like a health system, like an education system. It is enabled by a welfare system which enables people to live with free choices. And it is a bit rich of that Government to talk about liberty when they have people in it who want to box people into narrow, little definitions of male and female, of women and men, when they will not allow people to be themselves, when they want to get Māori out of our Parliament, where they will not recognise the importance of Māori. This is a thin, attenuated version of society, and we should utterly reject it.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Most people would agree that regulation is important but that regulation often does more harm than good. One more important person, moral philosopher, quoted in the 1700s, Adam Smith: “The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce ought always to be listened to with great precaution and ought never to be adopted until having been long and carefully examined.” It is with that scepticism that we support this bill in the House, and my message to the public is clear: submit to the Finance and Expenditure Committee; I look forward to hearing your submissions. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Regulatory Standards Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): I move, That the Regulatory Standards Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Bills

Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): I present a legislative statement on the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon CHRIS PENK: I move, That the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 23 September 2025.

I move that this bill be read a first time because, quite simply, it takes too long, in this country, to build anything. I’m proud to introduce the bill, therefore, on behalf of the coalition Government, because it meets a commitment in the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement to permit granny flats to be built without a building consent and also a resource consent, besides. But the subject of this discussion and debate is on the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill.

Before I talk to that bill and what it will achieve, I’d like to thank my New Zealand First colleagues for their consistent advocacy on this particular policy priority, as well as, of course, our colleagues and friends of the ACT Party for their equally consistent support of disproportionate red-tape removal in the interests of a more productive building sector—and society and economy more generally.

It currently takes too long, as I’ve said, and is too expensive. By way of illustration, it is now 40 percent more expensive to build in this country than it had been in 2019, and it is 50 percent more costly to build a stand-alone house in this country than in Australia. Kiwis simply want to build a simple stand-alone dwelling on their properties without a building consent, under the Building Act, because, while providing independent oversight and assurance as to building quality, the consent process currently adds thousands of dollars to the cost of a build. We don’t consider these costs to be proportionate, certainly relative to the benefits. Instead, we consider that lower-risk building work is better managed through stronger occupational licensing regimes and liability settings—more on those another day.

Removing regulatory barriers and taking a common-sense approach to the consenting system is a critical part of increasing housing supply for Kiwis. Making it faster and, again, more affordable for so-called “granny flats” to be built will provide families with more housing options, particularly for grandparents—as the informal name would suggest—but also people with disabilities, young adults, and workers in the rural sector, among others. We know that increasing housing availability also directly translates to lower living costs for our communities.

We received significant feedback on and support for these proposals through public consultation. To the nearly 2,000 New Zealanders who submitted on the bill last year: we have listened to your feedback. The changes proposed today deliver the outcomes you want, while striking the right balance between enabling housing growth and managing risks.

The terms of the proposal in this legislation: well, first, it will allow homeowners to build small stand-alone dwellings, up to 70 square metres, without a building consent, so long as they meet three core conditions. The first is that the building have a simple design, as will be defined, and meet the Building Code. I emphasise that the current requirements of the Building Code are not being undermined, are not being lowered; we are simply amending the way in which those can be verified as having been met. Second, building work is carried out, or supervised, by licensed building professionals. Third and final, homeowners must notify their local council before they commence building and once it’s completed.

To ensure that consent-exempt granny flats are indeed simple, lower-risk buildings, the bill provides that they must be new, stand-alone, single-storey dwellings of 70 square metres or less. To manage the risks associated with more complex building work, the bill also provides that granny flats must be built in accordance with a set of simple design specifications—for example, the dwelling must be constructed with lightweight materials for the roof and framing, and only contain simple plumbing and drainage systems. To allow for future amendments to these simple design specifications, the bill introduces a power to add, remove, or amend simple design requirements by Order in Council. This will ensure that any technological advances in building methodologies can be enabled for consent-exempt granny flats and that any unintended consequences can be addressed in a timely manner. We want that flexibility, as well as obviously providing strong guidelines at the outset.

I’d also add that it’s important that tradespeople, who can build without a building consent, have proven that they are skilled and competent and can be held to account when things go wrong. They must be responsible in the sense of the way that they conduct their work, but also able to respond in the event of failure. As such, the bill provides that all work associated with a consent-exempt granny flat must be carried out by authorised professionals. To ensure that future owners, insurers, and other interested parties can have confidence in the quality of the building work, the bill requires authorised professionals to provide records of work to homeowners for all work associated with a consent-exempt granny flat. Owners will be required to provide these to their local council, and this will provide a lasting record of what work was completed, who completed it, and when. This clear and lasting record will provide confidence to insurers and lenders of what has been built, support any resale of the property, and support the remediation of any defects that may arise in the future.

On a related note, I will point out that in order to ensure that homes are built in locations that are suitable for construction, along with the public utilities needed to support them, the bill provides that owners must notify the relevant council of their intention to build a granny flat by applying for a project information memorandum, or PIM—I’ll call it PIM from here on in, please. This may also support councils to plan for and manage assets, including water and transportation services. The PIM is already something provided for in the Building Act, and many people who submitted on the proposed changes last year supported including the PIM, in some form, if the building-consent exemption was to progress. Clearly, it is progressing; we’ve included it accordingly.

To support owners in making fully informed decisions regarding their building work, the bill also requires councils to issue supplementary advice when issuing a PIM on whether, first, the proposed work is likely, unlikely, or unclear as to whether it will meet the core conditions of the exemption—for example, the maximum floor area being limited to 70 square metres and the single-storey requirement. Second, whether the construction of the dwelling is proposed to occur on land that is subject to a natural hazard. We do need that awareness. Third, whether there are any applicable council bylaws that may impact the design, construction, or location of the proposed work.

I do want to point out and emphasise that it is important to note that this is advice only. In the accompanying PIM, and in those other criteria of advice that need to be provided, where relevant, homeowners will still have the freedom to determine how they respond to the advice, and it will be up to owners to utilise this information to build a compliant granny flat. I must also highlight that the effect of the bill is to apply a more common-sense approach to the consenting system. This is the broad context in which we are making these changes. We are removing regulatory barriers where they aren’t necessary, while ensuring that Kiwis can remain confident that their homes will be safe, durable, and healthy. Accordingly—and with gratitude, again, for the support already provided in respect of this policy, to our coalition partners and further afield—I commend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Labour supports removing barriers to building more houses. We want more houses built. We want more people in warm, dry homes. So this is something we’re willing to support at first reading and through to select committee. I was distracted by the questions from the ACT Party because of course the Labour Party supports these measures to remove barriers, and we have a real interest in building more houses, unlike members of this Government who have continuously bulldozed through reforms when sensible reforms to the Resource Management Act would have seen more houses being built right now. There are plenty of things this Government could be doing to see more houses constructed, but instead they have picked a path where more houses have been held up in the building. They have cut a billion dollars from emergency housing—and on the false pretence that demand is reducing.

If this bill, which is designed to create more houses because demand is rising, can possibly be useful, then you would assume that the Government also knows that there is demand for housing and that the demand for public housing is also growing. This is a bill which is about solving a problem of those people who need to be housed and reducing the cost in the housing market to make sure that more can be built and that there can also be more housing available for rent.

So this speaks into that, and we believe in that, unlike ACT members who in this very Budget debate have put forward alternative views about what is happening in the housing market and all to justify the Government’s cuts in the Budget as a whole.

Speaking to this bill, it important for us to understand as a House the questions that we’ll be raising, because there are a number for the select committee stage, particularly around how we think this will play out in our major cities where demand for housing is very strong in some particular areas, and how this will affect not only councils that are losing the ability to consent and stop this kind of work that they had before but also the professions that now are expected to absorb the liability and the responsibility for creating granny flats and smaller dwellings, as they will be sort of the final sign-off.

I want the House to really understand that the same rules here will apply to builders and to plumbers and to gasfitters. It’s an unusual thing in our building system. We’re talking about creating small dwellings here where licensed professionals are expected to be the sign-off mechanism. But the sign-off mechanism for those things is quite different. When you’re a licensed building practitioner, you go through a long period of education where you learn the ropes and you’re able to practise on your own account for things like residential building. And it is really right that we trust these professionals to be able to sign off on that kind of work.

But there’s been quite a different system for plumbers and gasfitters because they operate in quite a different context. If you’re a plumber, you’re making a connection to a plumbing system underneath the ground where there will no longer be a check from a council to see, “Well, if we have the right sorts of pipes under the ground for 50 houses on a block, but now with granny flats there are going to be another 50, and so there will be 100 there. What are we connecting into and is it appropriate for the infrastructure that is below the ground?” The same kind of mechanisms that apply to the builders will also apply to the plumbers, but in a very different context. It’s the same issue with gasfitters. Gasfitters have been regulated in quite a different way in our building system because when things go wrong with gas, it is very difficult to respond to the problems. These are very, very high-risk situations when things go wrong. But we will not have a layer of consenting which existed there to keep people safe and to avoid disaster.

We’ve also got some outstanding questions around how things like stormwater management will be considered in situations of flooding in very dense developments. We have seen the issue of stormwater run-off being a real problem for people living in these homes. It creates real risk for people in these homes and the surrounding area, and we want to make sure that there is a mechanism by which we can plan for our communities, because it’s not just about how this affects individual homeowners but it’s how it affects their neighbours and how it affects their wider communities. We also want to know how this fits into the Government’s programme and plan for housing. We cannot see how this will solve all of the problems, but we do support it because it will solve a few problems.

Mr Speaker, I will also indicate to you that I will seek to take a call on the motion to refer this to select committee—it’s a pretty novel interpretation of Standing Order 298/2 that indicates that four months is required for there to be no debate, and I will give you a chance to consider that rule before I take that call.

SPEAKER: Very generous of you.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker; tēnā koutou e te Whare. I totally understand the desire to make it easier to increase the housing supply, and we were very supportive of the medium-density residential standards and other changes that would make it easier and more affordable to allow increased dwellings within the existing urban area. However, this bill is quite different to that in that it’s not about resource consent.

The Minister for Building and Construction referred to the fact that a 70 square metre granny flat would be able to be built without a resource consent, and that part we agree with. What we have difficulty with is now taking out the building consent. Because if it is to have plumbing and electricity and everything else, there is really potential for things to go wrong and there needs to be some sort of oversight. I think especially given the issues with the leaky buildings and the history in our country of things not going well, we need some sort of oversight on building quality. [Interruption]

It’s interesting, I know that Cameron Luxton—he’ll probably speak after me—is a builder. I don’t think any of the people currently heckling from the Government benches are builders, but my brother is a builder. My brother is a builder and when I asked him what he thought of this, he said it was going to be a disaster. He works here in the Wellington region. He’s very wedded to high-quality building and he personally thought this was going to be a disaster.

The sort of questions that he raised—and he’s not the only builder in my family—is: who is accountable when things go wrong? Are the structures going to be insurable? Are licensed building practitioners or, you know, sparkies, plumbers—are they going to have to carry additional insurance to cover the possibility of their work being wrong? And there’s the issue of increased load. That’s not about what about when things go wrong in the building itself; it’s what is the overall impact of increasing the number of dwellings within a given area on things like the reticulated water systems that council is responsible for.

I totally acknowledge that there are issues with the way building consents are administered and the differences between different councils. I’ve talked to many builders here in Wellington who’ve told me that one of the biggest difficulties is they’re building in different municipalities, different district councils, and the building inspectors they get from different councils have really different approaches and have very different interpretations. I think that is an issue that we could deal with—I think there’s a whole lot we could do to improve the building consent process and to take liability away from councils.

Because what ends up happening is you’ve got extremely experienced designers who’ve mainly worked overseas who want to come in here and build highly energy-efficient, very top-of-the-line structures. They’re way, way better than our Building Code, but because they aren’t like the lowest common denominator acceptable solution in the Building Code, they find it harder to get a building consent. Like, that’s crazy. We should make it easier to get a consent for something that’s higher performing. But our whole system needs work. And just getting rid of a building consent requirement for granny flats isn’t, I think—and the Green Party doesn’t think—sufficient to address the issues with the Building Code, with the building consenting process, with productivity in the building sector, and the overall shortage of housing.

According to the regulatory impact statement, this is only going to have a very tiny marginal impact on housing supply. I mean tiny. Actually, it’s probably going to be just easier for people like me to put up a sleepout outside that my in-laws can stay in. That’s great, and I know that I would get really high quality—I want oversight, you know; I want oversight by people who I can trust. Because the truth is we do have cowboys in this sector. They’re not the majority, but it does exist and I think that is the reason we have building consents: because people want some sort of assurance and quality control.

Are the councils properly resourced to do that? Are they doing it in the best way? Could we have a different approach? I’m totally open to all of that and we are open to hearing arguments at select committee that reassure us around the questions that I raised and changing our vote at select committee. But in the first instance, it doesn’t seem to me that getting rid of this building consent is the right way to solve the problem, and it’s quite possible that the cost and the impact on our communities might outweigh the benefits.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m glad to hear that this bill is going to select committee, from the speeches that we’ve heard today, but there are some legitimate concerns that have been raised, particularly by the previous speaker, the Hon Julie Anne Genter. New Zealand’s had a traumatic experience in the past. Mr Speaker, as a fellow builder, you know that the leaky homes crisis was something that scarred New Zealand’s view of housing deeply. But this bill is making it simple what designs are exempt for a small, stand-alone dwelling.

When I think of simple design, I think of large eaves, good soffits, decent, long-wearing roofing, no complicated joints, well-tested and trusted external cladding materials—things that make a building trusted. And the thing that also goes on top of all of that is the licensed building practitioner, the sparky, the certified plumbers and drainlayers, the gasfitters—everybody who’s able to self-certify—and also, through this bill and other measures of this bill, the licensed builders, the tradies, and everyone out there who’s getting a chance to show they can be trusted. Because New Zealand needs to start trusting these folks.

Getting it off the councils, who have, through a very—you know, you look at the incentives that are on councils, it’s not surprising it’s taking them so long to sign stuff off. We’ve got to get some of those incentives aligned better so that New Zealanders can actually put themselves in places where they’re warm and dry and stable. We’re going to have granny flats, we’re going to have places for intergenerational accommodation—bringing families together, providing accommodation. Yes, fixing a small part of our housing shortage, but doing it in a way that is sound, which is sensible, which is just starting to open the door to solving our housing crisis. Small, stand-alone dwellings in good locations is what we need. I commend this bill to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): We keep on saying we do have a housing crisis. This is just yet another initiative from this excellent Minister for Building and Construction, excellent Government, to help solve that housing crisis. This is actually a New Zealand First initiative, which is incorporated into the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement, and it’s great to have these things being delivered. It’s been well signalled for a long time. It’s been through a consultation process. As the Minister said, 2,000 people submitted to that, and that’s really, really excellent. This bill has been really, really well signalled, and I’m looking forward to it going through the select committee process. There’s clearly going to be some questions which are going to be asked, and we will all be asking those questions.

This is about building consents for small, simple-design, single-storey buildings. That’s what it’s for. The council building consents—we’ve heard about that. They give assurances, but they come at cost, and they also often come at significant delay, and that often requires people to down tools and that is a real problem in the system. These small homes will still need to meet Building Code standards. They’ll be self-certified by professional people of good standing, who have done these jobs for a very, very long time.

Look, I want to tell you one very, very short story, if I can. I visited a company which produces 120 small homes a year, at the moment—

Dan Bidois: Short story.

ANDY FOSTER: —small homes—yeah, it’ll be longer if you keep interrupting. It’s 120 small homes a year, one every three days—they are all the same. They are all H1 treated. They’re all really good quality. And guess what? Every single one of them has to get the local council to sign it off with a building consent. The council official comes along and says, “Mmm, yeah, looks the same as the previous one. Here you are. Here’s a bill for $4,000.” That adds 2 percent to the cost of each and every one of those homes. That is crazy—that is crazy. And a lot of these homes are going to be that kind of home. That is about making these homes cheaper for the people who actually need those homes and I think that is a really, really great initiative. I commend this bill to the House.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou. I want to start by saying “Small mercies”, in this regard. It’s a sensible idea—dare I even say this right now, given what we were listening to, just earlier—but, I mean, I’m smart enough and we’re smart enough to recognise when it’s a good idea, and it can be applied in a very good and trusting way. And, obviously, because my shed is just about done, I’m relating to this conversation because I’ve just put up the flashings in it, and there’s caving and there’s drainage and there’s all of those things. I get that it is a very pertinent experience right now, and it’s a good thing, so I wanted to start my contribution in this way.

Dan Bidois: Will you support it?

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Ha! Yeah, no, of course, I get it. Obviously, we support it, and we support it going to select committee [Members cheer and applaud] I know! Thank you.

But can I also say this. What I want to say is that with some of the recent things that have come out in the last 48 hours in terms of the Budget, I want to make this statement too, and that is: please do not get confused, with the support of this, about some of the other things that are coming out, such as the recent funding boost of $472 million that will be invested to manage the growing prison population and its associated costs. Please don’t let that picture be another housing remedy for whānau.

This bill does make it easier. It makes it easier because it’s affordable, and that’s a good thing. Whether it was deliberate or not, it considers the way in which Māori live, and intergenerational groupings. So that’s a good thing and we’re happy with that. We live in larger numbers in our whānau, and Tākuta Ferris made reference to that in terms of the way in which we’re growing and our mokopuna are coming into this world in great numbers and at a great speed, which is fantastic.

It’s a good idea, and we support it. I just acknowledge the work that’s been carried out, certainly by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and all of those people in that space, but we support it and look forward to it going to select committee, and small mercies. Kia ora tātou.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): This is a great bill. It’s going to help improve productivity and ease our housing crisis. I commend this bill to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, the person who’s just resumed his seat is the deputy chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I thought he would’ve had more to say in this particular space, so that is disappointing, but it’s reflective of the position of the current Government. [Interruption] As—

SPEAKER: No, listen, we’re going to quieten down.

TANGI UTIKERE: —my colleague Arena Williams has said, we are happy to support this bill to select committee, albeit what seems to be a truncated select committee process; we’ll have something to say about that. But this is a move to make it somewhat easier to effectively construct granny flats—as they’re commonly referred to—or small stand-alone dwellings. So, on face value, it does look sensible, but a lot of the issues might arise in the detail, and so we look forward to scrutinising that further.

It’s important that these constructions, as we understand, will still need to comply with the Building Code. So that is important and particularly goes to the heart of that need for—I agree with the Hon Julie Anne Genter—the assurance and the quality control aspects that would naturally flow from that.

Talking about “naturally”, one of the concerns that we do have is the way in which this would be rolled out in the sense of planning opportunities, because, naturally, when you have a sense of density at play, the nature of what, effectively, comes and goes from that existing footprint is somewhat questionable. We hear a lot about the development perhaps being a simple development. That’s what it says in the documentation; it’ll be interesting to see what that actually means in practice—considerations, for example, around grey water or stormwater, where there is a density of development, and ensuring that the infrastructure that is provided by the local council, or local territorial authority, is sufficient to meet the need that would be generated as a result of that. That’s the sort of detail that is important to us and that we will be delving into when it comes to select committee.

The interesting thing with this legislation is the role that local councils will have, because it looks as though, even though there needs to be some communication with the council, albeit before construction is sought to be undertaken and then once it’s been completed, the only other role really is for the council to be a basic receptacle of information. So we’ll be interested to tease that out a little bit and understand what that is.

When it’s referred to as a granny flat, you know, the whole point of a granny flat is the intergenerational connection that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi has referred to—very common in many whānau or aiga community situations around Aotearoa New Zealand. But also, it’s interesting that it’s likely that, for some communities, that might be what this actually ends up being, but for others it might be an opportunity for them to address what is clearly a housing shortage that has been generated by the current Government. The Budget that we are talking about at the moment—and this is a piece of legislation that is in the Budget urgency motion—is around choice, and the Government has chosen to progress this under urgency. They are making or seeking to make it slightly easier to build on an existing property, and that may be because of the shortage of housing supply opportunities, the stripping away of funding when it comes to Kāinga Ora.

When I think about what that means for my own local community of Palmerston North, the only thing that this Government is building on Kāinga Ora land are bollards—bollards on Church Street, bollards on Crewe Crescent, bollards on Bolton Place; those sorts of opportunities.

This is a piece of legislation that we are supporting because it will assist with housing, which is an unfortunate situation that this particular Government has created by stripping out, in not just this Budget but previous Budgets, funding when it comes to housing need. It is important that those considerations as to what is in the bill are given full consideration by the select committee so that those issues can be addressed and teased out. You know, the role of councils is very, very important, but so is the role of those who will be undertaking this work if this legislation does pass. The nature of the work that is undertaken—obviously, the footprint there is up to 70 square metres. That is a significant piece of land, so to speak, as a footprint, particularly on smaller existing sites, and so it will be important to delve down into the details of that.

So while we support this at first reading through to the select committee, we do hope that there will be a fulsome opportunity for the community and sectors to engage with it at that particular point.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I just want to give a shout-out to our top-quality New Zealand builders. These builders consistently demonstrate exceptional workmanship and uphold a high reputation for delivering quality work. I have no doubt that they will deliver high-quality housing that meets the New Zealand Building Code. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I wanted to start by saying I’m a little bit jealous of my colleague here, the member for Palmerston North, because he’s got bollards at his Kāinga Ora sites. In Dunedin, in my electorate, I’ve just got a few temporary fences where 41 apartment-type houses were scheduled to be built, houses demolished and ready to go. But what have I got? Fences. Not even bollards.

Tangi Utikere: Shameful.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: It is shameful.

Simon Court: The private sector will build them. Sell the land.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m hearing from Mr Court that the private sector will build them. I guess that is a fundamental difference between this and that side of the House, and that we think that there needs to be good public housing in New Zealand. But it’s interesting that maybe on that side, the whole Government agrees with Mr Court, which is always a worry.

The Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill: we’ve heard that it’s about granny flats, and you imagine a granny flat—that does bring spring to mind. My husband’s situation when he was growing up, he did indeed have his granny at the back of the garden in Oamaru. She lived in a small house and would come into the main house to have her meals. He was delighted by this arrangement, she was a great grandmother from all accounts; I was never lucky enough to meet her. But the point is that these houses are houses—or they can be houses. As you know, 70 square metres is a large area. You can get houses of up to three bedrooms—only one bathroom, but three bedrooms—for 70 square metres.

So it’s important that we acknowledge that these aren’t just those little single units. They’re different from what is already permitted or exempt from Schedule 1 of the Building Code, being those 30-square-metre buildings with no bathrooms. These buildings will have bathrooms in them. They could have gas heaters. They could have a whole lot of other things. So that does have an impact on the infrastructure. It’s not the addition of one person; it could be the addition of a whole family.

Now, I have no problem with intensification, generally speaking, but we do need to plan for it. And so it is good that—

Arena Williams: Density done well.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yes, that’s exactly what we want: density done well, and it’s good that councils will be able to have development contributions and will be able to charge development contributions for this. So that means that where that extra house is causing some need for a widening of a pipe, then the councils can get some of that money from the developers, which is good.

Now, we know as well that the word “simple” is used a lot when referring to this bill. “Simple” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, and we have a schedule to the bill that is very important and I very much hope that the select committee spends a lot of time on this. I’m hopeful too that Cameron Luxton is on this committee. He just gave us in his speech some examples of what he thinks are simple, sensible things, like eaves. But we have in the Schedule—so that’s on page 19 of the bill—what simple means—well, what it might mean—and that’s a single story, it’s stand-alone, it’s new, and it’s 70 square metres, but also it’s to be made of lightweight building products, being steel or timber. It has to be at least 2 metres away from other buildings or any legal boundary. Then it’s got that the water supply, sanitary plumbing, and drainage must also be simple.

But what I haven’t seen when reading through the regulatory impact statement and listening to the other speeches is if there was any analysis into what this will mean for the carbon embedded in those buildings. Has there been any analysis to see if there is a way to get low-carbon buildings into the scheme or not? What will these simple materials be made of? What are the simple materials? Where will they be manufactured?

These are good points that Julie Anne Genter made as well about building not just to code but beyond that. But also, it’s really important that natural hazards are addressed. Now, this bill, just the Building Act side of it, doesn’t get around the need for a resource consent. Apparently that’s going to happen in a separate process with the national environmental standards, but it is so important that that councils are able to stop buildings going into areas where they will create more of a hazard. This bill does mention that, but not nearly enough.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The best part of this bill is the effect it will have on the over 50 percent of ethnics that live in my electorate of Takanini to build a small dwelling on their property, especially when our Government implements our five-year parent visa. I commend this bill to the House.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those with that opinion will say Aye; to the contrary, No. Carried. Is there a Minister? The Hon Louise Upston.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Minister for Building and Construction: I move that the Building and Construction—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry? Who called a party vote?

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Tam did, but you didn’t hear—Tamatha Paul—but I—

SPEAKER: Well, you’ve got to do it quite loudly.

Hon Willie Jackson: Court over here, Mr Speaker.

Simon Court: I heard her, Mr Speaker—I heard her.

SPEAKER: Well, it doesn’t matter how many of you heard it; I didn’t. But we’ll conduct a party vote, just for the sake of it.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 15

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Motion agreed to.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order under Standing Order 298/2 and Speaker’s ruling 86/7. The Minister for Building and Construction has indicated in his first reading speech that he intends to move a short report back from the select committee, because he’s given the date of 23 September. So I’d expect you to go to a debatable motion after that. The reason I raise it now is because the Minister gave a date of four months for the report back. In 298/2, what’s contemplated there is a calendar day, not the date that urgency extends, which is the 22nd. If the Minister was wanting to indicate a longer report-back period, he would have given you 24 September and not the 23rd.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s an interesting opinion, except for House purposes we’re still in yesterday, which does mean that the Minister was speaking as if a date was one day back; counting forward from that day, he gets his four months and one day.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Further to the point of order. Thank you, sir. The problem with that interpretation, sir, is that the select committee will not, in fact, get four months to contemplate the bill. The effect is that if the House procedure in future nominated an earlier date than was contemplated than just one day, you would end up with select committees in the unenviable position of being treated as having four months, but not, in fact, getting four months. This will be a select committee that does not get four months. There is certainly an arguable proposition that it should be six months, and that is an amendment which I understand the Hon Julie Anne Genter would put were there a debate. I’m asking you to put a debate for this motion.

SPEAKER: Well, in all reality, it’s not a motion that you’re proposing. In all reality, the select committee could meet today, once the vote is through, and we’re in the middle of that at the moment. That might have some mitigating effect, but the reality is that, quite often, the House will pass a bill requiring a particular report-back date. So the report-back date is not necessarily associated with the meeting dates of the committee, and I think that’s the bit you’re suggesting I should consider, but I’m not quite following the logic, given the history of the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Sir, you’re quite right. If the select committee was to convene today, it would be convening on the 23rd, and so then it would get four months, instead of four months and one day. That’s in line with Speaker’s ruling 86/7, which was made in 1988 by Speaker Burke, where he ruled that calendar days are the days which select committee operates by, and not relevant to the urgency motion which applies only to this debating chamber.

SPEAKER: Yes, that’s quite right. Select committees do operate to calendar dates, but the House doesn’t when it’s in urgency. So any bill that passes today is considered to have been passed on the day that the urgency motion was taken. You can’t have it all ways. If there is any dilemma here, it’s a matter that should be taken up with the Standing Orders Committee. But for today, we are in, effectively—what is the date today?

Hon Members: 22nd.

SPEAKER: 22nd, sorry, of—

Hon Member: Is it? Or is it the 23rd?

SPEAKER: Well, while the rest of the New Zealand might have moved on a day, we’re actually on the 22nd, and it is appropriate that anything that is moved today with a counter on it—in other words, a period of time—is considered from the 22nd.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Minister for Building and Construction: I move that the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 23 September 2025.

SPEAKER: There was a bit before that that you haven’t done. So what select committee are you sending it to?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: My apologies, Mr Speaker. It will be referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

SPEAKER: Sorry, Minister, I think the Clerk needs to call the bill. Sorry, the interruption here has thrown everything out of shape.

Bill read a first time.

SPEAKER: Right. And now you talk about where you’re sending it to.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Minister for Building and Construction: I invite the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill, and report it to the House—

SPEAKER: No, no. The question is, That the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Do you want the next one?

SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Sorry, this is not correct. [Referring to the paper in front of her.]

Instruction to Transport and Infrastructure Committee

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister for Building and Construction: I move, That the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 23 September 2025.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 23 September 2025.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

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

First Reading

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I present a legislative statement on the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill.

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

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

Currently, if a person has two boarders, those board payments are disregarded when the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) calculates the person’s eligibility for housing subsidies and other forms of income assistance. Currently, only board payments received from a third and subsequent boarder impact a person’s income—unless it is a person’s main source of income—when MSD calculates entitlements to assistance under the Social Security Act 2018. And only board payments received from a third and subsequent boarder currently impact a social-housing tenant’s income-related rent, unless it is a person’s main source of income, under the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992. As a result, the same accommodation costs can be subsidised more than once by the Government. This occurs when both the person making the board payment and the person receiving the board payment receive a housing subsidy for the same accommodation costs. As a result, households with boarders are advantaged in the calculation of housing subsidies over households who do not have boarders.

In contrast, rent payments received are currently considered when MSD calculates housing subsidies for a head tenant or homeowner. This means that those who receive board payments are unfairly advantaged, compared to those who receive rent payments, when MSD calculates housing subsidies. Furthermore, when rent payments received exceed the accommodation costs of the head tenant or homeowner, that excess amount is considered income, which then impacts other forms of assistance that MSD use—the Social Security Act 2018, definition of “income”. However, board payments received are not treated this way, and this advantages those who receive board payments even more.

The Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill addresses this issue by amending the Social Security Act 2018 and the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992, and their associated regulations. These changes will ensure that the housing contributions of all boarders—that is, 62 percent of each boarder’s weekly payment—are recognised in a person’s accommodation costs when MSD assess their entitlement to, and rate of, housing subsidy under the Social Security Act 2018. Housing subsidies covered by this change will be the accommodation supplement, the temporary additional support, and special benefit. The changes will also recognise the housing contributions—again, 62 percent of payments—of all boarders when calculating the income-related rent for social housing tenants under the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992, instead of just the payments of the third and subsequent boarders.

Furthermore, this bill will ensure that when the housing contributions from boarders exceed a person’s total allowable accommodation costs, or the market rent applicable if they’re in social housing, that excess will be counted as income for any form of income-tested assistance that uses the Social Security Act 2018 definition of “income”. This bill would address the inconsistent treatment of board and rent payments received. These changes are based on common sense and fairness. The changes will help to ensure that our welfare system is sustainable so we can continue to deliver housing support to those who genuinely need assistance.

To ensure these changes are implemented effectively, this bill includes other amendments. The accommodation supplement will no longer be considered a discretionary grant. This provides clarity for applicants and means the recipients will remain eligible for the accommodation supplement until they are no longer eligible, and MSD will cancel entitlement to an accommodation supplement if the recipient has not received a grant payment for eight consecutive weeks. The bill will also make clear that the portion of a property that a person lives at that is used for a person’s business will not be considered part of their accommodation costs.

Finally, the bill enables the disputes process to resolve any discrepancies. If the information provided by a person paying board or rent and the person receiving the board or rent doesn’t match, and where they do not agree on the rate of payment, the disputes process will be used to address the discrepancy. These amendments are required to ensure that MSD is no longer subsidising the same accommodation costs more than once, and to ensure that board and rent payments are treated in a consistent manner

Madam Speaker, I want to emphasise to the House that these changes will only affect those who receive board payments and not any housing subsidy paid to the boarder. It will only impact those people who are unfairly advantaged over those who receive another form of income. Most people who receive housing subsidies will not be impacted by these changes. This bill will ensure that clients are receiving the correct entitlement. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, barely 24 hours after their “brutal bully Budget”, where they literally stole from the workers to give to the bosses. After that terrible Budget of slash and burn, we see the first fruits of this sick Budget, with the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill. This is the first example of this Government’s strategy going forward, and it’s unrelenting—it’s unrelenting. Fresh from kicking workers in the face, this Government now wants to bash desperate Kiwis who’ll have a boarder living with them. It’s as simple as that. So we’re now going to attack people who actually need support. How desperate is this Government getting to find money for their tobacco subsidies, military hardware, tax cuts, and landlord loopholes, when they’re turning on uncles and aunties who take a boarder in to help pay the rent. I mean, how desperate is this Government that they have to turn the screws on people in the community who are really, really struggling.

The rules currently work to ensure that you don’t get unscrupulous head tenants, cramming people into rentals while receiving their own accommodation supplement. But this change will hit every single head tenant in New Zealand by including every boarder into the calculation. How on earth is that going to help any renter get a better rental? Surely that’s got to be the question for the House today. Does the Minister for Social Development and Employment think about this? Does she think about the type of stress that that’s going to put on different whānau? The reality is that in terms of helping any renter get a better rental, this isn’t going to help at all. If anything—

Joseph Mooney: Build a granny flat.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —the unintended consequences of this will see fewer people—as Joseph Mooney knows; he well knows—wanting to be head tenants in a rental if the bureaucratic and punishment elements of this mean-spirited amendment goes through.

The Government is so desperate to rob people to pay for their appalling Budget that they’re turning on everyone and anyone who takes in a boarder. It’s not just women, as we keep telling the public, and the public is very, very aware now of how this Government paid for its Budget, by sacrificing the women of this country. It’s not just women—although women are right at the forefront—it’s everyone. We understand the need of course to include more than three boarders in a rental for accommodation for allowance purposes. That is a restriction on profiting from slum-lording. But every single person who takes in a renter will net a pitiful amount of money from Kiwis who are already doing it tough. You don’t take in a boarder because you are rich; you take in a boarder—I’m not sure if the other side knows this because they’re not in that position. You take in a boarder because you want to pay the rent—

Joseph Mooney: How many houses have you got, Willie? You own more than me; I know that much.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —it helps pay the rent. Hustling these people, Mr Mooney, to fatten up Government revenue is disingenuous. It seems to be a theme of the Government—hustle anyone, find the funding from anywhere, whether it’s the good women of this country or beneficiaries, anything to pay for their rotten Budget. It shows how desperate that lot are that they want to make money off anyone who takes in a boarder just to help pay the rent. It’s as simple as that.

This Government doesn’t care about renters—we know that—but adding the punitive threats and punishments that will inevitably come along with this will simply see more people fall foul of the rules so this Government can penalise them even further.

The Government pretends that this is making things more fairer by including the first and second boarder into a person’s housing subsidy, but it isn’t. It’s changing the rules and then hunting down those who breached the new rules—

Joseph Mooney: “Mr Rich Landowner” over there.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —so they can penalise them further. Why make life more difficult for those trying to access housing subsidies, Mr Mooney? Why make life tough for people on Struggle Street? That’s what this Government does. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): It’s really outrageous that we’re here a day after the Budget, debating a piece of legislation that will take away from some of our most vulnerable. This is off the back of the Government admitting that they’re taking away from young people needing support, women in low-paid, undervalued work, people on the benefit who are now going to be facing cuts to benefit increases, tens of thousands of middle income earners who have children who need support, as well as now, people needing the income-related rent subsidy and the accommodation supplement to make ends meet.

There will be thousands of people left worse off as a result of this bill, and you don’t have to believe me, you can believe the Government officials that the Minister Louise Upston very conveniently ignored in her speech, who advised her about the disproportionate impacts that this bill would have on our most vulnerable. People who have, for example, one boarder would basically be left almost $92 worse off as a result of this bill. And the Minister for Social Development and Employment does not care that the ministry advised her that people affected by this bill could now be needing temporary accommodation, hardship grants, and what is worse, this Government decided to pursue this harm to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy few.

The Minister was advised, and again she conveniently ignored all of this in her speech and omitted it from her speech, that this piece of legislation and the Government massively overestimated the savings that they would be making in this bill because they rush it through without adequate consultation and analysis. And now the Government is claiming they’re going to be saving $150 million, taking it from people who often need accommodation support to give it to the wealthy few.

Joseph Mooney: When’s this man going to fight for the workers? Ever going to fight for the taxpayer?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: And that’s all in the advice from the ministry. And it’s wretched that the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, Joseph Mooney, who we could have used to evaluate this bill, is heckling and just doesn’t care. And he actually—I think he doesn’t care and hasn’t even read the advice; he hasn’t read the documents. And if he has, I think shame on him because the bill and the advice presented by the Ministry of Social Development clearly outlines the harm, the material harm that this bill will have on people, and it will push people deeper into poverty. Shame on the Government members making a mockery of Government legislation that will actually punish those doing it the toughest.

Stripping away the accommodation supplement and the income-related rent subsidy from those who have boarders will simply push up the cost of living. The Minister is completely factually incorrect in saying that these are groups of people that are unfairly advantaged. We introduced this change almost more than 30 years ago because it was recognised that due to the neoliberal reforms of the 80s, sole parents, for example, should be supported to take on boarders because there were many people who were living in public housing who were actually facing high cost of living. And by allowing them to take boarders without them losing the income-related rent subsidy, they could actually have connections, support, and be well.

Hon Louise Upston: Because they were large State houses.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: And it’s also rich that the Minister is now, finally, deciding to heckle and respond back, yet completely ignoring the fact that she will be leaving thousands of people worse off. She also happens to be the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction. And it’s so clear that in this Government Budget, child poverty will continue to be at staggering levels, potentially getting worse as a result of the Government’s decisions, because she does not care. She is the “Minister for poverty” rather than poverty reduction.

I want a Government that actually is bold and supports tenants who need adequate support. The accommodation supplement, it’s not the perfect top-up, but it’s a result of higher rents. We could be having things like rent controls, more supply of public housing—which this Government is cutting—instead of actually pushing through legislation that then strips away support from those who need it the most.

I want to go back to the supplementary analysis report that the ministry produced to actually show the Minister the impacts of her bill. It told us that disabled people would be disproportionately impacted by this piece of legislation—oh, she also happens to be the Minister for Disability Issues! I think she’s just turning her back on the very same communities that she’s supposed to be serving by introducing legislation that disproportionately affects disabled people.

Does the Minister Louise Upston disagree with the advice? Does she care about the disabled people that she’s disproportionately leaving worse off as a result of this piece of legislation? She does not care because this is the BS Budget, full of BS, targeting the most vulnerable people in our communities, and yet somehow conjuring tax cuts for those that are already doing it well, hoping—despite research showing us that in 40 years it hasn’t happened—that this will trickle down on those that are being punished right now. The Green Party won’t be supporting this bill, and we look forward to adequately scrutinising it in the committee of the whole House stage.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): I’m taking this call to support the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. It’s quite a surprise to see that outrage from that member who just spoke before. I don’t understand why they don’t understand accountability, why they don’t understand that this is an issue which we need to fix. Because this is about the cases of double subsidisation in housing subsidy for the same accommodation cost. Why, I don’t understand, does the member support people getting double subsidy? And why don’t we take into account every boarder? Because it’s going to be fair for every dollar that goes into the welfare system, and also, there might be people, those who need that money more than these people, those who are getting it in the form of accommodation subsidy. We want to see that our welfare system is fair, to both taxpayers and also those who are receiving it, and that’s why we support this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill. This bill adds any housing contribution from all boarders to the Ministry of Social Development’s calculations when assessing a person’s entitlement to the accommodation supplement. It’s an omnibus bill. The purpose of it is to ensure that housing contributions received from all boarders are considered when calculating entitlement to—and the rate of—housing subsidies, which will in fact ensure more equitable treatment of board and rent payments received. I commend the bill to the House.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou anō e te Whare. I stand in full and utter disapproval of the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill on behalf of Tāmaki Makaurau and on behalf of Te Pāti Māori. This bill is part and parcel of this Government telling New Zealanders to go and stick it; that you’re on your own; and that too bad, how sad if you’re Māori, rangatahi, Pasifika, homeless, hungry, and on the streets.

This bill is a direct assault on whānau who rely on collective living to survive. It punishes Māori for practising manaakitanga; for opening their homes to boarders, tamariki, kaumātua, or extended whānau, by slashing the accommodation supplement and treating their support systems as income. It targets our survival strategies if they are fraud, when in reality they are whakapapa in action.

By tightening income rules and increasing surveillance on boarders, it serves to divide our homes, forces people to hide their living arrangements, and pushes already struggling whānau deeper into poverty. This is not a policy of fairness; it’s a cost-cutting mechanism that criminalises poverty, undermines tikanga, and enforces a Pākehā model of isolated living that has never worked for our people.

This legislation absolutely squeezes eligibility and squashes the accommodation supplement on those whānau who are providing a roof over the heads of others. They are providing a roof over the heads of others because this Government—and, actually, successive Governments—have failed us. They have failed our people and have contributed to a housing crisis, a poverty crisis that keeps brown people homeless and incarcerated.

The members in the Government need a reality check. They need a reality check because whānau Māori and Pasifika and those on welfare support don’t have the luxury of living isolated as a whānau. We have responsibilities—intergenerational responsibilities—that mean that we provide for others. We have shared living to put a roof over our cuzzies, over our nannies, and kaumātua because this Government have failed us. Our households are multi-generational; it is a Māori way of living to manaaki and to look after our families—from kaumātua to mokopuna. This bill punishes us for taking care of each other, for living collectively, for supporting rangatahi, kaumātua, or solo parents. They are asserting that that our way of living is fraud and that we’re double-dipping, and in fact criminalising our way of living.

Let’s not forget Māori are absolutely overrepresented in poverty, and that is by design. When you target people who board or share homes to survive, you’re targeting Māori because we’re over-represented in poverty, in housing need, and in whānau-based living. This is a Pākehā-centric welfare policy that doesn’t understand how Māori live. We share homes, we support each other not for profit but to survive and uplift each other.

This bill has nothing to do with fairness. It’s about slashing welfare support. The real problem isn’t so-called “double-dipping”, it’s a fact that housing is unaffordable and benefits are too low—and this Government are telling our families to go and stick it, you’re on your own.

The solution is clear: wealth tax now, wealth tax on assets above $2 million other than the family home, foreign companies tax, land banking, and ghost house tax. The redistribution of wealth is the answer, not making legislation to protect wealth and power. Te Pāti Māori, as the Government-in-waiting, wholeheartedly do not support this bill.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent Amendment Bill—a long bill that I can probably just summarise much more simply than that. This simply prevents subsidisation of the same accommodation costs more than once. Currently, the Government is subsidising the tenant, or the landowner, and giving them an accommodation supplement, and then it’s supplementing the boarder at the same time, and that’s for the first two boarders of any boarding relationship. This will no longer be the case. There’ll be one subsidy that goes to one property for the one room that’s in that property. This is a very sensible thing that recognises the value of taxpayers to New Zealand.

We recognise workers, we recognise the contribution they make, and we manage their money carefully. Ironically, we heard from a member opposite, who is one of the bigger property owners, going on and on about the Government not caring about other people—a great irony. We heard from the Green Party what was, frankly, a load of nonsense. They just voted against granny flats. We’re about lifting people up, giving opportunity to people, helping people develop their own mana—less Kāwanatanga; more tino rangatiratanga. I commend this bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I think it’s time we actually explained what this bill did because the Government don’t seem very interested in doing that. The thing that this bill is doing is it is taking away something that was encouraged in the past. In the 1990s we had a reduction in the amount that people got on benefits—in the early 1990s. And what they decided to do when that happened was they decided, in 1992, to allow people who were in accommodation—so they were in situations where the Government was subsidising that accommodation and a lot of those people were in public housing and they allowed them to use what was, often, a bigger State house. They said, “It’s OK if you have some boarders in there. You can have one or two boarders and we’re not going to take any money off you.” Now, you’ve got to remember, though, that the amount that those people were getting was very low and it remains low to this day—much lower than is possible for most of us in this House to live on. For example, a solo mother now gets $494.80 to live off every week. I challenge anyone in this House to give that a go.

There is an accommodation supplement on top. But I want to make the point that while we talk about “double-dipping”, what we’re actually talking about is something that previous Governments have agreed was a good idea because it allowed people to have boarders. It meant that we filled up our State houses. It meant that people were able to just add a little bit more to what was available in families. I take the point of the Green member that this is the same Minister who’s responsible for child poverty reduction and we are very likely to see a correlation here because it’s the solo mothers who have a boarder or two that will now have to pay more money and will lose money from the Government. So they lose about $100 a week. It’s $132 in some situations and it’s $100 in others. There are people who will be losing a lot more than that.

And there is this great document—and for anybody who’s watching, because we aren’t going to go to a select committee on this, this is the one to read. This is an objective report. It’s a supplementary analysis of the situation. It goes through, and it does as good a job as it can looking at this. And do you know what it says? It says, “The risks associated with these changes include a disproportionate impact on marginalised communities.” And do you know, Madam Speaker, who they mean? They mean—in this debate—the disabled, they mean youth, they mean Pacific, they mean Māori, because those are the communities that are marginalised. And they go through, in the analysis, and they talk about the impact on those groups, and they are actually really specific.

In the committee stage we will be talking through, and we will be asking some questions about the impacts on those groups because those are the groups that will lose, in this Budget, $100 or $130, on an average. There will be people in those groups who lose more. And I ask this House whether that is a responsible thing to do, when this Government was elected in because it said it was going to address a cost of living crisis. These are the very people who are most at risk in the cost of living crisis. They are hurting out there and this Government’s Budget hurts them a lot more. Because to lose $100 when that is the benefit that you’re on—you’re on $494 if you’re a solo mother. You’re going to lose $132 if you have two boarders. Is that a good thing, at this time? Is it really where this Government told the public, when they voted for them, they were going?

One of the things that this report talks about is the risks that are there because of this, the unintended consequences. They talk about the fact that people just won’t have boarders anymore and that will mean that we have more people on our waiting lists. They talk about the issues that it means for this group of people who will actually be so poor they’re coming back and asking for hardship grants. That’s what we’ve got to talk about today. We’re under urgency, but we will be in this side of the House holding this Government to account as best we can.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill addresses specifically the situation where one boarder pays for that boarding opportunity and the person receiving that payment both claim the housing accommodation supplement. That is what this bill seeks to address. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. When the New Zealand public need to assess what this bill does, it actually comes down to really simple question: will people be better off or worse off because of these changes? Sometimes, we can get caught up in all the detail, and the Government can try to justify things and put, what they think is, quite a compelling case. But no one is going to be better off because of this bill. It’s quite simple: everyone that this bill affects will be worse off.

In the broader context of housing, this bill actually makes things worse. It’ll be harder for people to afford their housing, and it will discourage people from boarding. If people are discouraged from boarding, there are fewer accommodation options available and, potentially, people won’t have accommodation. When you look at the figures, and some people could be affected by up to $100 a week, that could well be the difference between them being able to afford their rent and not—and if people can’t afford their rent, then they don’t have housing.

In a context when homelessness is increasing at unprecedented levels, when we have the Wellington City Mission saying things have been worse than they have ever seen, when, just today, there was a story in the press that said that in Canterbury, homelessness is growing at levels that they’ve never previously seen, where changes that this Government has made to emergency housing is literally locking people out from accessing the accommodation needs that they have—people in genuine need—this just makes things worse.

Now I would have thought that when the Government is looking around for savings to try and make this Budget add up, surely, they could have looked elsewhere. Because we’re talking about the people that need the most support. No one chooses to board because they want to; they choose because they have to, and now those people, through whatever circumstances that they are in, the best accommodation situation that they can find is to board with other people, and now the accommodation supplement, which they rely on, in some cases is going to be reduced up to $100 a week. That is a massive cut—$100 a week. It doesn’t matter how much someone earns, a hundred bucks a week is massive. When that is—

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: There’s always laughing on that side of the House when we’re talking about poor people becoming poorer. I’ve done, I don’t know, two or three speeches so far around this Budget, and every time I’ve done something and mentioned that this makes it worse off, the people in the Government laugh, every time.

Tangi Utikere: Disgraceful.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: It actually is disgraceful. A hundred bucks a week—I don’t know how they can justify it. We’ve had interjections: “Oh, think about the taxpayer and think about that”, and all this sort of stuff. All they are thinking about is their Budget, because they entered into tax cuts that were unaffordable and now they’ve been desperately searching, for the last few months, to try and make that add up, and these are the people that are paying for it.

The people that are paying for their shoddy Budget and their stupid decisions are the people that can afford it the least. They have—they’ve tried to justify it. Those that have actually spoken to it, they’ve tried to justify it by saying, “Oh, well, you know, the things that this bill brings in is in effect when there’re three boarders already.” Why not bring it down to two or one? If you’re in an accommodation situation where there are three boarders, then it actually is justifiable, because the costs are split across more people. But once you start going down to two and one boarder, and it equates to $100 less available to that person, no one will be able to stand up and say that they have had advice that this will not lead to more homelessness. They won’t—they will not have that advice.

If the Government cannot show the people of New Zealand that this bill—that their decisions—will not lead to higher levels of homelessness, then it’s clearly unjustifiable. When we have—

Joseph Mooney: What about the granny flats, Kieran?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: When we have a situation, Joseph Mooney, where you have voted for things that have increased homelessness, quite frankly, there are more people sleeping in cars and on the street, and in garages and in tents, because of you and what you have done, and you’re sitting here saying this is OK? Unbelievable. A hundred bucks a week might not be much for Joseph Mooney, but when it is the difference between people actually living in accommodation and living under a bridge, and they—the Government—laugh, and they can’t justify it, but they yell out anyway, I think the people of New Zealand can see all that they need to about what the values are of this Government and the lengths they’ve gone to, to try to make their Budget add up.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, I would just like to set the record straight here because it was that side of the House that sent this country into a full housing crisis. So to listen to that speaker Kieran McAnulty talk about homelessness and people in cars—on this side of the House we’re sorting it out. That is why this bill is a sensible, common-sense, practical, and fair bill where we will address the double subsidisation of housing subsidies for the same accommodation costs. It’s very simple and sensible, and that is why I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for second reading immediately.

Second Reading

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I move, That the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill seeks to amend the Social Security Act 2018 and the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992 and associated regulations to ensure that all board payments received are treated in a similar way to other forms of income, in particular rent payments received. The objectives have already been outlined to the House, so I won’t repeat them.

The bill seeks to recognise payments from boarders when assessing a person’s entitlement to housing subsidence and other forms of income assistance. It’s making sure that the Government is not subsidising the same accommodation costs more than once. By ensuring the housing subsidies and income assistance accurately reflects a person’s circumstances, it will return $150 million in net operating funding to the Government over four years. This directly contributes to easing the cost of living and inflation, and supports those who are paying tax.

Currently, payments received from a first and second boarder are disregarded, and only board payments received from the third and subsequent boarders impact a person’s income for the purpose of calculating entitlements. Also, currently for social housing tenants, only contributions received for the third and subsequent additional residents count towards assessable income when calculating the rate of income-related rent, unless the contributions received are the person’s main source of income.

This bill will ensure that all housing contributions received from all boarders are considered when calculating the rate of housing subsidies under the Social Security Act 2018, such as the accommodation supplement, and considered when calculating social housing tenants’ income-related rent. As I said, it will ensure the Government will no longer be subsidising the same accommodation costs more than once. It also ensures that when payments from boarders—and this is an important note that I think the Opposition missed—exceed the total allowable accommodation costs or the market rent for the social housing property, the excess is then considered as income and any other income-tested assistance that applies to the Social Security Act definition of income, such as income-tested main benefits. So what we’re saying here is that you could have boarders that provide income over and above the total allowable accommodation cost. The other side thinks that that’s fair and fair to taxpayers—crazy. These changes are based on common sense and fairness.

The bill also includes other amendments to ensure effective implementation of the policy proposals. This includes defining a boarder in the legislation and enabling a new disputes process; making the accommodation supplement no longer a discretionary payment; and specifying that the portion of a property that a person lives in, that is used for their business—which, again, makes sense—is excluded from the accommodation supplement. You shouldn’t be getting the accommodation supplement for parts of your house that are used for a business. And the opposite side also didn’t seem to understand that the changes in this bill will only affect those who receive board payments, not those who are boarders. They seem to have missed that point.

Housing subsidies and income assistance will always be available to those who need support and qualify for it, so most people who receive housing subsidies won’t be affected by this at all. But it will help our Government reach our goal of ensuring that public services are sustainable and continue to deliver assistance to those in need. These changes will lead to fairer outcomes for people who receive housing subsidies. I look forward to seeing this bill through the remaining stages of our process and commend it to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): I’m glad the Government are really happy to have me talking today. I really enjoy their support. It’s really good. As Kieran McAnulty said, another mean-spirited, terrible initiative from this Government. The bottom line is, as Kieran McAnulty said—our homes spokesman—

Jamie Arbuckle: The next leader of the Labour Party!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Says the man who will never get anywhere in New Zealand First. As Kieran McAnulty said: will this improve things in terms of where we are at the moment? Will the vulnerable again be exposed with this particular kaupapa? That’s our concern—that’s our concern. By forcing those who take a boarder to include the first and second boarder as income, will remove the incentive to have that boarder in the first place. And I think we’ve been quite explicit with that. It is such a worry that this attempt to hustle people who take in boarders might mean head tenants or people renting out a spare room no longer want to do it, and we could see a spike in boarders being pushed out.

What does that mean again? Again, we have a problem in terms of homelessness. Again, we have a problem in terms of emergency housing. Of course, we know that the Government likes playing around with numbers, and we wouldn’t have a clue in terms of what’s happening in that area, because they keep telling us that they are removing people and getting people out of emergency housing. The question remains, of course, is where are they going? And those are answers that Minister Potaka and Minister Bishop cannot give us. Constantly we ask them, what’s happening with the homeless? They wouldn’t have a clue. What we know is that homelessness has increased incredibly in this country over the last year or so.

This particular kaupapa could impact up to 20,000 people in New Zealand receiving house assistance who have a boarder. How will this make renting any easier? That’s the question that the Government have to ask themselves. When we have a cost of living crisis, many take in a boarder; to do so helps them offset the costs. The Government, sadly, thinks that there’s some sort of major scheme going on when people are taking in boarders, but this amendment only takes money from people who can least afford to have that money taken from them in the first place. The argument is the current system isn’t fair because the first and second boarders are not included in the accommodation assessment, but the incentive to take a boarder in while that exists ensures we have a ready supply of boarding homes. Closing this to make money is just mean-spirited. And when you consider these changes come alongside the new accommodation supplement changes in 2027, where people will be forced to pay 40 percent of their rent, up from the 30 percent, we see a pattern of legislation that is focused on screwing down and pushing down renters and those who require housing subsidy assistance.

That’s why this is another double whammy, so to speak, for Māori, for Pasifika, for the disabled, and for working people, because these are the ones inevitably impacted hardest by these changes. Pushing up rental thresholds and including boarders for accommodation assistance calculations is helping who, here? That’s the question. This will impact on all those who access the accommodation supplement; temporary additional support; grandparented widows benefit; student allowance; the accommodation benefit for sole parents, as calculated using the accommodation supplement rules; away from home allowance; and the income-related rent subsidy. You know, we’re continually asking the question from this side of the House: where are the concerns and the voices of support for people who will find themselves in the most stressful circumstances because of this type of legislation?

We have an obligation on this side of the House to voice those concerns, and that’s what this side is doing today. It seems that anyone weaker than this Government is in the firing line. It’s all cumulative. On its own, including the first and second boarder might be acceptable, but when you include all of the punitive measures and clawbacks and nasty fish-hooks that this Government has passed recently, it becomes just so overwhelming, and you can see why so many whānau, so many people are heading off to Australia.

My fear with this is that it will become as bureaucratic as the Government’s deeply flawed Best Start programme and cause people to turn away a boarder because of the extra complexity. Is that where we want to be? Now they’re going to turn away boarders. As I keep saying, they do not take on boarders to get rich; they take on boarders because of the cost of living, to pay the rent. If you come to Auckland, you’ll see couples renting two-room places, $600 per week. I mean, the minimum, if they’re lucky—$800 per week is not out of the ordinary. Young couples or older couples will inevitably take on flatmates to help with the financial situation.

This feels like the Government is just totally desperate, reaching behind the couch to see if there’s any more loose change to fund their Budget. I mean, we’ve seen the sacrifice. They’ve sacrificed New Zealand women. How many New Zealand women was it, Megan Woods?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Too many.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Too many. Hundreds of thousands. Hundreds of thousands of—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: 180,000.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: 180,000—180,000 New Zealand women sacrificed for the Budget. But it goes on, and this is another example of it. The exemption of the first two boarders was to encourage better utilisation of State housing and encourage beneficiary households, particularly sole parent beneficiaries living in large State houses, to take on a boarder or boarders to offset some of some of their costs. What this Government now wants to do is bash that infrastructure and take money directly out of the pockets of beneficiaries and sole parents, at the same time as this Government announces more punitive welfare sanctions. That’s the problem. It’s not just one thing, everybody—“Oh, it’s not a big problem.” Oh yeah, that’s right, but then there’s all these other things.

It’s like their Budget. It’s like their Māori budget. You know, they’ve taken all the money away from Māori. I know I’m going off the subject here, but it’s disturbing us that they’ve taken $1 billion out of the Māori budget. But they say, “Oh, no, it’s all there,” but they’ve transferred it across to a general fund. Shocking, really, but always robbing Peter to pay Paul seems to be the strategy of this Government.

Tangi Utikere: Robbing Mary to pay Paul.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Robbing Mary to pay? Ha, ha! This is a constant war on the poor and it’s good that former Minister Sepuloni is here. She knows better than anyone, having overseen our strategy in past years, the way we were going as a Government, more embracing and more understanding of our poorer people who are struggling, struggling with different complexities. Knowing I always salute our former Minister for Social Development and Employment here because she opened up things. It was a more aroha-type approach in terms of what was happening with people at the coalface. But this is a constant war on the poor. After witnessing them taking $12 billion from the pay parity pockets of working women and men so they could give $6 billion to the bosses, it helps explain how they can then target those on welfare who have taken in a boarder.

And that’s the problem. We’ve got a Budget. This is all Budget-related. Everything is about trying to pay for a Budget that they could never afford. But they can afford it if they turn their attention and if they focus on taking from groups who can least expect it. Women have been at the forefront of this sacrifice and this Government will pay for what they have done over the last couple of weeks. This will hurt the poorest hardest, which seems to be, as I said, the main threshold for social policy from this Government. It’s petty, it’s mean-spirited, and, once again, it’s taking from the poorest to pay the rich. The Government claimed they will save $150 million from these changes. But let’s examine the word “save”. What the Government means is that they will take $150 million from the poorest renters. That’s where they will save this money, by taking it from the poorest. That’s not a solution. This is a trickle-up economics where the poor subsidise the wealthy, and that sums up this Government well. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today to speak on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to strongly oppose this bill, a bill that might just look like a tidy administrative change, but, in reality, is a cut—a cut to the incomes of some of the most vulnerable people in our society, some of the most vulnerable people in Aotearoa. This will affect children. This will affect disabled people. This will affect beneficiaries and our older people. It is a cut to those who rely on housing assistance to survive.

Before I get into the nitty-gritty of why this legislation is so shoddy and really harmful—and an actual embarrassment to the country that we live in—I want to talk about the use of urgency. It is outrageous—

Francisco Hernandez: Outrageous!

KAHURANGI CARTER: —absolutely outrageous—that this horrid bill is being pushed through under urgency. I know the communities I serve: our disability communities and our disabled people, my Christchurch community, our low-income whānau, and the people who advocate for these communities would have wanted to have a say on this bill, because they are the ones with lived experience. They are the ones out there supporting these communities. Instead, it is being rushed through without this very important feedback and scrutiny from the public and from the people that this bill most affects.

This bill changes the way that the accommodation supplement and the income-related rents are calculated for people who take in one or two boarders—building community, building whānau, helping each other, sharing. Sharing is caring; that’s what my mum always said.

Francisco Hernandez: She’s right.

KAHURANGI CARTER: That’s right; she was right. Right now, those board payments are not counted as income, because they aren’t truly income. They’re cost-sharing arrangements. They help whānau survive. This bill will change that and, in doing so, it will make life harder for thousands of low-income houses already on the edge—already who do not have the means to pay for the things that we all need to live a good life.

Since 1992, the Governments have rightly recognised that small board payments, particularly from one or two people, shouldn’t be treated as income. The policy was simple and fair: it enabled people to open their homes, reduce their costs, and ease pressure on the housing system. We hear the Government side of the House say over and over that there is a housing crisis that needs to be fixed. This is one of the things that helps people stay in homes.

This bill flips that sharing on its head, and that ability to ease the pressure from the housing system. It treats cost-sharing as profit and it punishes people who are doing exactly what we ask of them: finding ways to make housing affordable within their communities. This is not smart policy; this is penny-pinching from those with the least. Let’s remember who is affected here: solo parents, disabled people, people on superannuation, low-wage workers, and beneficiaries. These are people who are already not making ends meet. The rising cost of food, rent, transport, and electricity is pushing families to breaking point, and I invite the other side of the House to try and walk a mile in these people’s shoes, to live with their budgets and see if they could do it for a week, for a month, for six months, for six years—see if you could make those ends meet.

All of this is happening in the exact same week that we saw the release of the Budget’s Child Poverty Report 2025, a report that confirmed our deepest fears. This Government’s decisions are not only failing to reduce child poverty; they are making it worse. The report stated clearly that this Budget will have no meaningful impact on child poverty rates—none. And despite having the tools, the data, and the mandate, the Government has chosen to stand still while children fall deeper and deeper into hardship. Worse still, the decision to means test the Best Start payment will rip vital income from 62,000 new parents, and for 55,000 of them it means receiving nothing in their baby’s crucial first year of life.

As Alicia Sudden of the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services put it, and I quote, “This Budget will leave thousands of children in poverty.” Let that sink in—thousands more children in poverty while the Government chips away at housing assistance, benefits, and support for new parents. This bill, in that context, is not neutral; it is cruel. And the fact that we are pushing it through under urgency without hearing from those parents, without hearing from disabled people, without hearing from our kaumātua—it makes me shake my head in shame that this is the country we live in. We are a modern country, we are a modern society, and we need laws that reflect that, and caring for our tamariki should be at the centre of everything we do.

The Green Party believes in a welfare system grounded in dignity, fairness, and mana-enhancing support. We believe in a Government that upholds its duty of care, especially to children and to whānau struggling in poverty—whānau in crisis. If we want to ensure public housing is used effectively, efficiently, let’s build more of it. Let’s regulate the private rental market. Let’s ensure every person has a safe, stable, and affordable place to live. But let’s not do what this bill proposes to do: clawing back income from low-income people just to hit a Budget target. Some things are more important than the bottom line, and our tamariki and people in our country are more important.

So the Green Party opposes the bill in the strongest possible terms. This bill punishes people sharing their homes, building community, doing the thing that my mum instilled in me when I was a child. Sharing is caring, living is giving, and I think that maybe that would be a great slogan for the next election. Let’s care for the people in our communities.

Francisco Hernandez: What would the Green Budget do?

KAHURANGI CARTER: The Green Budget would be amazing. This bill cuts income from people who are already living in poverty, and it does so at a time when the Government’s own Budget report confirms that thousands more children will be left in hardship. This is not the Aotearoa that I believe in; this is not the Aotearoa that we believe in at the Greens. We stand for a country where everyone has what they need to thrive, where every child grows up free from poverty—[Interruption]—yeah, let’s have children grow up free from poverty; I don’t know why you’re laughing about that—and where Government policy lifts people up, not pushes them down. We urge, in this House, to do the right thing: vote against this bill. Thank you.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of the ACT Party to support the second reading of the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill. This bill doesn’t stop anybody from sharing their State house. People can still have boarders in the house if they have space to keep boarders. But what the bill does is it stops the double subsidy for the same accommodation. It makes it fairer for everybody, even for those who are in State houses because there are some people, those in bigger State houses, who can have boarders, but there might be some people who are not in those kinds of big houses where they can have boarders.

It is about levelling the opportunity that is available to everybody as well as making sure that taxpayers are not subsidising the same accommodation twice through a double subsidy—one to the boarder and one to the person who has the boarder at their place.

This bill also sets a process if there is a conflict in the information that is provided by the boarder and the person who is having the boarder there. This actually is a very thought-through bill to ensure that the system brings fairness and accountability, and the member who spoke before me, Kahurangi Carter, said they like fairness, and that is exactly what this bill does. It is about fairness. It is not just about the money that is spent but also about people who are in different types of State houses. And that is why we support this bill. Thank you.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in the second reading of the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill.

This piece of legislation applies the fairness rule. It does that because it aims to prevent accommodation costs being subsidised more than once. It ensures fairness by ensuring that people who receive board payments are treated the same as those who receive rent payments—so that’s the fairness rule applied there—when calculating their eligibility for the accommodation supplement. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Ricardo Menéndez March. And the Green Party have indicated in writing that you can have their five minutes as well.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Oh, yeah—Te Pāti Māori.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Te Pāti Māori—sorry.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We just heard a lot from the previous member, Jenny Marcroft, in their very brief—and, quite frankly, lacking in substance—contribution around fairness. It seems to me that fairness, according to the Government members, is stripping away support from people in public housing, low-income people. Fairness seems to be, for the Government, pushing people into needing hardship assistance and temporary accommodation, because that is exactly what this bill does, and either the previous member did not read the advice from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) or actually talk to people experiencing hardship, or she just doesn’t care. I think it’s probably a combination of both, because what this bill is, effectively, doing is stripping away critical support for people who are living with boarders, and, often, the large, vast majority of these people are not the Government’s wealthy mates. They’re people who were either living in emergency housing prior to entering into public housing or they were people facing unaffordable rents, because most people are unlikely to be looking for boarders unless they actually needed that additional support.

The policy that we had prior to this piece of legislation, where you could have boarders without losing then your accommodation supplement and income-related subsidy, was designed to support the people who were often in hardship from being able to have those support networks. I find it rich and at the same time cruel that the Government members completely ignore the material consequences of this bill—the negative material consequences—that will push people deeper into poverty and deeper into hardship. The reality is that this bill disproportionately impacts Māori, Pacific people, and older people—and I also think it is really rich that New Zealand First claims that they support senior citizens a lot, and yet they’re quite happy to push a bill through that actually disproportionately impacts our older community as well as disabled people and young people.

Young people are really getting the double whammy at the moment in the Budget. Not only is their ability to access income support being stripped away but now we have a bill that will disproportionately affect them. Young people—often those that are leaving family violence or who may have experienced youth homelessness—are often some of the people that will most likely be needing to board, and they’re people who are often seeking to live with members of their extended family or people who they’ve found along the way for support. The Government seems to be extremely comfortable with stripping away one of the few supplementary assistances that exist that allows people to retain housing.

The reality of this bill is that it will also criminalise people doing it tough. As we’ve heard from the ministry itself, one of the likely impacts of this bill is that people will be then pushed into a situation where they will be encouraged, in some ways, to literally lie to MSD about their accommodation circumstances in order to not face a hike in the rent. To me, this speaks of an approach from this Government of neglect in criminalising the poor in order to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy few. This is all in the document entitled Including Boarders’ Contributions in the Calculations of Housing Subsidies: Supplementary Analysis Report, and the fact that this analysis itself identifies that people are more likely going to be committing fraud and not reporting their boarders is pretty concerning.

This bill also acknowledges that the so-called savings that the Government is making in this piece of legislation are going to be passed on to other parts of the system. For example, if you lose your accommodation supplement and you lose your income-related subsidies, you’re far more likely to then be needing things like hardship grants. That’s a cost that is then being passed from one part of the system on to MSD, which is why the ministry itself acknowledged that the Government overestimated the savings that they would be making as part of this piece of legislation.

Not only is the Government happy to put the boot down on people who need support the most but they’re being fiscally illiterate and irresponsible by not acknowledging that the so-called savings that they are making on the accommodation supplement and income-related rent subsidy costs are being passed on to other parts of the Ministry of Social Development. At a time when we have heard from the Minister of social development that their front line is oversubscribed, it begs the question of whether the Government is completely out of touch with the front line, which is supposed to be helping individuals rather than punishing them, as the Government is doing.

I acknowledge that this bill has another component around automated decision-making. I think the Government has been not very transparent when it comes to its intentions to use automated decision-making. We had the Social Security Amendment Act passed not that long ago, which broadened the use of automated decision-making. This, in laymen’s terms, is actually the ability for computer systems to be, effectively, making decisions instead of the front line, which could have more discretion in its use of decisions.

I can see the potential for that to lead to more accurate decision-making, but I do think the Government is pushing this in the context of under-resourcing the front line and the humans who can then support people in forming those connections to assist them, not just in calculating their eligibility for things like the accommodation supplement but other support systems, as well. Effectively, what the Government is doing is passing the support systems that exist from the Ministry of Social Development—away from human interactions—on to computers, on to automated systems, which then strips away the more tailored support we can provide to people who are facing housing insecurity.

If we look at the analysis from MSD, what we can also find is the average increase in the cost of living that people affected by this bill will face, and this is on page 21 of the supplementary analysis report. What we can see around the financial impacts of the policy changes is that, for example, somebody who has one boarder will see an increase in the cost of living of $92 a week, somebody who has two boarders will see an increase of $148 a week, and somebody who has three boarders is facing an additional $202 a week.

I don’t think that this is a Government that is seriously addressing the cost of living crisis, and they’re pushing in legislation that will literally make it worse for the almost 8,000 people that this bill is estimated to be affecting. If anything, what it will do is it will incentivise people to instead seek temporary accommodation, or to be in emergency housing, if they’re lucky—because we have seen reports of our social services saying that most people are being rejected from emergency housing—and it will encourage people to not disclose that they have boarders. This is in the report itself, and I think people will be waking up and realising that there will be creative ways, unfortunately, that they will use to get around this bill, effectively, to not disclose who are the people they’ve been living with in order to get away with actually not facing, for example, in some cases, an additional $202 a week in accommodation costs.

Particularly for those that received income-related rent subsidies, this will push them and their households to be, effectively, receiving market rate rents. For example, right now, if you’re living in a Kāinga Ora home and you receive the income-related rent subsidy, you could be paying just 25 percent of your income on rent. That’s amazing—that’s something that I actually hope one day we can achieve for absolutely everyone. But, instead, people could be subjected to market rates. This is because once you’re deemed to be receiving a specific amount of income, you lose that subsidy. If you have a Kāinga Ora home in a neighbourhood where the market rate rents are really high, that hike could push you out of your home and into the streets. At a time when we’re seeing record homelessness and people doing it rough, it feels callous, cruel, and intellectually dishonest for a Government to be saying that they’re addressing the cost of living crisis, and yet pushing through a bill that will do exactly the very opposite of that.

I hope that those members, when they start seeing the hardship they’re creating, swallow their words of fairness and see the truth behind what this bill is promoting, which is actually an increase in poverty, an increase in inequality, an increase in homelessness, and people living in public and private rentals facing humungous increases in their living costs. We look forward to the committee of the whole House stage to scrutinise this bill, as it deserves, for the harm that the Government is causing for some of our most vulnerable communities out there in the community. Kia ora.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Again, I’ll just clarify what this bill does. There’s one room in a house—currently, the Government, under the existing law, will subsidise that room via the landowner or the person who was renting the house, and then they’ll also subsidise the boarder who’s using that room. So it’s subsidised twice. This changes that.

This is a Government that respects and fights for the workers of New Zealand, unlike those members opposite. That Opposition, in the last Government, took debt from $57 billion to $175 billion, and they brought this country to a very difficult place. We are fixing this. We respect the money that taxpayers earn. We want to help people. We want to give them a hand up, got a handout.

I know what poverty tastes like, smells like, and looks like, unlike those champagne socialists on the other side. We want to help New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): It’s interesting to hear the sanctimony come from the other side in the situation because earlier I was thinking about one of the heckles, which was, “There’s no magic money tree.” I agree there is no magic money tree. But last year, this Government got into Parliament saying it would give people tax cuts. It could not afford them. There was no magic money tree. As a result, now people like women in this country who expected to get equal pay, and people like the people impacted in this piece of legislation, they are the people who will pay the price because there was no magic money tree.

Before anybody suggests that people on this side of the House do not understand poverty, I would like to suggest that if this had been to a select committee, if people had been able to come to Parliament and tell their story and say how this piece of legislation was going to affect them, then the Government would be in a position where they might be able to say they listened. But right now, the Government has insulated itself from that process because we are in a bubble today.

We are not hearing from the people this will hurt, and the people out there are hurting. This Government promised it was going to address the needs of people in a cost of living crisis. It said, “We’re going to give you a tax cut.” Those people have received so little. Today, a lot of those people, they lose $132. Now, that’s not an insignificant amount of money for anyone. If you’re on the kind of money that these families are on, that is a huge amount of money. That kind of disruption to people’s lives causes incredible harm.

Now, some of the people that have picked up in this change—and I remind the House, this is something that was OK to do. Nobody snuck around. They’ve actually been able to have a boarder, to have up to two boarders and to be able to keep that money. That’s been OK. But tomorrow it’s not going to be OK any more. What is going to happen when that happens is the impact of not having that money in our poorest families is going to ripple through our society. It’s going to cause problems.

Let’s talk about some of the people who are impacted by this piece of legislation. I’m sure there will be comments from people who are specialist portfolio holders on this later, but right now I just want to talk about two of them. The first group that I want to talk about is the elderly. We have more and more elderly who rely on an accommodation supplement in their older years. Those people will be impacted over this. There’s actually a lot of them.

Then we’ve got the youth issue, which is raised in the report which my colleague from the Greens also talked about. It’s this one here, the supplementary analysis report. It’s raised specifically by impartial people who say there’s a problem here because what happens with youth is they find that they need to board quite often, and they find it extremely hard to find other accommodation because there’s a discrimination that occurs with youth. So you’ve got a shrinking issue with boarding being available and it’s going to have huge impact on youth and you’re cutting that out from them. They’re cutting that option out because people will no longer take boarders. It talks about the impact on that group. It’s particularly worrying. They are not alone.

It talks about the impact on Māori, and it talks about the impact on Pacific peoples as particularly extreme. These are all the groups we know are at our lowest socio-economic levels. They are the ones that need the helping hand. That’s what I would say to my colleague on the other side of the House who suggests that we know nothing about poverty and that people just need a hand up. What’s a hand up? This was a hand up. This was a capacity that people had to take in a boarder or two and be able to keep the money with the Government’s consent. That was what was going on and not—

Grant McCallum: Your Government’s consent.

HELEN WHITE: No. The heckler suggests that in this case it was something that the Labour Government had done. That is just not accurate. This has been going since 1992. Every Government since has come down on the side of this being still a good idea. When you’re earning a pitiful amount, when you actually don’t have enough, even though you’re working, and you need an accommodation supplement, or you’re in a situation where you’re on a benefit—maybe you’re disabled, maybe you’re older, maybe you are in those groups—then you actually need a helping hand, and this was one. It was one where if you decided to get a boarder or two, then you were OK. You could keep the money. It’s not a lot of money, let’s face it, but it’s something. So today what we do is we absolutely rip the guts out of those families. Let’s just face it: $132. That’s what’s going to happen, $132 less for a lot of those families.

I’d like to just look at the kinds of numbers we are talking about because, again, the supplementary analysis report says that there are 8,200 households who have a boarder in this position, and that 7,000 of those households will have a reduction, the average reduction being $100. The Government today takes $100 off 7,000 New Zealand families just for accommodation supplement. Then in addition to that, you’ve got people who have got income-related rent—6,200 of them will lose $132 a week. It’s a lot of money. Let’s just take that and think about it for a second.

What we are told is that this will save money for the Government. According to the projections, it will save—and there are real question marks about the projections in the independent analysis—about $150 million over four years. That’s the possible saving. But the question marks over that money are extremely real. It’s not just wishful thinking. It’s not the Opposition making it up. The question marks are in that report. The question marks are based on things like we don’t actually know how many people there are out there with these situations, so we’re actually guessing. We don’t know what they’re going to do when they can’t receive this money and they’re going to be punished in this way. They might stop having boarders. They might disappear from that system. They might not report them. All those things mean that there’s a huge question mark about whether the Government will save that kind of money.

Now, I just want to turn for the last little part of my speech to the issue of the automated decision-making system. That is part and parcel of this. We will—after this bill—face another bill in urgency, which is about that too. That’s about people having to turn up, and they’re going to have to turn up once a year to do a review of their benefit. The sole reason for that is because you can’t find out how many boarders there are unless you make people turn up for a review. A whole lot of people who are permanently injured, for example, they’re going to have to turn up for a review so that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) can gather the information and match it. That’s how they’re going to get that information. So we have another whole piece of legislation which relates to this.

Part of what’s going on in both pieces of the Acts that are before us today is that we are looking at an automated system, because the MSD, when they looked at the system, they just couldn’t do it with people. They didn’t have the staff. That’s because we’ve cut huge amounts of staff everywhere we can and so MSD just couldn’t do this, so we’ve moved to an automated system. That’s what we’ve done in this country. I take the point of my colleague that it’s not us; it’s the Government that’s done it. I think it’s really important that it is understood that that’s what has happened in this country. We simply don’t have the staff to do this and so now we’re bringing in an impersonal system to do it instead. Thank you.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is an effort by a fiscally prudent and responsible Government to look at the situation where a person who receives boarder payments himself applies for housing subsidies, to take that situation into consideration when assessing his entitlement to and the rate of the housing subsidy that he himself is applying for. I commend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): This is a Government that describes itself as fiscally prudent. Is it fiscally prudent to push thousands of young New Zealanders into debt? This is a Budget which has penny-pinched out of young people’s pockets; 18- to 19-year-olds are not only being cut off from the emergency benefit, which will now be means tested—and when I say emergency benefit, I mean homelessness, urgent dental work; urgent things that young people need and for which they will now be asked whether their parents can help them with. Then, further, this bill makes a change to make it harder for any adults in their lives who will stand up for them—to have them living in their homes.

This is a bill which will see youth homelessness rising in the middle of a youth homelessness crisis. If this Government cared about young people, it would make the kinds of changes that we need in order to see young people properly supported. But what does it do instead? It makes it harder for young people to access emergency accommodation. It makes it harder for young people to access emergency benefits. And it makes it harder for them to live in the homes with the adults who care for them—$202 for a mum with adult children, three of them living in her home. That’s how much it will cost her now to have those adult children living with her every week. This is taking money out of the pockets of people who can least afford it—7,000 households.

You know why this hasn’t been a policy choice that has been made by prior National Governments? Because, under the leadership of John Key and Bill English, it didn’t seem like a good idea to take 7,000 of the lowest income and most vulnerable households and make $150 million back for the Government. This pushes young people into debt. It pushes working families into further debt. It might be debt off the Government’s book, but it certainly is a debt off New Zealanders’ books.

When we think about the intergenerational cost of this, we have to ask ourselves: is this a useful intervention in the housing market, with a Government that is focused, it says, on increasing supply of housing? Absolutely not. It is a change which will result in a higher demand for housing because we will have the most vulnerable people competing even harder for the few rentals that are available now in the kind of price range that they can afford. What will that do? It will drive up the price of rentals for these people. Young people will experience further competition and further increases in the rents they pay because the number of rentals available to them will be lower. Or is that not a fiscal risk that the Government has identified? Actually, what will happen is these young people will be faced with not being able to get accommodation at all.

This is a Government that has overseen the giving out of grants for tents; overseen more and more people sleeping in their cars down at the local park. Every electorate MP in this House will have seen it. Everyone will know that homelessness in our town centres is growing and the people who are experiencing that homelessness are young. This is not like the global financial crisis. This is not like the crises that we have been through as a country in my lifetime, where those people living in their cars were older people. This is people who are 18, 19, and 20.

I met with a young woman in my electorate recently. Her name is KJ. For the first time this year, she slept at a bus shelter. She is 16 years old. She should be able to access the emergency benefit without having any reference to her parents. But this Government has taken that support away from her and it will now be means tested with a reference to her parents’ incomes. This callous change in this bill means that it will be harder for her to board because her supplements will be counted against the other supplements in her house. The official advice in this paper recognises that it will hurt people like her the most; that marginalised groups, young people, and Māori and Pasifika will be most impacted by this change; that the people who can least afford it will be punished for these savings to be made.

This is a Government which has made all the wrong choices and they are on display in this bill. This affects the working people who elected them. This affects everyone in our communities. This affects 54,000 young people who receive the accommodation supplement. It is the wrong change and it is cruel.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is simply making some minor changes that bring in fairness to a system that seems strange that it’s been allowed to exist for the last 30-odd years. This has been a situation where, under the last Government, they actually changed some of those thresholds for accommodation subsidies as well, so that people could use that money to pay for their mortgages. This only is affecting those people who both get an accommodation supplement and have boarders who are also getting an accommodation supplement. This is not for the workers out there who have spare rooms, who are also paying for their rent and paying for their mortgages, paying for all of their costs; those people hadn’t been getting assistance and subsidies from the Government. This is a clearing, making it a much more fair system. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let’s make no bones about this. This is a cold, callous, and cruel bill by a cold Government that is taking New Zealand backwards, by punching down on those who can least afford it.

Joseph Mooney: I can see the hot air rising—hot air rising!

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: And this is part of their pattern. We’ve seen it in their “austerity Budget”.

Joseph Mooney: Ha, ha!

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: We’ve seen it because they’ve taken money away from women’s pay by cancelling 33 active pay equity claims.

Joseph Mooney: Better take some of those math lessons!

Shanan Halbert: They don’t like that one.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: No, they don’t like that one, do they, Shanan, because there’s a lot of chat coming from Joseph Mooney, who’s been laughing throughout this particular debate, when we talk about some of the most vulnerable in New Zealand, who are being made worse off by his Government and his vote directly.

What are they taking away? KiwiSaver contributions. They’re taking away money from 61,000 families through their “austerity Budget”—61,000 families who will now be worse off by an average of $43 per fortnight. Unemployment, scheduled to rise. Nobody can find the families they promised the $250 per fortnight to during their campaign—a campaign on reducing the cost of living for New Zealanders. What did their leaders say? “Everyone’s going to get $250 a fortnight!”—it was like Oprah on the campaign trail. Who gets it now? Hardly anyone. The only increase that some families are getting: $7 a week. That’s what this Government is crowing about. This bill takes us backwards even more.

Now, what have we heard from members opposite? The Minister for Social Development and Employment said that this will only impact the boarder. Who are these boarders? Single mothers, young people, disabled people. The person who’s got the boarders, that’s what the Minister said. They’re often disabled people. And this is the Minister for Disability Issues as well who’s punching down again on disabled people. Minister, read the advice in your own papers, because Whaikaha themselves have said that this is a bad idea. Whaikaha themselves have said that disabled people have limited options and many of them rely on boarding arrangements with their caregivers. So who is being penalised by this? Disabled people, young people, old people, Pacific people. They are all going to be worse off on average by $100; those in social housing, on average by $132 a week.

So 51,459 people on a supported living payment also receive the accommodation supplement. There are, in addition to that, 15,6245 people on supported living payments who are also in social housing. All of them, potentially, could be impacted by this. We don’t know a huge amount of detail, though, because they’re rushing this through under urgency and their own analysis from their officials tell us that there’s been limited time to engage with people who would be—but that, again, seems to be typical of this Government, as we’ve seen.

What are we going to see? Now, again, members opposite have stood up and said, “This is just fixing a discrepancy.” They’ve said they’re being fiscally prudent by taking $150 million off those who can least afford it. They’ve said, “This is a common-sense fix and it’s fair.” Fair for whom? Who are the people? What was this policy intended for back in 1992? It was intended to encourage those in State housing to be able to use their space for others who might need assistance when it comes to housing and it was also intended to ensure that they could offset their costs. This isn’t some sort of a rort that’s been happening for 30-odd years; it’s been an incentive to ensure that people have a roof over their heads and that people can actually meet the costs of living. That is what this cold, callous, cruel Government is stripping away from those who can least afford it. It was an incentive that is taken away. Oh, now they’re all looking down—now they’re all looking down. Why? Suddenly it’s not an issue any more for you. Oh, well, there they are laughing again. Well, there we go. Anyway, $100 to $132 a week from people cannot afford it. That is their fiscal prudence, unfortunately.

What happens then? The analysis of this bill tells us that it’s likely to lead to increasing homelessness because, if you’re going to be penalised for opening up your home and taking on a couple of boarders—and that’s why it wasn’t the first and second boarder that was caught up in the change; it was only third boarder onwards. Now, what they’re doing is ensuring that they’re penalised for taking on anyone as a boarder, when boarding costs are meant to help offset the living costs of the person who’s taking them on. But now, they will be penalised for it. Do they then think that people who can’t afford it will then take on boarders? No. Where are they going to go? Some might say emergency housing and emergency accommodation. And yet, this Government has cut $1 billion from the emergency housing budget through their “austerity Budget”, which is why we’re all here today, on the false pretence that homelessness, that demand for housing, is reducing.

Is it reducing? Perhaps, because they’re chucking everyone out because they don’t want to pay for emergency housing. So what are we actually seeing here? People who are being squeezed from every which direction, cost of living increasing, unemployment on the rise. Members opposite laughing again when we talk about those in hardship who are going to be doing it even tougher because of decisions that each one of their gloating faces has voted for. Make no mistake: when you stand up at events and at your electorates and you crow about the work that you’ve done, what are they doing? Mocking us and laughing, because—

Joseph Mooney: We stand up for workers, unlike those socialists.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: You stand up for workers. Who do you think you’re slamming down on through this legislation and every other thing that you’ve done in your “austerity Budget”? Many of them, newsflash, are working. But they have to work multiple jobs because of the decisions you’ve made, because they cannot make ends meet. And yet you laugh. Shocking. Absolutely shameless behaviour from this Government.

I never thought that I’d be standing here, thinking that previous National Governments past were actually better than this lot. But this is a particular breed of cold callousness that we’ve seen crowing from that side of the House. Homelessness is increasing at unprecedented levels. We’ve seen that before, because when you increase cost of living and you do nothing to reduce that, and then you clamp down on the paltry support that you actually give people, and then you chuck them out of housing and you cut money for emergency housing, where will people go?

Joseph Mooney: How come kids aren’t sleeping in cars any more?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Tents and cars, Joseph Mooney—that’s exactly what they’re doing.

You can yell at me from the other side of the House. I can’t even hear what you’re saying, by the way, but I can see the smugness on your face. But this is what you’re doing. You are actually allowing grants for people to live in tents and in cars. I hope you’re proud of that. I hope this Government’s proud of that. Because, on this side of the House, we’re not. Increasingly people outside are not either. You might dress up your “austerity Budget” as being fiscally prudent. Taking money off the lowest-paid women who are underpaid and undervalued, and you’re underpaying them and undervaluing them even more. You might be pleased with that, but increasingly people see through your window dressing of fiscal prudence, and they see it for what it is: austerity measures, getting worse with bills like this—bills that make it even harder for those who are struggling and doing the work that you undervalue.

This is a bill that we cannot support, because while they try to say that it’s just a little tweak that makes things fairer, it absolutely does not. So $100 for people who are getting a couple of hundred a week makes a massive difference. It may not for members opposite, and that may be why they’re laughing and crowing, but they’ve lost touch with reality. I suggest that members opposite actually get out there and talk to people whose lives they’re making worse under urgency, all stages, with bills that cannot be properly scrutinised, that don’t have the analysis that they need because they’re rushing it through and wanting to bring it in by next year. That is absolutely shocking. We do not commend this bill to the House.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is great to be the final speaker of the second reading of this, the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill. We are a fiscally responsible Government, and we are focused on making things fair so that people don’t double-dip, effectively. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill.

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Social Security Act 2018

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill. Members, we come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 8—“Amendments to Social Security Act 2018”—and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): I am standing up to speak in the committee stage of this bill to put some arguments as to why each section, each part, each clause of this bill should not be voted for by this committee.

It is important that we start with a little bit of context here. The accommodation supplement is calculated based on your individual circumstances including income, assets, accommodation costs, family situation, and where you live. Up until the proposal today, those that have been eligible for the accommodation supplement have been able to take boarders. Not a huge amount can be paid as part of that boarding fee, but they have been able to take boarders and it hasn’t impacted their ability to get access to the accommodation supplement.

We are going to have to have some things clarified in this committee by the Minister for Social Development and Employment because, even during the interjections from the other side, we have heard claims that are simply incorrect. We do not support this going ahead. We need to make sure that we have a shared understanding here in the committee that board paid to those who are receiving the accommodation supplement isn’t something that is adding to the wealth of those that may be the head tenant. It is actually supporting them with paying utilities—the power, the internet, the water, and any other costs that come with having a home. Often, also, it is used to help and assist with paying for food. And what we know is, actually, when people consolidate their money in that kind of way, it can help alleviate the pressure that many people are facing in terms of the cost of living challenges that they’re facing.

This bill is attempting to take that away from some of the poorest New Zealanders. We’ve heard arguments from the other side that it makes the system fairer. We’re talking about working New Zealanders and beneficiaries who earn the lowest incomes in this country and were trying to get by by sharing expenses with boarders who were paying a small fee towards costs and living with them. They talk about fairness of the system, and I’m going to put to the Minister: in terms of the broader context around housing and the Government’s agenda, why was this unfair but it’s not unfair to give $2.9 billion worth of tax breaks to landlords? Why is this unfair and yet you can own multiple properties and not have to pay any taxes on them when you sell them? Why is it that the place that the Government are attempting to get any money back from on housing is from the poorest working—and I do say “working” because Mr Mooney over there was saying that we’re protecting the beneficiaries. There are a large number of people who get the accommodation supplement who are actually working. Why is it appropriate that the Government is trying to get money out of the poorest New Zealanders, in the space of housing, and not the others that I mentioned earlier?

I think on that point, for context, particularly given that this has been brought to the House in urgency, it would be good to know from the Minister how many are receiving the accommodation supplement that are actually working, as opposed to those that are on benefit. Not that we are judging those on benefit but—certainly, the other side is—we need to be having arguments based on fact and so we need to make sure that we are having discussions that are actually informed by evidence. That certainly hasn’t come through from the first and second readings from Government, nor from the interjections that they have put forward when the Opposition members have been speaking.

I’m really concerned about whether or not the Minister has received any advice about whether this will drive people into further poverty, given that they’ll no longer be able to get that little bit of support to help them with the everyday costs of running a household. I’m also really concerned and would like to ask the Minister whether or not she received any advice on the implications for those that have taken up boarding opportunities in these situations where someone may have been getting the accommodation supplement. We’re worried, on this side of the Chamber, that, actually, this change in policy could lead to higher levels of homelessness, as we’ve seen with their policy change around emergency accommodation.

These are the types of questions that I would expect very clear answers from the Minister, particularly given the fact that she saw this as being so integral to, perhaps, paying part of the Budget, that she’s brought this bill to the House today.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): In this early stage, I want to just make sure that there’s some accuracies for this debate. This piece of legislation does not stop anyone from taking in boarders or charging someone who boards with them; it just means that boarder number one and boarder two are treated in the same way that boarders three, four, and five are. It is about equity and it also making sure that those who are boarders, where they are getting an accommodation supplement it means that we are not paying—or taxpayers are not paying—the housing supplement twice.

I’m not going to speak on matters that are clearly outside the bill. This is a very narrow bill. It talks about boarders and the instance there is no impact on the person who is the boarder, so I want to be clear about that.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just reminding members, of course, that this context early on would be referring to the Part 1 sections early in the debate.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Oh, yeah. I read the bill. Thank you, Mr Chair.

I wanted to look at clause 4, and I wanted to pick up on the fact, on clause 4—I’ve got quite a few questions, because we did not have a select committee stage and we also don’t have a regulatory impact statement, which is deeply irresponsible of the Government. What we do have, as I mentioned in my second reading speech, is this document—Including Boarders’ Contributions in the Calculation of Housing Subsidies—which does contain some analysis from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). I will be using it particularly to refer to the new section 65AAA that is inserted by clause 4 into the Social Security Act.

Despite the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s comments about how this is a narrow bill, the impact is quite deep. So I wanted to ask, first of all—and we would have been able to do this in the select committee stage and pose these questions to both officials and the Minister—whether the Minister agrees with the advice that the risks associated with the modified income-related rent calculation include increased hardship among social housing tenants if their income-related rent increases. Does she believe that this bill will lead to an increase in hardship for social housing tenants? I ask this as well because I note that there is no child impact assessment being done in this bill, and I know that the previous member, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, asked about poverty more broadly.

But in relationship to my question around whether this bill will increase hardship among social housing tenants as a result of the provisions in clause 4 of Part 1, as to whether she also at any point considered how many children could be pushed deeper into poverty as a result of this. I say this because in her second reading speech, my excellent colleague Kahurangi Carter was referencing the child poverty documents from the Budget. Those look like child poverty is stagnating, and potentially even increasing, in some areas. So I’m curious to know as to whether she agrees with the analysis presented to her by MSD. If not, why not? If so, what made her continue pursuing this policy despite the clear analysis from her own ministry that “there will be increased hardship”?

I’ve got some more questions on Part 1, particularly around the document that we’ve got. It’s literally the only analysis that we’ve got. We haven’t had the chance to hear from social housing tenants, people who board, around what this means for them. But I wanted to start off by testing that very simple analysis.

The second question, and I don’t want to—so I know the Chair previously advised me to not do too many questions in one round, to allow the Minister to answer. But the second question was as to whether also the Minister agrees with the analysis by MSD in relationship to whether the Government could be overestimating the savings being made by this bill. Does she think this analysis is correct? If so, where does she think that those overestimations could be made by the Government? I think Part 1, and clause 4, particularly, are the best place to ask these questions, as this is where we’re adding the definition of “boarder”, for example, and that in of itself is what then leads to a restriction on those people accessing the accommodation supplement and the income-related rent subsidy.

If she does think that there was an overestimation of savings, where does she think those costs will be passed on? Does she agree with the Ministry of Social Development’s advice that those costs could be passed on to, say, for example, hardship assistance or emergency housing or advances, which in turn could put people into further debt? If she does not agree with that advice from MSD around the overestimation of savings, why was she so confident, when she published her Budget documents, that there would be very specific figures when it came to the savings? And how did she come to that conclusion, despite MSD warning her that those figures could quite likely actually be wrong?

To wrap up, my two simple questions are whether she agrees that there will be increased hardship among social housing tenants if their income-related rent increases, and whether she agrees with the analysis that the Government could have overestimated the savings that are being made in this piece of legislation. Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): This was a measure that was in Budget 2024. Like any Budget, there are estimates that are made in terms of what the cost might be or what savings might be. But as I said at the start, as I said in my first and second reading speeches, and as echoed by my colleagues, it is common sense that if you have one or two boarders, they are taken into account in the same way a third boarder is. And, as I’ve said—and I’m not going to say it again—boarders are not affected by this.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, before the dinner break, the committee was debating Part 1 of the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 18—“Amendments to Social Security Act 2018”—and Schedule 1. The question again is that Part 1 stand part.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Before we went into the dinner break—and I want to reiterate the fact that we did not have a select committee stage; we haven’t heard from people affected by this, or any other agency. And the Minister for Social Development also hasn’t presented and done robust analysis. What we do have, as I said, is this document. [Holds up supplementary analysis report titled Including Boarders’ Contributions in the Calculation of Housing Subsidies] I don’t believe that the Minister adequately engaged with my previous question. This in relationship to the supplementary analysis report, page 7, where the Ministry of Social Development said, and I quote, “The savings forecast as part of this proposal was not able to account for behavioural responses that may result from this policy,” and then it also says that—and this is what I want to focus my question on—“This means that the savings from households where both the person receiving board and the boarder are receiving housing subsidies may be overestimated.” Does she agree that the savings in this instance were overestimated by her Government? If not, why not?

Following on from that, I’m primarily focusing on the provisions in clause 4, but I’m using this document because, basically, it addresses a lot of what clause 4 ends up doing. I also asked about whether she believes that people will be put into hardship as a result of this. I also want to now focus my attention on the issue around whether she believes that this bill has the potential, particularly because of the provisions in clause 4, to increase the amount of debt that people get into as a result of requiring advances. Did she forecast an increase in debt by people requiring advances in the form of rent arrears, for example, due to the provisions of this bill?

We know that, due to the supplementary analysis, people will be paying quite a bit more money each week—those affected by this bill; I’ll go into that in more detail. But I did want to ask whether she did any forecasts or modelling, or whether she even considered it, about, for example, whether people would be needing more recoverable assistance. I think this is particularly important because in the Budget, we saw, basically, an end to the non-recoverable assistance when it came to rent arrears, which means that when people are getting into rent arrears as a result of increased rents due to increased housing costs as a result of this bill, now the only way they’ll be able to get assistance for these rent arrears is through recoverable assistance. Did she make any modelling to account for that?

One of the issues that I also wanted to test is whether she considered—and I also want to note to the Chair, by the way, that she did not address anything in relationship to impacts on child poverty. I just want to put that on the table again because we did have the dinner break—she did not mention child poverty at all and how this bill may or increase it or otherwise.

But I want to move on to the issue around material hardship. There’s three different measurements that we use when it comes to child poverty, and material hardship is one of those. That means children not having the bare essentials being met. I ask this because that has been increasing throughout the past few years, including under her tenure. The Minister hasn’t explicitly engaged on the issue as to whether this bill risks increasing the level of material hardship in households. If she does think that this bill increases material hardship—which is a different measure from child poverty—I want to ask: which kinds of children does she think will be disproportionately impacted as a result of a potential increase in material hardship being driven as a result of this bill?

Just to recap—I want to make sure that she understands I am asking for her analysis of page 7 of the supplementary analysis report, paragraph 6, around the quote that says that the savings are likely to be “overestimated”, and whether she agrees with that.

BENJAMIN DOYLE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Tūru. Following on from my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March’s questions regarding the supplementary analysis report from the Ministry of Social Development, I’m looking at page 23, in regards to distributional impacts. I’d like to understand, regarding the distributional impacts that are stated around—Māori, Pasifika people, older people, disabled people, and young people are the groups that are covered there in the opening remarks at point 85. I’m concerned that there hasn’t been an analysis of the disproportionate impacts, also, on takatāpui and rainbow communities. We know from census data—the census actually released a specific report on this this year, actually, 2025, regarding the situation for housing for rainbow people. It stated that there’s a higher prevalence of severe housing deprivation for LGBTQIA+, takatāpui populations, MVPFAFF—that’s Pasifika rainbow, and takatāpui is Māori rainbow peoples—in housing specifically.

My question really is: is the Minister for Social Development and Employment confident that that community—which is disproportionately impacted by housing stock limitations or expensive housing, inability to afford safe housing—is not going to be impacted disproportionately? It’s not stated in this analysis, but I’d like to understand the advice that’s been given.

Further to that, obviously rainbow communities are one group, but the intersection of Māori and rainbow has a compounding impact, so are the cultural needs of rainbow people who are Māori also being considered in this? We know that Māori and Pasifika communities often live in different housing structures in terms of the make-up and the demographics of those households, so the intersection of cultural identity and rainbow identities, and what the impacts for those communities are. We can see here that Māori, Pasifika, older, disabled people are accounted for. I just want to understand the advice around rainbow communities, and particularly Māori rainbow communities, and the impacts on those communities. [Members rise to seek call] And if—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

BENJAMIN DOYLE: Sorry to my colleagues to my right. And if those considerations have been made, because—[Interruption]—thank you, yes. It’s not covered in here, so what advice has been received around that? The census data is very clear, and I wonder, also, if the Minister has been made aware of that census data. It’s quite shocking. We do see that, of a population grouping of 10,000 rainbow people aged 15-plus, 260 of that 10,000 experience severe housing deprivation. That’s a figure that contrasts to a non-rainbow population which has only 212 people per 10,000, so significantly higher housing deprivation. I’m worried that this amendment bill will drive that number and that gap further apart, and disproportionately affect rainbow and takatāpui MVPFAFF communities more severely. So what advice has the Minister received around that, and do you have confidence that that won’t increase that gap? Thank you very much.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Chair. My colleagues are talking a lot about the supplementary analysis, and so it does seem appropriate to look at those issues that are coming up there. The issue about increased hardship is one I think you’ve heard us, in the discussions we’ve had, really emphasise. It’s not possible from the report that’s come up, the supplementary analysis report, to know just how bad that story is.

Other things in the report indicate that while the average amount that people will lose is about $100 a week—and that’s the people who have boarders, I think, just averaged out—there is a discussion about how there is a high risk of bad publicity because there are some people who are very impacted by this change that is being made. I would like to know whether the Minister for Social Development and Employment was given examples of some of the worst impacts on people, because it’s very hard for us to judge how much injustice there is if we don’t have those examples shared.

I’d also like to know whether the Minister considered the history of the legislation, in terms of the use of the term “boarder”, because what the Minister has said is that there is an equality here between boarders and renters. But, in fact, those arrangements are quite different in kind. A renter has often got an agreement with somebody, and it is often a more business-like arrangement. A boarder is often an informal arrangement, and it’s more likely to apply to youth in difficulties and adult children, etc. It’s not the same basket of eggs at all, so I wondered whether the Minister had had any advice as to whether there was an initial reason why there was a difference between boarders and renters in that way.

One of the things I can see is that you may have a wayward child who’s not particularly good at learning how to pay—or may default on any board. We’re catching out a whole lot of people in a situation which might be more risky for them. And before, that was possible; under the law today, that’s possible because they’re not going to be penalised for reaching out a helping hand to somebody in that situation. But tomorrow, they are going to be penalised for that. They’re actually in quite big trouble if that money doesn’t come through, because the Government is going to take it all away from them again. I’d like to know what the story is in terms of that advice.

I can also see from that report, and I’m talking about page 5 of the supplementary analysis report, that there was “limited stakeholder engagement”. I’d like to know: what was that “limited stakeholder engagement”? Who was talked to when that report was put together, and who was not talked to? We’re not having a select committee process, so not everybody will be talked to. I can also see a real issue of not knowing what the impact of this legislation is, and that surely is related to who was spoken to and who wasn’t—but also related to what is described in the report as “unintended consequences”. You have a well-meaning piece of legislation where, perhaps, all the Government is saying it is doing is trying to find equity in a situation that’s utterly undermined by the reality of what people will do when they’re on the breadline, and, in fact, they’re just not going to be able to make ends meet if they are in a situation where they have boarders and suddenly that is going to impact on the way that they arrange their lives.

The report talks about what might happen in reality. And they all seem pretty reasonable things to suggest. We’re not suggesting it’s OK for people not to declare what is really going on, but that’s likely to occur—you know, one of the things that’s likely to occur is that people just will not have boarders. So how much measurement has been done of that situation, because the Government says it’s doing it to recover money and it’s trying to create an equity. But is that actually going to happen or are we actually going to have a whole lot of people, as this report suggests, moved—[Time expired]

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have three questions for the Minister for Social Development and Employment about the unintended consequences, and I want to thank the Minister for making available the supplementary analysis. This is a really helpful document as the committee of the whole House undertakes to examine what is happening here and the policy impacts.

My three questions are about the impact on the housing market. It’s really useful that we have two pieces of helpful analysis here, one about the increased demand for temporary housing and one piece about the impacts of homeownership—and I will ask the Minister some questions there. But first I’ll start with what’s missing from here, which is the impact on rents. I want to ask the Minister whether she has received advice on the impacts on rents of this policy, particularly on the market for low-cost rentals and rentals that are appropriate for young people and for seniors, who might be impacted by this policy.

We know that about 7,000 households are affected by this policy and that it may have the impact of tenants choosing not to take on boarders if they are in a rental situation, and the flow-on impact of that being for current boarders, who may find it difficult to find suitable affordable alternate accommodation. I’m reading that from the supplementary analysis, because I don’t want to confuse this situation with another answer that the Minister has given, where she has said clearly that it won’t impact some sorts of boarders. But for this sort of situation, the official advice is that it will have an impact on some boarders who will find it harder to find accommodation if they need to move out of their current situation. My question there is: is there advice that’s outside of this supplementary analysis about what will happen to the market for rents? That question is in the context of this Government having a focus on increasing supply of not only rental accommodation but housing and being very proud of that record. So I want to ask the Minister: has she considered how this will drive up demand for rents and what impact that increased demand on rents will have across the housing market as a whole?

Then I turn to the part of the advice about the increased demand for temporary housing. I want to ask the Minister about the number of people who are currently in social housing who may be affected by this policy—so how many people might we expect that are in social housing now who may have a boarder living with them. I’m particularly interested in young people in that situation. I would like to have a sense of the size of the number of young people who are already living in a supported living situation that is social housing but is with their family, who might then be in a situation where they might not have access to that housing and so will be looking for other even more resource-intensive mechanisms for their housing. Many young people who are not living with their family, who have been in these situations where either their housing is temporary, or who don’t have clear parental help with their living situations really need a high level of intensive support, and that is intensive support which is costly to the taxpayer. So I want to understand the number of young people who might be affected by this and what impact that will have on the costs of the system, if there are more young people who are needing that level of intensive support.

I know, for instance, Minister, that a very excellent housing provider for young people in South Auckland, Mā Te Huruhuru, has recently taken on some more young people. That’s something we can really celebrate on this side of the Chamber—but around the Chamber too, for everyone who is interested in the housing of young people. But we also know that when they opened up that round for more tenants, they were inundated with applications. I think it was about 300 applicants of people who would qualify for the service, and so it is in no one’s interest to see that number of people who are looking for supported accommodation continue to increase. We want solutions where these young people can be living with their families, and we want the incentive to be for their families, for their friends, and for other people in their community to be able to take them on without any barrier to that.

The third question I have for the Minister is around the impacts on homeownership. The question here specifically, before I run out of time, is—particularly on young homeowners, for whom there is also a lot of interest in this Chamber in incentivising them to save for their own home and then to get into their own home—how many recent homeowners are claiming the accommodation supplement? There has been some confusion. I have heard speeches on the other side of this House that suggest that there is some misunderstanding about who is claiming the accommodation supplement. How many young people who have bought their first home—we’re really proud of them—have sought the accommodation supplement, or how many of them have boarders who are also in that situation?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Mr Chair, I’m going to quickly go through a number of questions but I do want to just say that the whole intent behind this is around to ensure greater fairness for those who are accessing housing support, and not having a situation where both a person who is paying board is getting the accommodation supplement and the house they’re living in, the person who’s receiving the board, is also getting the accommodation supplement. So that’s what the intent of this is driven at. We don’t anticipate—because there is such a small number of households affected—that there will be any significant impact on the rental market.

Clause 4 clearly lays out the definitions—I would refer members to that. It clearly differentiates between what rent is and what board is, and the percentages that are allocated. So I’m not going to read what’s in the bill.

In terms of the impact on material hardship, the member Ricardo Menéndez March raises questions about that. I would just say very clearly in this committee: this is a Budget ‘24 measure, so it has been in the public domain for over 12 months. The intention behind Budget ‘24 was fiscal sustainability and alleviating pressure across hundreds of thousands of households who were dealing with the cost of living, and part of getting on top of the cost of living crisis for low and middle income households is to ensure that Government spending is sustainable. Where there is a duplication of a housing allowance, that’s an obvious one to reduce, so it has been carefully considered. I reject that this is an injustice; this is actually a level playing field where we are not having two people in the same household claiming the accommodation supplement for the same house.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): I’m seeking clarification. The intent of this bill, I think, has been in the public domain for quite some time. But I do want to remind the Minister for Social Development and Employment that we are only just seeing this bill, in urgency, so we certainly haven’t had the amount of time that that Minister would have had to scrutinise the level of detail that’s in the legislation. So we’re looking forward to a long and fulsome debate to get some clarification on particular points.

I want clarification on the point around who is affected here, because the Minister has stood up a number of times and said that it is to address the issue of fairness where two people are claiming the accommodation supplement for the same place, where one may be a boarder and the other one is the lead tenant. But I want clarification on situations where the lead tenant is claiming the accommodation supplement and the boarder is not. My reading of this is that the lead tenant is still going to have their accommodation supplement impacted by the income they receive through the boarder’s board. And, that being the case, I do want the Minister just to clarify that, because I’m looking at this, and I’ve only seen it for the last couple of hours, and I can’t quite take from what she’s been saying and what I’m reading that that is the case.

So, again, can the Minister clarify that the lead tenant, who has taken on a boarder and is getting the accommodation supplement, is going to potentially lose some of that accommodation supplement because they’re taking board? It’s not about two people; it’s about that lead tenant taking on a boarder and receiving board, and that being perceived as part of their income. If she can clarify that, that would be good.

My next question is around those that may be temporarily boarding, and I’m thinking about scenarios that may not be formalised to the extent that perhaps the officials have considered. I’m thinking of the sole mother with three children who has urgently left a domestic violence situation, has gone to a friend, and said, “I need somewhere to stay. Can you please take me in? Please let me and my kids live in your garage. I can pay you board whilst I’m here to cover the costs of me and my children being here, but I don’t know how long that will be for.”

Now, do they need to then declare to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) that they have taken on a family of boarders, and that that family is paying $100—let’s say a woman with three children—towards the costs of staying there, which is a very minimal cost and is certainly not going to see the lead tenant rolling in cash? Are they going to have to declare that to MSD? And what will that mean administratively if the lead tenant has no idea how long this domestic violence victim, this friend who has been a survivor or victim of domestic violence with their children, is going to be staying in their home? What does disclosure to MSD in that situation look like? I reference that with particular attention to the section in the bill that discusses the definition of what a boarder is, and I’m trying to work out whether those urgent temporary situations will be considered boarding situations.

I can think of other situations: someone is homeless, they are unable to access emergency housing, and they say to a friend, “Please take me in. Let me stay in your garage with my children. I’ll give you a little bit of cash to help with the costs of electricity and water, and perhaps even food, until I get on my feet. But I don’t know how long that will be for.” Does the lead tenant need to declare that to MSD? How is that accounted for? Does the Minister think that the perception in the bill that defines what a boarder is covers those particular scenarios, and, if so, can she please speak to that?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, the definition of a boarder is really clear in terms of—when someone pays board, they are not paying purely for the room. That’s why it’s calculated at 62 percent. What we do want to do is ensure that when the accommodation supplement or the income-related rent is calculated, it is based on the information of people who are living either permanently or temporarily in that household to determine whether the person is eligible for the accommodation supplement and at what rate. That is what’s fair to taxpayers.

No one begrudges paying the accommodation supplement or income-related rent or whatever support is required, but it should be on the current information, and it’s very normal practice for someone who is receiving support—in this case, the accommodation supplement—to advise the Ministry of Social Development and Employment when their circumstances change. The other thing that I would say, again, is that currently, before this law passes, only the third boarder or fourth boarder is considered. We’re just saying that, actually, it is common sense that any income from the first boarder or the second boarder should be taken into account in determining someone’s eligibility for financial assistance.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): I just need to follow up, because the Minister for Social Development and Employment has said the section in the bill about what defines a boarder is clear, but there’s no time frame or period of time that the person needs to be residing within that household and paying that board for it to then be deemed that that person is a boarder. Is the Minister seriously telling me that if a woman with her three children who has left a serious domestic violence situation and goes to a friend and says, “I need to stay for three days, four days, a week—I can give you a little bit of money. Please let me stay here.”, that lead tenant who’s getting the accommodation supplement is going to have to go to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), make an appointment or ring them up, and say, “I need to declare I have a boarder for three days who is paying $30 a night, and you need to take that into consideration, MSD, and deduct that from my accommodation supplement.”? There is no time frame for what constitutes what is a boarder. Is the Minister seriously telling me that if that woman with her three children pays $20 a night to the person who gets the accommodation supplement, that person is going to have to declare it to MSD?

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. It is important that we really scrutinise this bill because it is coming through under urgency. We’re looking at Part 1 as a whole, and I think it’s really important that we look at the effects that this will have on disabled people. We’re in quite an interesting scenario where the Minister that we are asking these questions of today, the Minister for Social Development and Employment, is also the Minister for Disability Issues. I think that she will have a lot more insight into this, so I’m really looking forward to hearing her answers.

I am interested to know why the Minister didn’t seek advice from the Ministry of Disabled People, from Whaikaha, around the effects that this will have on disabled people. Hopefully, the Minister can elaborate a little bit more just from their own role as the Minister, as to what she thinks are the effects that this bill will have on disabled people. One of the scenarios that comes to mind is when a disabled person is living in a Kāinga Ora home. Often, what happens is to make ends meet, to be able to pay the bills, to be able to participate in community, they’re actually having boarders live with them. And more than not, those people who are boarders are actually their support people. This is invaluable because, yes, support people are doing a job, but how amazing is it to actually build that community and have that disabled person be able to share the load and also support their support worker? That’s building community and that is making sure that our disabled people can—like, we know one of the biggest things that they’re facing is isolation. And so actually having the support person there, like, why would we punish that? I’m really interested to know what thoughts and what advice the Minister has on this.

Just looking here at the Including Boarders’ Contributions in the Calculation of Housing Subsidies: Supplementary Analysis Report that has come from the Ministry of Social Development, the section that is distributional impacts, which is, you know, talking about where one different parts of society may be impacted more than others. There is a section here on disabled people, and this is on page 24. There’s some really concerning numbers in here. In section 94, it says the number of disabled people who receive housing subsidies is difficult to ascertain. However, 51,459 supported living payment recipients also receive the accommodation supplement and 18,486 receive that temporary additional support. And furthermore, to that there are 15,624 supported living payment recipients who are also social housing tenants. We know how difficult it is for disabled people to have adequate housing. Accessibility is, and I know that the Government—this has been on the agenda—is focused on accessibility, like we all should be.

One of the other things we know in New Zealand is that our dirty little secret is that having a disability is a pathway to poverty and prison. So it would be really good if the Minister could elaborate more on what she thinks the effects of this bill will be on disabled people. This report also says that disabled people are likely to be disproportionately impacted by the proposed changes because many disabled people live with their support person who pays board. So thank you. I’d love to hear the answers.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister. Even though I’ve heard some parts of answers, I just wanted to impress again, into this space, starting with recognising the fact that in our context—particularly a Māori context, but not only Māori, Pasifika—there is no such thing as a standard nuclear family. So the intergenerational way of living is the way in which we thrive, flourish, and get on with our good lives. In that regard, how well is that appreciated in the analysis and therefore in the practice?

I’ve heard some responses to the boarder/boarding/housing words. But again, inside that definition, does it truly understand the intergenerational communal living idea—and in practice? I wouldn’t mind just getting more of a sense of confidence that that’s understood in this work. I don’t have any confidence currently in this work.

Then I would like some thinking or response, because it concerns us, around this “unintentional” or “unintended”—and it’s always said with such casual ease. It’s scary because “unintended” can equal devastation, more vulnerability, but it’s ticked off as, “Well, it’s an unintended consequence”—which equals “Oops”, and that is a dangerous situation. In terms of the classification of tamariki or mokopuna that might well be living with their kaumātua and all of those good things that come with extended whānau, how does this, in practice, keep those ideas safe, good, and healthy for whānau Māori? And what, in the end, are the mechanisms in place to ensure that these new definitions are not used to unfairly reduce support for Māori?

These are some of my questions. I’d be keen to hear it in more confidence. Thank you, Minister.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): There have been a couple of comments and questions around the relationships of those in a household. The bill is agnostic. Whether it is a caregiver, a disabled person, family member, extended family, same-sex relationship or not—the bill is agnostic about all of that. It is simply about if there is one boarder, and the boarder is paying board to the person who is running the household, that’s what triggers this and the consideration of the accommodation supplement and the housing assistance that’s paid.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I know that I can’t force an answer that I like from the Minister for Social Development and Employment, but it would be great to get some sort of engagement on the issue around whether she agrees that the savings were overestimated, as per page 7 of the analysis by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).

But I wanted to take us to clause 4, new section 65AAA. I particularly want to home in on paragraph (c), which is the bit that reads “if P resides at any social housing in relation to which P is an additional resident, 62% of P’s contributions for the period (excluding in the arrears):”. This is basically the inclusion of the definition of “boarder” into social housing spaces. The reason why I wanted to specifically focus on that line is because on page 15 of the analysis that we were presented by MSD, there is, starting in paragraph 39, a whole section on the eligibility for social housing and priority rating on the social housing register. The analysis itself talks about how the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Kāinga Ora have raised concerns around contributions from boarders impacting social housing eligibility. Does she agree with those concerns or will she just keep giving us the same answers about how she thinks people are double dipping and ignoring, basically, all the negative impacts of this bill? Does she at least acknowledge any of the negative impacts? But I’m really interested in paragraph 41.

I wanted to follow on by saying that Kāinga Ora noted that contributions from a boarder that is not part of a household is specific to the house the applicant is currently in, not to them as an individual. Kāinga Ora also acknowledges that, basically, the income is relevant to the affordability calculations of the current housing situation and alternative housing options. I also wanted to ask, basically, whether she agrees with the concerns, but also whether this is a sneaky way for the Minister to reduce the number of people eligible for social housing. Because this bill could have a negative flow-on effect on undermining the number of people that are eligible for social housing, allowing her to paint a much more positive picture about the demand for social housing when we still have housing hardship in our communities, effectively giving a new coat of paint to the list, making it look way better, and then giving her Government an out to build more public housing.

I think if we didn’t have the provision (c) in new section 65AAA, these concerns wouldn’t be so prevalent. But because this applies to social housing tenants, I’m particularly concerned about the fact that we could have people losing their eligibility for social housing while still living in hardship, which the Minister has completely failed to acknowledge. She talks about fairness, but she doesn’t acknowledge whether people who will now not be receiving the accommodation supplement won’t be living in hardship or poverty or in some difficult situation. So I wanted to ask—on top of that and my previous questions—whether she received any modelling from HUD, Kāinga Ora, or MSD around the potential changes to the social housing waiting list as a result of this bill.

To recap, my question says—well, it would be great to get an acknowledgment from the Minister about whether she thinks those savings were overestimated; whether she agrees with MSD. I wanted to ask if she agreed with HUD and Kāinga Ora’s concerns around the contributions from what is impacting social housing eligibility, and whether she received any modelling at all from MSD on the projected changes to the social housing register waiting list.

We’ve heard stories from people who have lived in emergency housing or unaffordable rentals for months, sometimes years, before being able to access public housing. Now, people who may have boarders in their homes and unaffordable rentals who could be technically qualifying for the social housing waiting list could then be negatively affected and completely being kicked out or being put on from the A category to the B category, deprioritising them all together. And we know—or anyone who works on the front lines knows—that if you’re in the B category, your chances of effectively getting a Kāinga Ora house are basically zero. This, basically, could deprioritise people to a place where they could never get public housing.

It would be great to get engagement on this. But, most importantly, I’m asking the Minister if she agrees that the savings were overestimated.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I have answered that question, again, but I will put on record—and I would invite the member to listen to my answer—I did say the savings forecast could have been overestimated but equally could be underestimated because we don’t have the data.

Ricardo Menéndez March: MSD didn’t say it could be underestimated.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I’ve just answered your question.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a first call on this bill. It has been a free-ranging conversation, very much focused on policy, and I appreciate the contribution from the previous member, Ricardo Menéndez March, which is starting now—for the first time, in my view—to really look at some of the clauses and I share some of his concerns. What I am proposing is that we had a bit of a conversation around the policy ramifications for different population groups. I would like to make a contribution and ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment some questions about that. But I’m also very keen that we actually look—we’ve talked policy. We have not gone and looked in a technical way at the bill at all, in my view. I think the last contribution is probably the first one that has attempted to do that.

I would like to go back after that in a back and forth, if I may, with the Minister to ask some specific questions, particularly around clause 4, new section 65AAA going forward, and there a few questions on each of those very fundamentals. If I may, the first thing I’d like to say is just, we’ve mentioned other population groups, but the supplementary analysis report also talks specifically about older people. I am the spokesperson for seniors and it talks about how the bill may have a disproportionate effect.

I’m thinking about the housing crisis that we have and also the competing policy incentive that we share, I think, across the Chamber of wanting to keep people in homes as long as possible, rather than institutionalised. Many of the boarders that are currently able to be taken in are going into supported living in houses, often run by women who want to supplement their accommodation and their income because they have children who are taking these people on. There is an informality about it, but there is also a social value to it where, for example, they might provide some caregiving, they might do the shopping because the person who is there cannot shop or look after themselves completely, but they know that they don’t want to be institutionalised and they are not able to stay at home. For many of those pensioners, let’s not forget that they only got a $2.15 a week tax break when the tax breaks were announced last year. So boarding does serve that social purpose of encouraging and supporting seniors to live at home.

What I’m concerned about is that not only will this disproportionately affect those boarders, because the people who own the homes will be disincentivised because of the changes to the accommodation supplement, but also what impact will it have on their ability then—the people who wouldn’t be taken in, who can’t live at home, who may not be able to afford to go to a retirement village and who may not qualify fully for care. These are massive problems, given the tsunami of need that is coming towards us in New Zealand around aged care. That is my first policy question.

My second one is really just looking at the reality as I know it of women—and it’s usually women; there are men who do it—who have made a choice to try and be there to bring up their kids, who need to have boarders and they are able to make the system work currently, and yet they will not be able to or they’re disincentivised to under this bill. When we call it double-dipping, let’s be really clear: they are not double-dipping. The accommodation supplement is going to individuals either who are the tenant or the first boarder or the second boarder or the third boarder. But when we look at things like homeownership and capital gains, we have interest deductibility and we have no capital gains tax. Now, in my view of the world, that is double-dipping so I’m not sure how the Minister can reconcile her definition of double-dipping with that one.

The other one I would say is just going now specifically to the technical elements of the bill. Clearly, we have got new section 65AAA in clause 4, accommodation supplement—the interpretation. We have a number of questions around this. And Ricardo Menéndez March has leapt ahead, which is great, and we share some of those concerns. But if we may go backwards and forwards—and I will be seeking a further call, Mr Chair—the first one talks about service costs being excluded. Why is there that differentiation?

Now, when I look at the original Act, it is because section 65(2), it’s got service costs, in relation to any premises, and it’s got paragraph (b), and it does not include—[Time expired]

BENJAMIN DOYLE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the questions from my colleague in Labour, Ingrid Leary, regarding the disproportional impacts on older people. Thank you for those questions, because it actually brings me to an important question about the question of the impact on rangatahi Māori. The distributional impacts outlined in the Ministry of Social Development’s supplementary analysis report talk on page 23 and 24 about how Māori and youth will be disproportionately impacted, potentially, by this bill. We know that UNICEF recently released a report, and I wonder if the Minister for Social Development and Employment has sought advice about this, because it’s a very alarming report.

Just to allow everyone in the committee to understand what I’m talking about, the UNICEF report, from May this year, ranks countries—there were 36 countries ranked—around youth mental wellbeing, and it actually outlines key determinants of mental ill health leading to suicidality. New Zealand Aotearoa has a shocking rate, an alarming rate, of youth suicide, particularly compounded with Pasifika and Māori youth.

My concern is about rangatahi, and my question is, as I stated earlier: has the Minister considered the impact on rangatahi Māori? In particular, we know that affordable housing is a key determinant of mental distress; the UNICEF report outlines that. Has the Minister additionally, in consulting the—my request is around understanding if the Minister has consulted that report from UNICEF, but also I wonder if or why the Minister has not sought advice from the Ministry of Youth Development or from the Minister for Mental Health, because these are intersecting issues. We know that the total number of 16- to 24-year-olds who receive a supplement is 54,693, so a really large proportion.

I also have a question around rangatahi for the Minister, around whether or not she’s considered an increase or having an age cap, I guess, or a base level to start the definition of boarder so that the age range is increased so that those who are rangatahi—why don’t we increase the age to 20, 21, 22, 25 to avoid including rangatahi in that boarder category? We know that there is a disproportional impact on youth. We know mental ill health leads in this country to an increase in suicide for our rangatahi, and mental health distress caused by housing—housing insecurity is a key determinant of mental health and mental ill health leading to suicide. I wonder if the Minister has considered putting an age range on the term “boarder” so that we can ensure that those who are younger, who are rangatahi, are not going to be affected by this.

We do not want to see rangatahi Māori—we do not want to see rangatahi at all—being more exposed to the risk of suicide. That would be a travesty. That would be a violence within this bill that I think we could avoid, and I believe the Minister would want to avoid that as well. I hope she’s able to explain her thinking on that and whether she would consider that. Thank you very much.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I have said before—so it’s feeling like it’s getting repetitive—the legislation is agnostic about who is a boarder and who’s not a boarder and their relationship with the homeowner or the head tenant. It is agnostic. But it basically means, if they have a boarder—i.e., they are paying board—that should, and will, take into consideration the eligibility for financial support.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for Social Development and Employment for addressing the questions. She’s trying the age-old trick that all Ministers do: try and pretend that she’s repeating herself to encourage a closure. But we’re not falling for that, because we have new material, and here’s a new question.

New section 108A—

Hon Louise Upston: Well, bring it, then, and ask questions. Ask questions, then.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Ministers aren’t supposed to heckle from the chair; that’s the first point. But the section that I’m referring to here is new section 108A, inserted by clause 10, and that refers to discrepancies and information received relevant to housing assistance.

Essentially, what this refers to is when—let’s say the primary tenant and the boarder have information that doesn’t quite match up. Fair enough, I imagine that would happen from time to time—particularly in the scenarios that we can all imagine or have assisted people with in our own areas, such as when someone is looking for a boarding situation because they are in a precarious situation. These are often temporary but certainly come about with very little notice. Now, it’s quite possible that the bits of information that both parties—party A or party B—would bring would be different.

But what concerns me is the proposals here that say that once the discrepancy is identified, they’ve only got one working day to sort it out. That doesn’t seem a very long time. It’s assuming that they’re in a position to be able to address the discrepancy—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just for clarification for the Chair, you’re linking that to Part 1? Because we’re on Part 1.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Yes.

Hon Louise Upston: No, he wants to move on to Part 2, clearly.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a question for the Minister for Social Development and Employment which is a new question about Part 1. I’m at new section 65AAA. I have gone to the Social Security Act 2018, which it is amending, and in that Act the definitions of the people that this applies to are set out. I want to clarify with the Minister whether there is a mistake here, because there is not an amendment to whom this applies, because this will have a particular impact on single mothers and single parents. They do not receive child support for children who are aged 18 to 19, and the policy has been before today—well, before it will take effect in 2027—that those adult children would have otherwise been able to receive a benefit.

I want to ask, particularly for that group of people, who will either be the homeowners or the head tenants, how this bill will impact on them. And I want to ask whether the definition of “boarder” here is intended to have a carve-out for those people who are 18 to 19 who reside with a parent. Many young people who are in this situation will be in a situation where they are with a parent and where they do bring some form of income into the family, and that income will, in some situations, be deemed to be payments for board and lodging. But surely, in the situation where we’ve had another policy change indicated by the Minister for the treatment of 18- to 19-year-olds, where they have even a single parent—I want to ask her whether this was something that has been missed in this bill and whether there should be in fact a carve-out for those people.

My question is also in the context of the supplementary advice that we received from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), which is incredibly helpful at forecasting those unintended consequences. But, obviously, MSD would have been restricted from the amount that they could have commented on this particular group of people, and there will be a particular impact that they will be needing to think through about those parents who will no longer be eligible for child support payments but will, effectively, be responsible for their adult children aged 18 to 19. I want to know whether this should be amended, and I’m happy to prepare an amendment in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Before I take the next call, just for some clarification for the committee, it would be helpful if you reference the clause or section that you’re talking to.

And, just on the other point around engagement—because I acknowledge that some members have called for engagement as well—if you front-load your questions, that will make it easier, I think, for the committee to be able to prepare to answer as well. But then also, if you’re going to take the full five minutes and you’re going to load up with lots and lots of questions, that can actually be counter to engagement as well.

Just in reference to the member the Hon Kieran McAnulty, my call last time was I wasn’t sure whether you were referring to Part 1 or whether you were referring to Part 2—just to clarify that. We’ll go to Carmel Sepuloni.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Thank you so much, Mr Chair.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for that clarification. My concern, though, is that when a Minister informs the committee that a member is speaking to a different part, the committee takes the Minister by their word. But she was incorrect. It’s not actually your query that was my concern, but part-way through my call, when the Minister says you’re talking about Part 2, you sit down and check. But I was not. And so I should be allowed the opportunity to continue my call.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Point taken. The Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much. As I was saying, new section 108A, inserted by clause 10, Part 1—here we go, we’ll continue on. A situation where—let’s call it—“beneficiary A” and “beneficiary B” have provided information to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) that doesn’t quite match. They’re only given one day—one working day—to sort that out. Now, that doesn’t seem reasonable to me, and I would like to understand from the Minister for Social Development and Employment as to why they’ve landed on that.

But what concerns me more is that after 10 working days from the day on which MSD notified them about the discrepancy, this will, essentially, affect the benefits, the assistance, that both parties get. Now, that doesn’t seem very fair, when it is entirely feasible that only one of these parties has provided the incorrect information yet both of them will be punished if one of them doesn’t provide that information. And what’s even worse is that after eight weeks, if that one of those parties doesn’t rectify the situation, their assistance is cancelled.

Now, what is the justification there? When you have a situation that identifies that there are two different parties to this agreement, it requires both of them to provide information. If only one is incorrect and that party, for whatever reason—and that could well be incapacity—is unable to resolve that first of all within 10 working days, to be affected by, essentially, a suspension, and then by eight weeks a cancellation—that is going to cause considerable harm in circumstances that are quite feasible where parties, through no fault of their own—they’ve provided the right information; the person that happens to be in their residence hasn’t—but they’ve lost their benefit, they’ve lost their assistance. I’d like the Minister to outline the justification of it.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): I’m looking again at Part 1, new section 65AAA, in clause 4, where the definition of “boarder” exists. I didn’t get the answers before from the Minister for Social Development and Employment about those that may be there for temporary lengths of time or because of emergency situations. But I wanted to ask the Minister, under paragraph (b), where it says “does not include a person who resides at any social housing”, whether any other exemptions or exclusions were considered.

I want to know whether the Minister considered that another exclusion could be a person who has left urgently in an emergency situation, such as a domestic violence situation, and whether or not the Minister considered excluding from the definition of “boarder” a person who may have been moved out for evacuation purposes because of a natural disaster emergency. Did the Minister consider a sole parent main tenant who was on the sole parent benefit and has children who are 18 or 19 now and so has become ineligible for the sole parent benefit but still has those children residing with her, but they are not working but studying, or perhaps working part time? Could they be excluded as boarders because they decide they want to give their mum $100 a week knowing that their mother is no longer getting the full amount of the sole parent benefit because the children have aged out? I want to know whether the Minister considered any of those scenarios for exclusion from the definition of “boarder” or any other scenario from the definition of “boarder”.

I also want to know from the Minister whether or not she considered a time frame with respect to how long someone needed to reside in that residence to be considered a boarder given the transient nature of some, the difficultly getting housing, the fact that often people are forced to live with friends or family for a short period of time until they can get more stable, secure, and, hopefully—and we always hope—permanent housing. Did she consider under this definition of “boarder” a time frame to be attached, perhaps giving them two months and then defining them as a boarder before they then incur the penalty that is being incurred by them now as a result of the legislation that’s being passed?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): The minions are already trying to close the debate, despite them moving urgency. I wanted to ask about clause 9—specifically on the bits that read, “After section 69(3), insert”, and not (3A) but (3B): “MSD must cancel an accommodation supplement that has been granted if it has been payable at a rate of zero for eight consecutive weeks.”

I want to ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment where the eight weeks figure came from. What informed the decision to put eight weeks here in clause 9? For example, I can see a greater flexibility being needed—I mean, a boarding arrangement between family members can fluctuate sometimes. You know, somebody might stay there for three months or longer, and right now with periods of unemployment that are much greater than before, you could have somebody living there for a greater period of time. So I did want to understand where the eight-consecutive-week period came from, whether you may have wanted to give that a bit of flexibility or—you know, just the rationale behind it.

Following on from that, I wanted to draw attention to paragraph 44 of the supplementary analysis report, including the boarder’s contribution and the calculation of housing subsidies, because this is something that I would have definitely asked officials about if we had had a select committee—which I don’t understand. If she kept talking about how this was something in Budget 2024, why didn’t she introduce this bill between 2024 and today’s Budget? Like, we actually could have had proper select committee scrutiny, but at paragraph 44 it talks about the interactions in relationship to the excess income of boarders and how this may affect the assessment of parental income for student allowance.

Right now, for many students, they are not able to access a student allowance because their parents’ incomes are deemed to be too high. For many students, this in and of itself is a disincentive to enter into tertiary education. The analysis presented by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) in paragraph 44 talks about how that could be a negative interaction in terms of people’s eligibility for a student allowance. I wanted to ask whether MSD did any modelling around the reduction of people who now qualify for a student allowance as a result of the changes to the parental income that are in this bill, and I wonder whether that is counterintuitive to, perhaps, the goal of the Government to support people entering into education, to meet their aspirations, and to have the qualifications so they can enter a range of different types of employment, unless her intent was to create a low-wage economy—which, I mean, I would argue that that’s the case, but I’m keen to hear the Minister’s opinion on this.

I also wanted to ask whether, if MSD did do any modelling around how many people may lose out on student allowance, there could be a cohort of people who could end up being left in a situation where they’re dropping out of university all of a sudden after the bill’s passing, because you could have people, for example, who are studying towards a degree, who qualify for a student allowance, and they have suddenly been stripped out of that support as a result of the analysis—you know, a really good observation by MSD of how there will be an interaction, particularly under the provisions in clause 4, due to this.

If there’s an analysis by MSD, I’m keen to know if there is data on the different types of ethnicities, where those people may be concentrated. This is particularly important: having trained social workers in the past before, I assume that there’s a massive rate of people dropping out, for example, from the social work degree, but we’re actually starting to see it across the universities. I’m really worried, even in MSD apprentices, that the bill, in particular the provisions in clause 4, could lead to fewer people being able to sustain themselves in education. Is the Minister comfortable with this interaction? If not, you know, could she be open to excluding people in education from being qualified as boarders, and does she not think that this could be a way to ensure that people who are pursuing education end up missing—well, actually, the parents of students don’t end up having an income deemed too high for their children to then qualify for student allowance? Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): There’s been a couple of questions about time frames. So in terms of any disputes, obviously we will want to ensure that disputes are resolved quickly, which is why there is a disputes process built into the bill. Because what we don’t want is for people to be overpaid assistance, which of course then leads to a debt, and that increases the stress for people who are receiving that assistance. In terms of the eight weeks, the eight weeks is part of the system functionality. It’s consistent across a wide range of existing suspension or cancellation rules, so it’s a standard time frame that’s been used and that’s why there’ll be no entertaining of any changes around the time frames.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to continue some of the kōrero around some of the questions in terms of Māori that was put up by Benjamin Doyle, but I also have an amendment that the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon Louise Upston, might want to have a look at. I was listening to Benjamin Doyle’s kōrero, and I think the points raised, particularly in the areas of the worst statistics, have to be repeated. You know, you’re talking about some of the worst employment rates going in terms of the country—in fact, that’s the only area where we saw a change, in terms of employment: unemployment rates, I should say. There’s a lot of consequences from this type of legislation, and, with that being the case, I want to ask the Minister what sort of consultation she’s gone through in that area, given that straight after the Budget I received calls from a couple of iwi leaders very concerned in terms of where the Government was moving in the Māori direction.

With that being the case, I thought I could help the Minister, and I have put up, as you will see, an amendment there in clause 4, new section 65AAA: before paragraph (a), to insert, when considering accommodation supplements, that due consideration is given to the principles of the Treaty”—namely, the principles of participation, protection, and partnership. I’m sure that could help the Minister very much, particularly now, and maybe bring the Government a bit more on side with Māori at the moment, who feel rather—

Shanan Halbert: Shafted.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —depressed, shafted from the current Budget. But any type of clause like this would, in fact, give some encouragement to Māori. So that’s a clause that’s being put up for serious consideration. It’s important that the obligations of the Crown are acknowledged and honoured. And, of course, the Minister will know, I’m sure, that the principles of participation, protection, and partnership benefit not only Māori, but all beneficiaries who are faced with having their benefit cut. So installing this type of clause, I think, will go some way to giving some encouragement to Māori.

So can the Minister explain how the principles I’ve mentioned are being actioned in the legislation? Maybe she might be able to point them out. How’s the Crown going to protect families when they’re sanctioned and their accommodation is cut off? Where will they go? That’s where, maybe, the Minister can inform us, in terms of her relationships with some of the iwi or Māori organisations, what’s happening in that area. And in that participation area, how is the Crown promoting participation when this legislation is being put through under urgency, with no one having the opportunity to participate in the select committee process? It’s a real stand-out. Here we are in the dead of the night, Friday night—

Hon Member: The rugby’s on.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I don’t know if anyone’s watching us—I think they’re all watching the rugby. Sadly—sadly—they’re all watching the rugby, and here we’ve got this cunning Government sliding through this type of legislation in the middle of the night.

But, seriously, I don’t put the principles up, Minister, just for a joke, because you will know that I’m very focused on partnership with the Crown—Māori and partnership with the Crown. So how is the Crown working in terms of partnership with our NGOs, Māori and mainstream community providers, when considering this new change? What’s the level of consultation, and will the Minister consider implementing what I’ve put up, which is, as I said earlier, in clause 4, in new section 65AAA, before paragraph (a), when considering accommodation supplements, that due consideration is given to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, namely in the area of participation, protection, and partnership—partnership being, I suppose, the go-to word given that that type of kōrero is now being questioned by many, many people, particularly after the Budget. So I put that seriously in front of the Minister and ask her: is that something that she or her officials or Government would consider?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Before I take the next call, it would help the committee—and I know that some members have been doing that—to refer to the clause that you are referring to; also, to all your Amendment Papers. And for those of you who are seeking engagement with the Minister the Hon Louise Upston, if you’d front-load your questions and give the Minister space to actually answer them, that would be helpful.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m referring to clause 4, inserting new section 65AAA, and we are looking at paragraphs (c) and (d). There’s an amount there of 62 percent. You’ve heard my colleague suggest that there might be an opportunity to carve out groups that are impacted more severely than other groups, and that’s been pointed out by the officials.

But my suggestion to you and my question is: do you really believe this is the best method of assessing a fair amount of division when—what we’ve talked about tonight—there’s a lot of situations which are very informal, and they’re based on people doing a deal for someone? For example, their adult children or their older children—they will actually have them for less money. If those adult children are paying $50 a week—and we’re talking, really, teenage children, often—there’s not actually a case in justice for a 62 percent deduction. That makes a lot more sense if they’re paying $200. But if they’re paying $50, that doesn’t make sense because it won’t cover the costs that are outgoing on things like water and food.

What I would like to know from the Minister for Social Development and Employment is: did she consider an alternative method of establishing the amount that should be reduced? Would she now consider an amendment which suggested that, so that there was a proportionality? If somebody is paying a low amount, which is reflective of a familial relationship or a goodwill relationship or just being a kind person, there might be a discretion from the Ministry of Social Development to not reduce at that level—which seems, to me, a lot more just in the circumstances.

I’d also like to know how the Minister got to the figure of 62 percent, because that just seems to be arbitrary in this situation. I’d like to also know—and this is a reference, again, to the supplementary analysis: there are figures there of the amount that is expected to be lost by people, so they are on page 21 at paragraph 74. Somebody with one boarder is expected to lose $92 per week, and somebody with two boarders is $148. Now, that can’t be right if they’re only paying $100 in the amount as boarders. If you’ve got a child boarding and they’re paying $100, are they going to lose $92? Is that actually what your officials are telling you, or is that based on some sort of averaging of what the estimate is that we think people are paying in board, on average rents? So how were those figures calculated as the loss to our families? So we have losses of $92 a week if there’s one boarder, $140 a week if there are two boarders, and $202 a week if there are three boarders.

Can we understand—and I genuinely would like to know from the Minister: what was the methodology used to come up with those figures which are in this report? What does she understand that they were based on? And why hasn’t she used a proportional response? Would she be willing to consider building in a discretion to deal with unjust situations where the board charged simply won’t cover the costs, for there to be an alternative formula rather than a hard 62 percent of whatever it is? Because I do hear the Minister when she says it’s agnostic. But that doesn’t seem agnostic to me; that seems blind. It’s just blindly stupid to charge people more when they’re actually doing people a favour out there in the community.

We’ve heard from my colleague about the wellbeing impact of that kind of wraparound care. In fact, it’s a theme in the night. So could I please have an answer to those questions—I’d appreciate it.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The 62 percent is something that was determined in the 1990s in terms of what was considered someone in terms of the accommodation costs associated with board as opposed to someone who is a renter. If somebody is renting off you, 100 percent of the costs are considered accommodation costs. That’s why we will not be entertaining any changes, and that’s why it’s clearly laid out in the definition of “boarder” and the percentage. If somebody’s charging $200 a week, 62 percent of the $200 are considered accommodation costs. We’ve traversed this a lot, but I’m hopeful that the member now understands 62 percent is the accommodation cost component of board.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to move us to clause 10 of Part 1. This is, in particular, the obligations in relationship to discrepancies in information received. This is adding in a new section 108A. What this new section does is, basically, it’s trying to address discrepancies that may arise, for example, from information received by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) from a beneficiary receiving housing assistance, and information received by MSD from another beneficiary who is receiving housing assistance or a tenant of social housing who pays an income-related rent. Basically, what this lays out is the mechanisms that exist to, for example, address these discrepancies.

What the analysis report by MSD identified is that there would be an increase in risk of people, effectively, committing fraud. Therefore, I wanted to ask, as part of the design of new section 108A, inserted by clause 10, whether the Minister for Social Development and Employment sought to check whether the fraud services by MSD which could end up investigating, for example, these discrepancies, are adequately resourced or whether they would need a booster resource in order to address these discrepancies.

I think this is particularly important because if we look at, for example, the new section 108A(3)—this is line 10 on page 7—there’s language like, “If the discrepancy is not resolved to MSD’s satisfaction within 10 working days from the date on which MSD notified A and B of the particulars of the discrepancy, MSD must suspend,”. There’s language here that just arbitrarily has laid out 10 working days. I want to understand what the rationale was behind it. I also wanted to understand, for example, whether for disabled people those 10 working days could end up being a barrier—like whether she sought advice around those 10 working days in new section 108A(3), whether they’re adequate, how did she come to that conclusion, was it just arbitrarily decided, and whether she was using other parts of legislation to help guide the decision to put 10 working days here?

Going back to my earlier question around the resourcing of MSD to address these discrepancies, I wonder whether she would like to address the fact that this may require additional resources for the services that deal with investigating fraud, as well as whether, for example, she thinks staff will need additional training to manage these discrepancies. If she does think that staff will require additional training to manage the provisions in new section 108A, inserted by clause 10, I wonder whether she would like to reflect on the fact that MSD did recently tell us that the front line is oversubscribed, and whether this will be feasible. Because the consequences of those discrepancies not being adequately worked out between MSD and the people receiving income support could be disastrous, right? We know that MSD makes mistakes on the regular when it comes to calculating people’s entitlements and so, while I know that automated decision-making may address some of this, I’m keen to get the Minister’s reflection on what I’ve asked around areas in new section 108A, inserted by clause 10.

Now, I did want to ask, as well, in relationship to the likelihood of people being criminalised—and by that I mean having to commit fraud in order to survive—whether she did seek advice from MSD around any modelling of, for example, a number of additional investigations that could likely take place as a result of this, whether she has any numbers around the increases of investigations that could be triggered. But I’m also interested to know whether she sought advice around the likelihood of greater benefit review committee hearings occurring as a result of people challenging decisions being made as a result of these discrepancies.

The benefit review committee hearings—for people listening in—are basically the hearings where people can dispute decisions that have been made by MSD. So I wonder whether, as a result of the provisions in new section 108A, inserted by clause 10, she thinks those hearings will be more burdened; we already hear at the front lines about delays to even get a hearing and an outcome.

Again, I know that we haven’t spoken about clause 10 and this deserves adequate scrutiny as it could have really negative consequences for people, so I’m keen to get the Minister’s reflection on these.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I’ve addressed time frames. In terms of the 10 days, we want to get the issues resolved. I’m saddened to hear that member thinking that this would lead to an increase in fraud. I don’t believe that would be the case at all. This is about people being clear about, if they are receiving board from a first boarder and a second boarder—that that is taken into consideration as part of their circumstances when they are eligible or for the level of accommodation assistance or not. The 10 days is so that we don’t have a situation where people are either overpaid or underpaid and getting it sorted quickly, which I would’ve thought that member was interested in.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment a few questions in relation to this—my first opportunity to contribute to this bill. The question I had follows on from the questions that my colleague Helen White was asking in relation to the 62 percent. I have a different question on a different part of Part 1, but it touches on some similar issues around the original Act that we are amending and the way that percentages were arrived at in terms of the active parts of this particular amendment bill.

I’m looking at clause 14(1)(q)(i), and I’m also looking at clause 14(1)(q)(ii) and 14(1)(r), and all of those proposed new sections reference 38 percent as a percentage number. I wanted to check with the Minister: she mentioned when in response to Helen White in relation to the percentage of 62 percent—which is a different part and in relation to a different matter—that that was agreed on in 1992, I think; it was agreed on in the primary Act. And I wanted to ask her for this particular percentage if this, too, was carried over, and if she did, in fact, think about looking at those different percentages of contributions and whether those are still appropriate at this time.

I think the reason that it’s really important for the committee to find that out is because this is an issue that we do have with amendment bills, is when we have an amendment bill, we only have the active parts that are being changed in relation to the primary piece of legislation. It is actually extremely problematic that we don’t have a marked-up bill that shows us what is an existing part of the bill and what is a change. In fact, the way that drafters draft this is that sometimes they change only certain words or numbers, and sometimes they change entire sections. And sometimes it looks like they’ve changed an entire section, but actually not so much has changed. It’s very difficult for us to ascertain exactly what the position is when we don’t have the entire Act in front of us, and of course we can’t mark that up ourselves when we’re going through urgency without a regulatory impact statement.

On first blush, they seem like arbitrary amounts. I appreciate that there’s a lot of history associated with this particular piece of legislation and its impact, and I’m sure that there was due consideration when the amounts were considered. I’d like to know: did the Minister take advice on that and what was that advice? Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The member refers to clause 14: 38 percent is the inverse of the 62 percent that I talked about previously that is counted as accommodation costs. The 38 percent is the balance that is not.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): I will say to the Minister for Social Development and Employment that, as a result of the debate earlier on where we were debating clause 4, new section 65AAA, under the “boarder” definition, I have put forward an amendment that I want the Minister to consider, which adds an exclusion to the definition of “boarder”. Currently there’s only one exclusion, that being “does not include a person who resides at any social housing”—that’s (b). I’m adding (c): “does not include a person who has left a domestic violence situation to be in a new home where they would otherwise be considered to be a boarder”. I would like the Minister to let me know whether or not she will take the time to consider that exclusion, considering the very urgent and serious nature of the situation for those that find themselves in domestic violence situations.

I do have another exclusion, and the Minister can let me know whether she’s going to consider that. We will, of course, be voting for that because the amendment is on the Table. It is Part 1, again. It is clause 9, “Section 69 amended (Accommodation supplement: refusal, reduction, or cancellation of grant in certain circumstances)”. It says “After section 69(3), insert: (3A) MSD must refuse to grant an accommodation supplement if MSD is satisfied that it would, if granted, be payable at a rate of zero.” The next one is (3B): “MSD must cancel an accommodation supplement that has been granted if it has been payable at a rate of zero for 8 consecutive weeks.”

Now, what I want the Minister to consider is that there are some good people in this world who take on boarders who have high and complex needs. That includes mental health, addiction issues, but is not limited to mental health and addiction issues. In many of those circumstances, it does increase the risk of the board being inconsistently paid or variable in terms of payment, not through any fault of the lead tenant, and certainly, there are reasons for why that can happen for a boarder in that situation. But we wouldn’t want to discourage people providing an opportunity for those who have those high and complex needs to be able to take up board within their homes.

However, it feels unfair that that lead tenant or homeowner could then have their accommodation supplement refused when there is enough evidence to suggest that they are taking a slight risk and that there will be variable payments potentially and it could be inconsistent and there could be some weeks where it’s not paid. But to then have Ministry of Social Development (MSD) have in writing that if it’s deemed it would be payable at a rate of zero then they’ll have it cancelled seems unfair. It also seems unfair that if they’re gone for eight weeks consecutively then it would be cancelled, given there could be still a risk with the boarder because of the high and complex needs, and I wonder whether or not the Minister took that into consideration.

I’m worried that people will be discouraged from taking on boarders for a range of reasons as a result of this bill, and this is one. It puts them in a potentially precarious financial situation themselves. It does seem that MSD is going to have less flexibility in relation to those who are claiming accommodation supplement. And then what happens to those with the high and complex needs? We know that there are people who struggle to pay their board regularly. Doesn’t make them bad people—often it’s just that they have some very, very complex needs. I think many of us would have met someone like that across the course of our life—I would hope, if we’re in touch with what happens in reality. So I want the Minister to consider whether or not there should be exclusions there or exceptions, in some way or another, to ensure that that particular scenario is covered off.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): It’s me, isn’t it? Oh, thank you—

Hon Member: “Busy Willie”.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you—don’t worry. Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I had a couple of areas I wanted to talk about. The Minister for Social Development and Employment has still not come back to me with the question I had earlier in terms of Treaty partnership and whether there had been any consideration or regard to that, and I was talking about new section 65AAA in clause 4. So I just want to put that up again, and I’ve got another amendment that I want the Minister to consider. But I have put that up seriously, given the current climate. It is an amendment that, Mr Chair—you’ve just come into the Chair—amends new section 65AAA in clause 4 to insert, before paragraph (a), “when considering accommodation supplements, that due consideration is given to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, namely the principles of participation, protection, and partnership”, which is a serious question.

I think it would help the Government very much if they went down this track, given that the Crown has a duty to protect whānau, particularly those who have been sanctioned. The Crown always talks about promoting participation, and, of course, partnership is the very challenging term that this Government is traversing at the moment.

I want the Minister to have a look in Part 1 at clause 10, and new section 108A(4). My amendment is about replacing “8 weeks” with “12 weeks”, and the Hon Carmel Sepuloni has just traversed that area. So it’s another serious amendment proposal. It’s about giving the Ministry of Social Development a more reasonable time frame to allow beneficiaries to correct a discrepancy before a suspension of a housing allowance, after identifying where the discrepancy is. This is pretty self-explanatory; this is about providing enough time for whānau before housing allowances are suspended.

We don’t want families kicked to the kerb and living on the streets, which, sadly, is becoming a bit more common than we might think. It’s very hard, of course, to track the figures in this area because all we hear is about whānau leaving emergency housing, but then we don’t know where they are going. So I think that we might be able to help that by inserting this type of clause.

I also want to know from the Minister what flexibility there is in terms of extending this time frame, and the impact that it will have on whānau while extending their time frame, because of the impact it will have on families, and the rationale behind why eight weeks is enough time for families to comply. It is a very contentious area when we look at the stats, as I’ve said before.

We’ve got terrible statistics in the housing area for Māori, and that’s what I talked about earlier. Māori are leading in all the worst statistics in terms of homelessness and in terms of unemployment at the moment, so I think that both these amendments would help the Minister immensely, and would maybe even garner or may be able to get some support from some of the local NGOs, because they would see a Government that is a bit more caring, rather than the punitive-type Government that it’s now being seen as by many in our community at the moment.

Is there any consideration given to those two amendments? I did not receive any response on the Treaty principles question. There was no response to that, but in Part 1, clause 10, at new section 108A(4), replacing “8 weeks” with “12 weeks” is, I think, a reasonable request, given that this is incredibly controversial at the moment. Given that so many of our people at the coalface—and when I say “our people”, I’m talking about Kiwis at the coalface—are feeling under attack from this Government, why can the Minister not consider something that is obviously not so punitive, but is a bit more sensitive and caring in terms of our local communities? Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I will call Ricardo Menéndez March, but I will indicate at the moment that we’ll be looking for new material. I’ve been following this for some time, so please be looking for new material.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I just want to evaluate clause 11, “Section 162 amended (Obligations of young person granted youth support payment)”. That hasn’t really been covered. I just want to ask: why has there been a decision made that basically 100 percent—this is someone who’s young and receiving the youth support payment—counts as contributions as defined in section 65AAA? I’m concerned about this, due in large part to the analysis by the Ministry of Social Development and Employment (MSD), which does talk about the impacts on young people, but I did wonder whether the Minister for Social Development and Employment would be open to telling us what led to this decision.

I think that there’s an issue with young people who are boarding negatively contributing to the person who they’re boarding with losing income support. When you’re quite young and receiving the youth support payment—that in and of itself assumes that there’s a level of precarity. What I worry about is that that could create additional stress between the people living there. The provisions in clause 11, in and of themselves, make me worry that there could be an increase of additional stress between the people living with each other.

But then if we also look at—and this is new material—something that hasn’t been touched on, but I think could it be worthwhile raising it here in terms of the cost of living, and it definitely would have been raised in the select committee stage if the Minister had allowed us to have one in order to evaluate this thoroughly. In the supplementary analysis, there’s a mention of increased friction between people on income support and MSD staffers—that’s very explicitly mentioned.

I wonder—because of what clause 11 introduces and its relationship with the youth support payment, I think this would be worthwhile raising it: whether MSD would need to invest in additional measures to deal with this friction that MSD has identified will likely happen as a result of the bill; and, if so, what is the dollar figure, if any, of the resourcing that will need to go in to address the increased friction that this bill will cause, as identified by MSD themselves? I think the Minister so far has dismissed a lot of the MSD advice that we’ve been presenting, for example, like the increase in hardship, the increase in homelessness, the increase in the need for emergency housing. But I’m really concerned just regarding the advice from MSD that talks about increased friction because this is the reflection from the front line.

To recap my two questions in relation to clause 11, is whether the Minister would be open to reducing that 100 percent figure so as to not create additional tensions for people who are boarding together; and has there been any additional resourcing, training documents, etc., to deal with the fact that she has been advised that this bill will increase friction at MSD offices?

Finally, I did wonder whether she also may think that, as part of that overestimation in savings that I referenced before, that could include in clause 11 and the advice I’m referencing an additional need for security. Does she think that actually there may have to be increased spending on security at Work and Income offices to deal with an increase in friction? If so, has MSD modelled anything in relationship to increased security needs—for example, including additional lockdowns that may happen at Work and Income offices due to this friction that has been identified in the supplementary analysis?

I find it actually really staggering to see the members kind of laughing at some of these questions. I mean, perhaps as constituency MPs, they haven’t engaged with Work and Income clients who’ve been affected by a lockdown which interrupts assistance, but I think clause 11 would be a good point to raise that in. And while I take the advice from the Chair, I do want to again invite the Minister to engage with questions that we could have raised at the select committee stage. This is a bill that would have deserved a lot of scrutiny; we’re not getting it. So I do want to make sure that the Minister is also engaging with issues that pertain to the clauses but also the broader policy analysis that this bill deserves.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. This is just my second contribution this evening. My first one was very much along the population group for seniors, but there are a number of questions—short, sharp questions—I’d like to engage with the Minister for Social Development and Employment on, if she’s prepared. We could do a backwards and forwards. So I will ask the questions and if she doesn’t respond, then I will just carry on. I’d really like to get these through Part 1.

The first one, Minister, is that the threshold, which is 62 percent—Helen White alluded to a sort of discretionary threshold. I have a tabled amendment that suggests 42 percent. We know, when I looked at the original Act, that the original Act, I think, was 1997. There hasn’t been a reworking of the data. So I’d like the Minister to consider whether 42 percent, given the cost of living crisis, would be more appropriate.

In clause 4, new section 65AAA—I’ll just wait for the Minister to see if she wants to; no, she doesn’t—paragraph (d), when we talk about the exclusions, it talks about the 62 percent, and then it says, “and lodgings at the premises at which P resides (excluding any arrears)”. Now, the arrears comes from the principal Act, and removing the exclusion would help those who cannot get an appointment at the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) due to front-line staffing cuts. And we know that because, in my electorate, people are finding it really difficult to get appointments. We don’t want this to be just an arrears and open slather thing. So would the Minister consider tempering it so that it captures the date that “a person (P)”, in the formula, first communicates with MSD to make an appointment? Now, that can be verified—it can be done electronically, it can be done with phone logs. It doesn’t disadvantage P, but it does seem very unfair in the current environment that arrears could occur because people have not been able to get hold of MSD. So I’ll just pause—see if the Minister wants to respond.

OK, I’ll go to my next question, which is around service costs. Service costs in new section 65AAA: people have actually wrapped up water supply to a premises as part of the costs. I think there is actually a miscomprehension that water costs are a legitimate cost. But the original Act excludes them, as does this. I don’t know if any thought’s been given to it. But we are moving to an environment with affordable water where it is likely to be metred. I wondered if the Minister has considered just removing paragraph (b) and taking water costs out so it’s not excluded—remembering this goes back to 1997—would she consider doing that?

OK, my next question for the Minister is around “boarder”. We’ve had a number of questions around that, but this is a genuine question around tent-dwellers, some of whom dwell in other people’s tents. We have that situation in Dunedin, and sometimes they are using their equipment and some of them are using dishonest means to get the accommodation allowance because they absolutely need it. So it’s probably not ideal to include a tent-dweller in a boarding definition, but I wondered if the Minister has considered whether there should be an extra provision to provide some kind of accommodation allowance, given the normality now of people living in tents and cars. I will pause, but I have some more questions still on Part 1. So the Minister is not engaging that.

So I want to have a look at clause 5, “Section 65 amended (Accommodation supplement: discretionary grant)”, which is around the accommodation supplement discretionary grant. The word “discretionary” has been taken out. My question is: why? Is this about automated decision-making? Because in the subsequent subsection (2), it talks about “may grant a person”, and I’m wondering if there’s kind of trying to make a brightline entitlement. So we have heard that MSD and other organisations are trying to have automated responses, using AI. And I just wondered whether the reason for taking the word “discretionary” out reflects that; and, if not, what is the impact that the Minister would like to see with the removal of that word?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I would’ve thought the member was positive about that. By the removal of discretion, it actually means that it will be granted to anyone who is eligible.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve still got some more questions. This is around, again, replacing another title, in section 66, with “Accommodation supplement: social housing exclusion”. I haven’t tried to guess at what that means, but the title has been changed, so I presume the Minister for Social Development and Employment is wanting that to have an impact, and I’m wondering if she could explain that.

If not, then, looking at clause 6(2), replacing “section 65” with “section 65AAA” in section 66(1). This goes back to something that Ricardo Menéndez March alluded to really early on in the piece. He referenced whether it is about making social housing harder. I’d like to unpick that a little bit, because when I look through the legislation, it does seem to do that.

“Kāinga Ora” has been expressly deleted as a community housing provider, and in that section it is being replaced with “social housing”, which is broader. Now, in the deleted subsection, “ ‘social housing’ has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992”, but that definition is now deleted. So my question is: what does the Government mean by “social housing” in new section 65AAA? Is it deliberate to indicate more privately owned social houses, and is it deliberately undefined—which would be a worry from a policy perspective, because it means it’s really broad; or should it adopt the same meaning currently used in the struck-out subsection, which refers to section 62 of the Public and Community Housing Management Act, and therefore explicitly say so?

Now, there may be a schedule that captures it, but I don’t think so. And if it does, it’s incredibly unwieldy and difficult to follow. So I’m wondering if the Minister could clarify that, because the problem is that the Act defines “social housing” as “social housing”, meaning “Kāinga Ora housing or community housing”, and a “social housing provider means Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities or a registered community housing provider”. It’s still different than what is intended by this section. We really need some clarity on that, Minister, because otherwise the cynical view would be that this is some kind of step to privatise social housing and that you’re trying to broaden the definition. But, otherwise, is there a way that we can get the original definition back in?

I have some other questions as well, because I can see the Minister doesn’t want to respond yet. She’s probably thinking about it. In clause 7, “Section 67 amended (Other funding exclusion)”, the heading is being replaced with “Accommodation supplement: other funding exclusion”. Again, it’s a subtle difference, but I want to understand why the Minister has bothered to change the words there if she hasn’t bothered to define “social housing”. What kind of difference does she expect to see from the change in that title?

One of the previous speakers referred to the disability community, and I’m not going to go into that except to say, really on behalf of the disabled community, there has been a lot of criticism about partnerships and about the impact of the current laws on those who are in a partnership and one of the partners is disabled. So I’m interested to know if the Minister even bothered to look at that to see if there was an opportunity here to make that fairer.

When I go to clause 8(1), “Section 88 amended (Accommodation supplement: special rules for joint tenants who are in relationship” in section 68(1), after “occupied:” it says “insert ‘as a residence’ ”. Why has she added those words, and what difference does she think that will make to implementation?

There’s another one that probably needs a little bit more clarifying, I think, and is a little bit more concerning, which is in clause 8(2), which amends section 68(1)(b). We’ve got “replace ‘accommodation costs’ with ‘weekly qualifying accommodation costs’ ”—and I think I’ve got an amendment on the Table on this. It looks like this is to limit the costs that will be recognised. Also, that could be changed by regulation, potentially, because “weekly qualifying accommodation costs”, presumably, is defined somewhere in regulation. Now if that’s a policy change, the legislative guidelines in the Legislative Design and Advisory Committee require those policy dynamics to be in the primary legislation, not in regulation.

My question is: why are you making it weekly? Why couldn’t you make it monthly or six-monthly so that it isn’t a barrier to access for people who are needing to articulate this all in a weekly budget? But, also, is there an intention that—or does it mean that—this is determined by regulation, and will she consider my amendment just to cross out the “weekly qualifying” and keep it as it was in the original legislation? Mr Chair, I still have some more detailed questions in Part 1, but I’m getting through them.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Thank you, Mr Chair. Tēnā tātou. Clause 11 amends section 162, youth support obligations. I want to preface this by saying that my questions will come from the context of working in suicide prevention and postvention for a number of years, and family harm in Te Tai Tokerau and the number of terrible things that occurred back in 2012 and, sadly, still occur today, particularly for young Māori men and young Māori boys. So that’s the space. Family harm, as well—young mums, older mums are suffering the types of terrible situations nearly on a daily basis. That’s the context.

So clause 11. What works for young people, Minister, is trust and working relationships, and even if it has to be with your Ministry of Social Development (MSD) case worker. Discretion is a key part, in my experience, in my observations, because when you have a trusting relationship, when you can trust that your MSD case worker is going to have your good interests at heart, discretion is a key to be able to apply the practice, and when you take it out, it screws that up. So it troubles me that those sorts of things are being applied, particularly at a time where young people are struggling to trust any authority, which I understand. I mean, I used to work, sadly, in these spaces, so I get how, when these things are applied—even with all the best intention—that these things stuff up, because rules and regulation that are changed like this, without speaking to young people and their families and their communities, you get this kind of messy situation where young people are caught in the churn of this kind of idea making, simply because it suits a certain bunch of people. So I’m concerned about that.

So what appropriate guidance will be offered to ensure that young Māori beneficiaries—young people—understand their obligations and rights under the new rules? So this is under clause 11. And then, has the Government evaluated the risk of rangatahi Māori falling out of support due to misunderstandings, administrative errors, and just simply deciding that “You’ve had enough of a go, young fella, we’re now just going to make the decision for you, at you.”? Look, I don’t mean to mess the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s face up, the way she’s grimacing now—

Dana Kirkpatrick: So rude.

Hon Nicola Grigg: What?

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —and, possibly, that’s a communication and an answer that she’s providing me, which is interesting in itself. But let’s just put it to you and dismiss the noise on the left. That is a real concern, Minister. I know it to be so—I know it to be so. I’ve worked in suicide prevention, postvention, and the risks of that for young people have not changed, at all; in fact, they are heightened by this kind of planning without them. So, Minister, look, honestly, I didn’t mean to cause your face to grimace like that, but these are my questions. I’ll leave it up to you, thank you.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’ll indicate to members that at this stage, there’s been a lot of conceptual and policy questions. I think we’re well covered there. Any questions now will be very specific to a part of the bill. I think you’ll hear that message.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Mr Chair, I have an amendment I’d like to ask about, and it is based on the indication that has been made in, actually, a very early part of the bill, the one that was concerning the number that was being described, so the proportionality. One of the things that is in the supplementary analysis is that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) says it will do a review.

I would like to propose an amendment that would go in at clause 15 and it would say that we are committed to a review that would include whether the proportion had worked in the time frame of the review, which I suggest should be two years. That would give us time to see what the impact was and review it—and it looks like MSD are already saying they will monitor any unintended consequences; they’re saying there are going to be a lot of them. That one is of particular concern to me, and so I’d like to know whether the Minister for Social Development and Employment would commit to the statement here in an amendment, because it sounds like MSD wants to do that review. It would just be to extend it beyond what is in this to include specifics, including the proportionality—with a proportion of the amount.

So I’d be very keen for an answer about whether the Minister would do that; and, if not, why not? Why wouldn’t we want to do that given the number of unintended consequences? But also, that issue about whether the proportion’s going to have an issue and whether we’re going to have consequences in the housing market in particular, with people—there’s a chilling effect here on people boarding. I’m going to keep my contribution short, because I know my friend Ingrid Leary would love to take a call.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): I move, That debate on this question now close.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to remind the Government members: they rushed this under urgency with no select committee scrutiny. It is well within our right to be asking questions around the impacts of this—I could’ve been asking this to officials outside of the late-night period.

I want to move to clause 14 in relationship to (2) and then the new definitions around “market rent”. This is page 11 of the bill, around line 9—it’s basically line 9 to around line 19—where it talks about how this is defined, “market rent”; that “for Kāinga Ora housing and for a period, means the rent notified to the agency by Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities—(i) as being the market rent for that housing”. I think there’s an important thing here in the language that the Minister for Social Development and Employment has chosen to use in this clause 14. If we marry up the language in clause 14 plus the supplementary analysis, I want to understand whether, in the definition of “market rent” that she has chosen to use for clause 14, she considered the highest possible market rent that someone could be subjected to after losing the accommodation supplement and while being in public housing.

I think this is important because what it helps us understand is the absolute highest increase someone could be facing in their market rent while being in a Kāinga Ora home, for example, as a result of the language that she chose to use in clause 14. This is important because, as we have talked about earlier, there is a genuine impact on people’s lives here. I know that she kept talking about how this bill is agnostic, but the advice that she has been given demonstrates the absolute opposite. So before the members on the Government side laugh and, you know, think that the issue of people suffering is funny, I would recommend that they may want to think about how the definition of “market rent” as laid out in this piece of legislation could have quite a negative impact on people’s ability to retain the Kāinga Ora home. So I did want to understand as to whether she did talk to Kāinga Ora and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development specifically about the range of market rents that people could be subjected to, due to the fact that this is specifically defined in clause 14 between line 9 and about 19.

I also wanted to understand, if we look at that very same clause—and we’re looking at line 4 to about maybe 40—there is the formula that’s been given. I did want to understand whether this formula is something that she chose to just carry on from previous formulas that have been used for calculating someone’s accommodation income, or whether this is something she chose to review and to seek any engagement with the Ministry of Social Development on as part of the introduction of this bill.

I also wanted to understand as to whether the calculation of accommodation income is going to be translated or created into something that is more user-friendly. You know, for someone who may have not pursued formal education and taken a level of advanced mathematics, I can see how they may struggle to, for example, take the formula that is in clause 14 and be able to interpret it in a way that allows an everyday person to understand what accommodation income means for them. There’s a formula that is “a × (1 − ((b + c + d) ÷ e))”. I mean, I can understand this formula—I did complete my calculus while I was in high school and we were taught that—but I can also understand that many people who are boarding may be trying to navigate and understand the changes that she’s making, and I want to know whether she’s devoting any resources to make clause 14 actually digestible for everyday people by resourcing, for example, a portal in the MyMSD website where people can calculate what their accommodation income will be like under clause 14. If not, I can see how the negative distributional impacts of this bill could be exacerbated by people not being adequately able to calculate their accommodation income as in the formula in line 10.

So, to recap, I’m interested to know the highest possible market rent that somebody in Kāinga Ora could be affected by this bill, and whether she is thinking of a user-friendly formula.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We are getting very close. There is another factor that does come into this: ministerial participation in the debate. I’ll take a call at this stage.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. We still just have a few more questions on Part 1. The first one is around clause 8(2)(b), amending section 68(1)(b), where it says, “replace ‘section 65’ with ‘ “clause 7” of Part 7 of Schedule 4’.” In Part 1 of the principal Act, the Social Security Act, that goes to Subpart 10, “Accommodation supplement”, and specifically, for this part, “dependent child”, as defined in Schedule 2, excludes “a child in respect of whom an orphan’s benefit or an unsupported child’s benefit is being paid”. Turning to that, the fact that this has been put in deliberately means, in my reading of the legislation—I’m seeking clarity: does this mean that the orphan’s benefit or unsupported child’s benefit becomes part of the calculation of the deduction of the accommodation allowance, and why did the Minister for Social Development and Employment deliberately go out of her way to ensure that was excluded, if that is the case, if I’m reading it correctly?

The second one is around tenancy. We’ve got two different definitions of “tenant”: there’s one in clause 8, and it’s a very specific one—after cash assets—and then we’ve got another one. So I’m just wondering which one supersedes.

The third question I have is in relation to amended sections 69(3A) and (3B), inserted by clause 9, where it has referred to the “rate of zero”, which my colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni referred to. This is a bit of a problem, because it says that “MSD must refuse to grant an accommodation supplement”, and “MSD must cancel an accommodation supplement”, and then it’s going about that zero area. Now, my concern is that there’s no discretion there, so the Ministry of Social Development suddenly has no discretion to be able to provide some wiggle room which it has previously. And yet when we look at the following subsection 69(4): “This section does not limit MSD’s decision to refuse to grant, reduce, or cancel an accommodation supplement”. So this means MSD must cancel an accommodation supplement with no discretion under the new subsections 69(3A) and (3B), and yet it has all the discretion to cancel or to reduce it if it wants to in other circumstances.

Now, that seems to me to be really problematic. It continues the David and Goliath relationship between the principal tenant and MSD, and it makes MSD the judge, juror, and executioner when it comes to eligibility. So if the Minister could please entertain my tabled amendment, I have suggested it would be better to allow them that discretion. Just change the words. Just have 69(3A), “MSD may refuse”; (3B), “MSD may cancel”.

If I turn to the other ones that I was looking at—Mr Chair, I’m making sure that I’m not going to repeat anything—I would like to see the discrepancy in the section that the Hon Kieran McAnulty referred to where he talked about the unfairness of one working day. We should please have that as two weeks. I think that’s a reasonable period of time to be able to get things in order for people who are—remember, these are boarders who may be transient; they do not necessarily have the same access and skills as others. Two working weeks seems about right. Even a week would be better than a single day. Now, I may have an amendment on the Table in that respect, but, if I don’t, I’d really like the Minister to please consider it.

Then the definition of “tenant” again, in section 6 of the Social Security Act—that is a different definition to replacement section 68(2), inserted by clause 8(3). Why are they different, and why are prospective tenants included, and which one prevails? If somebody’s in a tenancy but they’re going to be in a boarding or social house tenancy for another house, but they haven’t yet moved and they’re in a private boarding arrangement, for the purposes of this section, which tenancy prevails? It’s very unclear under the Act, and I would suggest it would be better if there was just one definition of “tenancy”. I wonder if that is because the legislation has been rushed.

Finally, I will just look at clause 11, amending section 162 of the Social Security Act: “If the person resides at any social housing in relation to which the person is an additional resident”—really clunky wording, I’m wondering if the Minister can please explain what that means.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am seeking engagement with my questions around how this disproportionately impacts disabled people. I know the Minister for Social Development and Employment has a big interest in this area, so I’m really seeking that engagement. In the Speakers’ rulings, it says that we look for engagement from the Minister along with good conduct from the committee, so I’m really seeking that engagement now.

We’ve heard a range of really important questions from my colleagues on a range of people who will be disproportionately affected. That is in this report, the Including Boarders’ Contributions in the Calculation of Housing Subsidies: Supplementary Analysis Report, from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). In this analysis, it talks about a range of people who will be disproportionately impacted. We’ve heard it from members on this side of the Chamber, talking about Māori, Pacific people, older people—and, for my very own question around disabled people: we are seeking that meaningful engagement, because I haven’t heard any of these questions being meaningfully addressed. What we’ve heard is the Minister answer a range of these questions about specific groups of people, mine included—about disabled people—and the Minister’s answer was that this was agnostic. That, in my opinion, doesn’t address the advice analysis—that MSD has provided on pages 25 and 26—that there are disproportionate impacts outlined in this analysis. I’m seeking engagement on that.

To recap, this is a massive proportion of our society—51,459 disabled people—on the supported living payments. When the Minister chose—these people deserve an answer. That’s why I’m seeking engagement on this exact question around how this bill disproportionately affects disabled people, many of them living in Kāinga Ora homes. It’s hard to get accessible homes. It’s important that they stay in these homes, and many of the boarders that they have are actually their support workers. So we want to know who—

Hon Member: What?

KAHURANGI CARTER: It’s literally in the analysis that says disabled people—section 93—“disabled people are likely to be disproportionately impacted by the proposed changes because many disabled people live with a support person who pays board. Due to the limited availability of accessible housing within the private housing market and social housing, disabled people often incur additional costs related to their housing as a result of their disability. Many disabled people also have less choice over whether they live with a support person or not”.

We’re talking about a large population of people: 51,459 on the supported living payment; 18,486 on the temporary additional support; and, furthermore, 15,624 on the supported living payment. These people, if there was a select committee process, would have had the chance to ask these questions, to give their lived experience as to why it is so important that they are able to have this subsidy. That’s why I’m seeking engagement from the Minister to answer the questions about why these people who are disproportionately affected—should be answered. Saying that the legislation is agnostic is completely ignoring the advice in the analysis given by MSD.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s difficult when we pose questions and then we don’t get a response from the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon Louise Upston. I don’t feel like that is re-traversing areas that have already been covered when we didn’t actually get a response. However, I did say earlier that I was referring to and wanted to raise issues with clause 9 in Part 1, inserting new subsections 69(3A) and (3B), where it talks about the situations with these changes where “MSD must refuse to grant an accommodation supplement if MSD is satisfied that it would, if granted, be payable at a rate of zero.” And I raised the issue around boarders with high and complex needs and the potential for their board payments to be variable or inconsistent.

I went away and I actually thought, “OK, there is a solution. We can help the Minister by putting up an amendment.” So I have put up an amendment, and I want to speak to that amendment. What I’ve done is add, after the word “zero” in that particular subsection, “except in situations where the lead tenant or homeowner has a boarder with high and complex needs, including but not limited to mental health and addiction, and there is a high risk of inconsistent or variable board payments”.

I want the Minister to take that into consideration, because, as has been raised by my colleague Ingrid Leary, this is pretty non-discretionary. The two new subsections here, (3A) and (3B), say the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) “must” refuse to grant an accommodation supplement if, etc., and then MSD “must cancel an accommodation supplement that has been granted if it has been payable at a rate of zero for eight consecutive weeks.” There’s no discretion in there for the scenario that I’ve just explained, that I’ve added to the amendment that I’m putting forward.

There is another option, and the other option is something that we’ve also just recently added to tabled amendments, and that is for the Minister to consider changing the language so that it becomes MSD “may” refuse to grant, MSD “may” cancel an accommodation supplement. That would provide a level of discretion, at the very least, that may not require the amendment that I’m putting forward, which explicitly states the scenario where you would expect MSD to be able to actually—where it wouldn’t necessarily apply.

There’s two scenarios there I wanted the Minister to turn her mind to, for new subsections (3A) and (3B). She could simply change the language from “must” to “may”, or she could take on my amendment, which includes the extended version, which spells out a very real and possible situation where they would not have their accommodation supplement refused and where they would not necessarily have their accommodation supplement cancelled. I ask the Minister to consider both options, and to speak to them and to let us know whether she will or will not support, and to give us a rationale for her decision on that.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I’ve been clear about time frames and why I’m not accepting any changes to time frames. I’ve been clear about the fact that there are a range of people with different needs and different requirements around boarding, and the legislation is agnostic. We do not want to remove any options in terms of board being an option. It is simply a very simple, practical bill that talks about the fact that any board payment is considered.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 4 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of accommodation costs be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendments to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the percentage of contribution to 42 percent be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the percentage of contribution to 25 percent be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendments to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the percentage of contribution to 28 percent be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendments to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the percentage of contribution to 28 percent be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert “of over $700” after “pays for board” in paragraph (a)(i) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert “of over the age of 32 but under the age of 65” after “a person” in paragraph (a)(i) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert “at the age of 36” after “a person” in paragraph (a) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of board to insert “of over $1,000 pays for board” in paragraph (a)(i) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert “over the age of 48” after “a person” in paragraph (a) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude a person under 20 years be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude a person aged under 19 years be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude a person aged under 25 years be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude a person aged under 24 years be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude a person aged under 23 years be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude a person aged under 22 years be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude a person aged under the age of adulthood be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who has left a domestic violence situation be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than three days be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than four days be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than nine days be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than 11 days be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than two weeks be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than 19 days be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than three weeks be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than 29 days be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than 90 days be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than two months be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than three months be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert new paragraph (c) to exclude any person who will reside in that residence for less than four months be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert “of over $900” after “pays for board” in paragraph (a)(i) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert “of over $700” after “pays for board” in paragraph (a)(ii) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert “of over $1,000” after “pays for board” in paragraph (a)(ii) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to amend the definition of “boarder” to insert “of over $900” after “pays for board” in paragraph (a)(ii) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 65AAA, to delete paragraph (b) in the definition of “service costs” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendments to clauses 4 and 15 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 8, section 68(2), to delete paragraph (a)(iii) from the definition of “cash assets” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 8, section 68(2), definition of “tenant”, to insert “of over $700” after “who pays rent” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 8, section 68(2), definition of “tenant”, to insert “of over $900” after “who pays rent” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 8, section 68(2), definition of “tenant”, to insert “of over $1,000” after “who pays rent” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 9, section 69(3A) and (3B), to replace “must” with “may” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 9, section 69(3A) and (3B), are out of order as being the same in substance as previous amendments.

Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 9, section 69(3A) and (3B), are out of order as being the same in substance as previous amendments.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 9, section 69(3B), to replace “8” with “12” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 9, section 69(3B), to replace “8” with “12” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 9, section 69(3B), to replace “8” with “16” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 9, section 69(3B), to replace “8” with “20” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 9, section 69(3B), to replace “8” with “18” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 10, new section 108A, to replace “discrepancy” and “discrepancies” with “inconsistency” and “inconsistencies” in each place be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendments to clause 10, new section 108A(1) and (3), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 108A(1)(c), to replace “1 working day” with “15 working days” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 108A(1)(c), to replace “1 working day” with “30 working days” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 108A(1)(c), to replace “1 working day” with “10 working days” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendments to clause 10, new section 108A(3), to replace “10 working days” with “30 working days” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendments to clause 10, new section 108A(3), to replace “10 working days” with “60 working days” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 10, new section 108A(3), to replace “10 working day” with “20 working day” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 108A(1)(c), to replace “1 working day” with “20 working days” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 108A(4), to replace “8 weeks” with “10 weeks” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 108A(4), to replace “8 weeks” with “12 weeks” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 108A(4), to replace “8 weeks” with “12 weeks” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 108A(4), to replace “8 weeks” with “20 weeks” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 108A(4), to replace “8 weeks” with “16 weeks” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to Part 1 to replace references to “62 percent” and “38 percent” with “50 percent” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to replace clause 14(2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 14, Schedule 3, to replace “38 percent” with “55 percent” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 14, Schedule 3, to replace “38 percent” with “54 percent” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 14, Schedule 3, to replace 38 percent with 53 percent be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 14, Schedule 3, to replace 38 percent with 52 percent be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 14, Schedule 3, to replace 38 percent with 51 percent be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to other legislation

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 19 to 30, “Amendments to other legislation”, and Schedules 2 and 3. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Part 2, Subpart 1, clause 25 inserts new section 118A into the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992. The new section 118A sets out what the agency must do if it identifies a discrepancy in information received that is relevant for the purposes of ascertaining the appropriateness of the income-related rent that a person is or was paying. Now, I’ve got a few concerns about this particular clause, and I think others may take issue with this clause—and probably every other clause in here too.

The concern that I have is that the agency, if there is a discrepancy between the two tenants—let’s say there’s a lead tenant and there is someone else living at the property—with regards to how much they are paying for board, then the agency needs to take certain steps. Now, the steps—and I do need to give the context, otherwise what my concerns are is not going to make much sense for the Minister for Social Development and Employment, and the questions won’t either.

The agency “must notify A and B of the particulars of the discrepancy as soon as reasonably practicable”; if the discrepancy is not resolved to the agency’s satisfaction within 10 working days from the date on which the agency notified A and B of the particulars of this discrepancy, the agency must, on the first working day after the end of the 10-working-day period, provide notification to the social housing provider under section 106 that is applicable: “(a) the rent for the housing must be its market rent for the time being, in accordance with section 72(3); or (b) the rent for the housing [must] be determined by the registered community housing provider but must not exceed its market rent for the time being, in accordance with section 92(3).” What I want to know from the Minister is: what’s the difference?

I’m assuming that (a) is referring to Kāinga Ora tenants, and there’s no discrepancy there for Kāinga Ora to make a determination of rent being anything less than market rent. Yet a registered community housing provider for the related rent is going to be able to have discrepancy to set it at a different rate to the market rent. I want to know from the Minister: what is the difference, and why could Kāinga Ora or the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) not have that same level of discretion to make a determination which means that it isn’t market rent?

I also want to know, because obviously there’s always issues—or not always, but there can be issues—with people that are sharing accommodation. What happens if it is found that, actually, there is a reason for the discrepancy? Perhaps the tenant also—one of them—was not able to be contacted. These are often working New Zealanders. They could perhaps be out of the country or not contactable at the time that they’re being contacted about this to have the discrepancy sorted. Is there some kind of provision for them to be reimbursed if the decision is made because of the discrepancy to lift it to the market rent level, given human nature, life happens, sometimes people are not contactable?

So two very simple questions. We just want to make sure that the safeguards are in place for normal, real-life situations and also want to understand why there would be a different level of discretion for community housing providers versus the State when it comes to determining the level of rent in these situations. Why is it that the State would just immediately move to market rent, even though they could have information that shows that, even if the worst-case scenario in terms of the differences for how much board is being paid—perhaps it doesn’t even meet the test for market rent? So why the difference?

And then also, in the instance that they have a good reason for the fact that they were not able to support with getting this resolved within the time frame, will there be a reimbursement so that these people—or person—are not out of pocket?

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just some quick questions because we will have quite a few of them, so I’ll keep them brief in the hope that I’ll get more calls.

To supp on the question of the previous speaker, Carmel Sepuloni, I do have, in fact, an Amendment Paper that might resolve it for the Minister. So instead of having, “within 10 working days”, just to be able to get some discretion back into this bill, because we’re seeing how Draconian it is, an easy and elegant solution would be my Amendment Paper, which says, “to replace ‘10 working days’ with ‘a reasonable time’ ”, given all the circumstances of (a) and (b). So each time 10 working days is mentioned, just to elegantly insert that, and that does give the Ministry of Social Development discretion, but it also means it’s going to be reasonable that taxpayers know that they will use that in a good way.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just check with the member what—

INGRID LEARY: This is referring to new section 118A and then subsection (3) and subsection (3)(a). Also in subsection (b)—I’ll refer to that one first since we’re there: it talks about “must not exceed its market rent for the time being”. I’m just wondering what that means, because it’s also referred to in clause 20, “Section 73 amended”, and it says, about Kāinga Ora homes, that it must be market rent “for the time being”. That is a really loose term and doesn’t provide any certainty for those who are impacted by it. I’m wondering what the policy reason is for that, and whether there could be a tighter definition, or is this going to be just something that’s just going to go on and on and on—there’s no certainty for those who are impacted; or is the Minister referring to the time being, because, perhaps, it’s been referred to in some other legislation that we don’t have in front of us? I will have more contributions, Madam Chair.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I think the previous speaker, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, answered her own question in terms of why it was market rates for Kāinga Ora. The simple answer is that they set the market rent, so that is why they’re separate. Community housing providers have targeted support for their cohorts. They are independent contracted services, and their agreements specify that they are able to determine the rent. So they are able to determine it being less than the market rent.

In terms of these disputes, I did refer to this in terms of Part 1. I said that I would not be entertaining any changes around any time frames, so I’m not going to repeat myself there. Ten days is to provide certainty for the two parties that are in dispute.

The previous member raised the suggestion that if somebody had gone overseas and they weren’t contactable—well, if they were a boarder that had gone overseas, they’re clearly not eligible for the accommodation supplement because they are out of the country. The housing arrangement now doesn’t exist; the housing arrangement has been null and void. So, therefore, it’s pretty clear what would happen.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is our first call in relation to clause 25. I did want to touch on the answer the Minister just gave in relationship to the disparity that has been unpacked in relationship to community housing providers and State housing providers. I wanted to ask—the Minister just talked about how community housing providers don’t have, I guess, the same level of access to just determine the market rate rent. But I did wonder whether—and I ask this because, again, we would be able to ask this in the select committee, should this have not been progressed under urgency and we could have just gotten some answers in writing from the agency, quite likely, and we would have been able to even summon, potentially, Kāinga Ora or invited community housing providers to submit around what, if any, analysis does the Minister have in relationship to the distribution of what market rate rents are for community housing providers across the country.

Because I worry that, for example, the way that this has been laid out—and particularly, too, the ability to either set the rent for the housing at market rent for the time being or determined by the community housing provider but not exceed its market rent. I did wonder whether that could inevitably lead to community housing providers acting in a punitive manner because of that ability that they would have to determine which option they use—something that Kāinga Ora wouldn’t have. What safeguards has the Minister created to avoid community housing providers potentially choosing to act punitively?

And then I’m keen to understand if the Minister asked for a range of market rents that community providers, housing providers, could lay out. I ask this because this is really tied to a lot of the analysis that’s been provided around low-income people being affected by this. If we have a community housing provider in an area that has been gentrified recently and is facing higher than previous market rents when, for example, the tenant moved in, the material impact that people could face if a community housing provider puts the rent up to market rate could be disastrous. It could push people out. So I’m really curious to know as to whether the Minister did ask for the range of market rents that exist for people and community housing providers.

The other thing that I wanted to ask in relationship to this clause is what level of consultation, if any, she did have with community housing providers across the country on this specific clause. I think that we did see in the analysis there was limited stakeholder engagement. It’d be good to know—because beneficiary advocates, for example, in that analysis, provided really critical feedback. They didn’t seem to like her proposals. She didn’t seem to care. But I’m curious to know as to whether—and that is in the paper; it’s not just my opinion, by the way. They were critical—that’s in the paper itself. But I am curious to know what engagement she had with community housing providers around the provisions in clause 25. If she did not have any engagement with community housing providers specifically around giving them those two options, how is she satisfied that these will be suitable for them if she did not consult with them? So I’m keen to test the level of assurances that were given by those providers.

And, secondly, does she think that community housing providers will need additional resourcing or staffing to then be able to have the capacity and the ability to determine this? Will her ministry then be engaging with community housing providers to communicate that now they will be having these two options and how will she ensure that these are applied rightly so? And if, for example, a tenant isn’t satisfied with the option the community housing provider has chosen, will they have a recourse and ability to challenge this decision made by the community housing provider? Again, these are all questions we could have unpacked at the select committee stage more thoroughly, but none the less they deserve scrutiny right now.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): Thank you. It is just a quick follow-up. Just making sure that I heard the Minister for Social Development and Employment correctly—that she said you could not travel overseas and maintain or retain eligibility for the accommodation supplement. Can she clarify that? Because I’m looking online—and maybe this bill changes it; we only just got it recently, so we haven’t had a chance to traverse it as much as she has—but online, it says you can continue receiving the accommodation supplement for up to 28 days while you’re overseas, if you still need to pay for accommodation costs.

Obviously, the point of me asking this is that, if there is a discrepancy between tenants and there is an attempt to try and ascertain what is right there, if one’s not even in the country and able to respond, does that mean that their rent will automatically be shifted without them having an ability to impact that, and then will they be reimbursed? But I do need to ask her to clarify what she was saying earlier, because what I heard seems to be at odds with the advice that I see online.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): No, because the member referred to the fact that if there was a dispute and someone was overseas and couldn’t be contacted—how would they resolve that dispute?—and I was simply saying if they’d abandoned that, if they’d gone overseas and were no longer in contact, if they’d been out of the country for a period of time beyond that, then clearly the housing relationship had ended.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to come back to some of the questions that were asked earlier tonight, but I’ve actually got a new amendment. So I want to come to clause 20, replacing section 73(4) of the Public and Community Housing Management Act in terms of, in the case of an increase in rent, consideration is given to the principles of the Treaty. The Minister has not yet once responded to any questions with regards to Māori, tikanga Māori, partnership, consultation with iwi, consultation with NGOs. I have consulted with colleagues around the House, and it is a concern that she continues to ignore the question, given the negative statistics that we’re dealing with all the time in this area. So we’re talking, as I keep saying, about the high Māori unemployment, which has gone up to 10.5 percent, I believe, and that was an increase—no increase in terms of unemployment in terms of the general stats, but in terms of Māori unemployment stats—

Ryan Hamilton: What’s the question?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, you should have been listening earlier, but I’ll repeat it just for you, since you’ve got problems with your ears. So the question is, as I said—just for that member; I don’t mind repeating it at all—it’s: will she consider amending section 73(4) to “In the case of an increase in rent, that consideration be given to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”—which I know the National Party values and supports very much, unless David Seymour asks them otherwise.

I say that seriously because we’ve had a number of questions tonight that the Minister has not answered with regards to partnerships and relationships with Māori. I know, herself, where she’s based, she probably—I assume—would have a relationship with Tūwharetoa. I’m asking that, given the statistics, given the pressures on te ao Māori, given what’s been happening lately, that due consideration is given to this amendment that has been put up, and also understanding that if you’re supporting the principles of the Treaty, you’re talking about participation, you’re talking about partnership, you’re talking about working with Māori—when, where, how, who has the Minister spoken with; which NGO, which iwi? Has she consulted with her local iwi? Has there been a process of consultation on this, given the ramifications and consequences, which are huge for Māori?

The other thing, of course, is that it is actually in the Ministry of Social Development supplementary analysis report in terms of Māori being overrepresented in all areas, Māori being disproportionately impacted by the reduction in financial support available to households with boarders—Māori are overrepresented according to the report, and social housing. So this would surely be one of the referencing points for the Minister—and it’s very, very clear about the adverse impacts on Māori at the moment, and yet tonight we have not received one response from the Minister with regards to obligations from the Government on that, and hence that’s why we’re putting up this very, very reasonable amendment at this time, replacing clause 20, amending section 73(4), with references to principles of the Treaty. I’m giving the Minister an opportunity, and this Government—and the National Party, in particular—a chance to free themselves from the nonsense from the ACT Party, who continually want to get rid of any references with regards to the Treaty right across legislation.

So I would ask the Minister for a reply, a response, to that amendment which has been put up now and, of course, has been put up earlier—and, of course, much kōrero about te ao Māori, with no response. I put that to the Minister.

BENJAMIN DOYLE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair; I appreciate that greatly. I wish to talk to a point that the Green Party haven’t had a chance to speak to in this Part 2 yet. It does build on what the Hon Willie Jackson was speaking about, but it is a new and distinct point.

The Hon Willie Jackson was referring, of course, in the Ministry of Social Development’s report, the supplementary analysis report, to page 23, when referring to distributional impacts for Māori. My focus, instead, is on page 26 and relates to clause 23 of Part 2, around section 107, which is around calculating income-related rent.

I have concerns that I’d seek clarification and also some reassurance from the Minister on regarding the risk that the report outlines of the Crown breaching obligations under the articles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. So this is distinct from the discussion around principles, which has been referred to by the previous speaker in regards to an amendment. I’m interested in how the Minister—I’m just interested in the Minister’s response: I was hoping the Minister could reassure me of how she will mitigate the risk of breaches that the Crown might make of its obligations to the Treaty?

Now, my concerns come from the fact that we know from census data from 2023 that, per 10,000 Māori, 394 Māori are living in severe housing deprivation. This social determinant is disproportionately impacting on that population group, that demographic.

This is, potentially, a breach of Crown obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi as outlined in this Ministry of Social Development (MSD) document.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We’re not debating Treaty breaches. We’re debating, in the clause you’ve referred to, income-related rents.

BENJAMIN DOYLE: Yes.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. I’d like to seek your clarification on that very interjection, because this is a bill that’s under urgency. We did not have a select committee period. The MSD advisers specifically quote that. So I’d like to seek some genuine good-faith guidance on how you would like us to approach bringing up issues that could have been raised at select committee, as normally is allowed during scrutiny of the committee of the whole House during urgency—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We are debating parts and sections in Part 2, and we are straying away from income-related rent calculations into another field. I’m just bringing the speaker—the member—back to the part of the bill that he started.

Ingrid Leary: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): No, we’re just going to carry on.

BENJAMIN DOYLE: Thank you. That’s fine. I’ll quickly wrap it up with my question. So in regards to my concerns around the adjustments to income-related rents: the point is that Māori, we know, earn less, and so therefore are more likely, as the report says, to be disproportionately affected by this change. I’m seeking assurance from the Minister on how she will make sure that that disproportionate effect does not take place?

Stuart Smith: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to draw your attention to Standing Order 316 around amendments of member in charge. So, essentially, what we have is a whole lot of amendments that are similar. Under Speaker’s rulings 111/3, it says quite clearly if they’re having a similar effect or can be grouped together and voted on as one. I would submit to you, Madam Chair, that we have had many examples of that through this debate and that there are many that are on the Table that are similar. They should be grouped together and voted on as one—not being taken with a couple of words different.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I understand the point of order. I’ll talk to the Clerks about that.

Stuart Smith: Yes, well I’ve already spoken to the Clerks. So I think it’s very clear under the Standing Orders. It’s very clear under the Speakers’ directions here. I think it’s crystal clear, actually.

Tangi Utikere: Speaking to the point of order. I thank Mr Smith for acknowledging that. However, that’s a matter that should be addressed when it comes to presiding officer determining how votes are taken at what point they’re taken, which is obviously a matter for your discretion.

Joseph Mooney: Speaking to the point of order.

Maureen Pugh: Is it relevant?

Joseph Mooney: It is. The chairperson may select a handful of indicative amendments on which to put a question in order to test the will of the committee. I’ve asked before, a couple of times, for the vote to consider putting in a selection of indicative amendments.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you, I understand the point of order.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Chair. In light of the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s previous answer to my colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni regarding the difference between the accommodation supplement and a benefit, I just want to be really clear that the Minister is basically saying that there will be some kind of—in a way, it’s a parity between the accommodation supplement, which working people can get; so if they were to go overseas, for example, to a funeral, under the legislation—and given the answer that you have just given to my colleague—if there was a discrepancy, without even the discrepancy being resolved, there would be a 10-day period and then they would no longer be eligible. That is quite a different policy from how we see the accommodation supplement currently, and it also puts a different burden of proof, because there is an entitlement to the accommodation supplement, which now is basically taken away without the facts being established.

So my question is: did she really intend that answer, and is that really her policy intent? If it is not, then perhaps she could consider an amendment. I do not have one on the floor; I could draft one. But it would be relatively simple to have another subsection that just said, “In the event of overseas travel or other activities that would prevent the discrepancy from being resolved, the Ministry of Social Development would have a discretion to be able to extend that period.” Otherwise, this is an incredibly big change to the policy, which is now saying that working people are being treated the same as those who are beneficiaries in terms of what their entitlements are. I can’t believe the Minister is intending that, and I would really like to seek her clarification. If that is her intention, I promise I won’t ask further questions about it.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The comment I made to the question from Carmel Sepuloni was related to disputes and the 10 days. I answered in Part 1; I’m answering it again now. I’m not going to entertain any change to an increase of time from the 10 days. I’ve stated that multiple times in the committee now. I will state it again: I will not entertain any change for the 10 days, because what we don’t want to see either is people receiving too much in terms of the accommodation supplement that then creates a debt that they have to pay back. So we want certainty. If there was a situation, and the previous member stated where the person couldn’t be contacted because they were overseas as an example—so I’m not talking about any change, and I don’t want to be misrepresented in this committee.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I wanted to draw your attention to Subpart 2—this is in clause 26, “Schedule 4 amended”. This is “Amendments to Public and Community Housing Management (Prescribed Elements of Calculation Mechanism) Regulations 2018”. One of the reasons why I want to draw attention to this is because, as you may remember, in Part 1 we discussed the definition of “boarder”, and that’s now been defined in the legislation and changes to the Social Security Act. But in the changes to the amendments to public and community housing management, there’s a different word that has been used. That is “resident”. I did wonder whether that was intentional. For example, this language in these changes that talks about, in clause 29, “(aa) for a person who is an applicable person in relationship to any social housing,—(i) the value of any goods or services provided or paid for—(A) by an additional resident;”.

So the word “resident” is used in this part of the legislation, but I note that she made big efforts to define “boarder” in the Social Security Act amendments—so the Social Security Act and changes in Part 1. I wonder what the rationale was to use different language here, because that, to me, then means she could be creating different sets of categories. What could distinguish a boarder, as she has defined in the Social Security Act, amended under this bill, from a resident? That, to me, doesn’t seem to be the intent. If I’m on the wrong track, I would like to seek some clarification. Once again, I’m asking these questions because this is exactly the kind of stuff on which we could have sought views and opinions and exchange with the Parliamentary Counsel Office and officials, but the only recourse I have, to seek clarification here, is under the committee of the whole House.

So I just want to make sure that the language around “resident” is intended to be this way, or whether she would have meant “boarder”. If it was the former, we would be quite happy to table an amendment to make sure there’s consistency in the language. But we wouldn’t want to do that if this is how the Minister intended it to be.

Again, this is important because, with the Government also moving to remove plain-language use in legislation, I worry that then people reading different parts of the legislation—legislation that she’s changing—that we’ll then start seeing different language.

So to summarise, I’m pointing attention to the Chair to clause 29, the use of the word “resident” and whether this is distinct from the definition she made in relationship to “boarder”.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Subpart 1 of Part 2 is “Amendments to Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992”, which has a different definition. The term “additional resident” in that piece of legislation is equivalent to “boarder” in the Social Security Act.

Stuart Smith: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to draw your attention to 17 tabled amendments that were lodged at 9.50 p.m. by the Labour Party. They are all repetitive. I think they should be—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you. I have got the Clerks working on it. The difficulty we have is that because of the volume, it’s going to take some time to group them, but the Clerks are working on that now.

Stuart Smith: We’d be happy to just take one vote on them—we’d be quite happy.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m sure you would be.

Tangi Utikere: Speaking to the point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is, essentially, the second time that the Government have raised this issue. I would ask that if you’re going to be, effectively, asked to consider that prior to the vote being taken, I would also like to point out that those specific amendments that have been tabled by the Labour Party relate specifically to individual clauses that cross-reference, particularly, other, specific pieces of legislation and other sections. So for Mr Smith to indicate that they are all seeking to perhaps delete a section or a clause, yes, that is correct. However, the implication and impact of those are discretely, quite specifically, in isolation.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): And I assure you, that will all be taken into account.

Stuart Smith: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): No, I think we’ve covered this. We’ve got a team working on it as we speak. We cannot do anything until we get towards the end of the debate to be sure that there are no more tabled amendments and, until then, there’s not very much else we can do.

Stuart Smith: But they are trifling with the House.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): That’s my call.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want the Minister, the Hon Louise Upston, to look at clause 25, and it’s new section 118A, “Discrepancies in information received relevant to income-related rent”. Now, when I went through that paragraph, it was incredibly difficult to make sense of the way it’s written. You go down to (1)(c) of that—sorry, you have to almost read the whole thing to even try to make sense of it—but it seems to be in a very strange order. Some of the matters relate to a process which doubles back on themselves. So you’ve got a process in (1)(c) where you have to have done the following before that takes part. It doesn’t seem a very logical order for things.

And then you have, in new subsection (2), “The agency must notify [people]”. That seems to be something that has to happen over the whole section. So I’m wondering whether the Minister can see that: that there is a process piece which should be all together, and that (2) should be removed and put further down. It belongs to where new subsections (4) and (5) are, because they’re prescriptive for the whole section. I still am not very happy with the way that (c) is worded, because it doesn’t flow. I presume that’s just because people have been incredibly busy rushing this through, but I am concerned about what it means in terms of what order things go in. So if the Minister can just work through, with me, what is it that somebody does under that new section? What order do they go in? Because you’ve got a one-day window, and I’m not sure, reading this, which bits go first, basically. And I know it’s 11 o’clock at night, and it might just be that I haven’t had enough sugar, but I suspect it’s not, and it’s actually because the clause refers to things in a very strange way and it loops right round.

So could the Minister describe what an ordinary person who reads the Hansard or is expected—what is the way that this is supposed to go? Does the Minister know? Because it would be a good start, because I certainly can’t work out which order these things go in, and whether the Minister would have an amendment where we took (2) and we put it down the bottom. I can see the Minister is nodding her head, but that’s not really an answer for the record. So I would like an answer for the record as to whether this clause is suboptimal in its drafting, so that people will get confused; and what happens in the one day? Just what happens in the one day? What is that group supposed to have done, and in what circumstances do they do it? Who do they notify? Do they notify before the one day? Do they notify before the 10 days? Can we just have the order of what’s supposed to happen in that section?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The Ministry of Social Development identifies a discrepancy. They check their records. If they can’t resolve it in one working day, they notify the clients of the discrepancy. Then the 10 days start.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I think I can help everyone tonight, because they’re hearing a lot of repeat questions, so I’m always happy to help the Government in this area. I’m doing that by talking about two or three amendments that I’m sure will help matters. In Part 2, amend clause 23: after the words “household income”, insert and replace it with “household residential pūtea”. I think the Government will be happy with that. That’s Māori, just in case some of them didn’t know on the other side. I’m going down this track because, given what’s happening and given that we’ve got a Minister tonight who hasn’t answered one Māori question, it’s probably appropriate that I put another Māori question and another Māori amendment. While there’s complaints about repetition, us on the Māori side here haven’t had one response with regards to partnership, with regards to commitment, with regards to te reo Māori, and so that’s why I want to help the Minister by putting up a very reasonable amendment like that. Amend clause 23, after the words “household income”, by inserting and replacing with “household residential pūtea”.

Also, I want to go even a little bit further, just for the Government, because I know in their hearts they want to support te reo Māori but, sadly, have shown some sort of strange attitude and strategy towards it over the last few days, particularly with regards to the Māori language signs. In Part 2, amend clause 23, after the words “household income”, by inserting another option, “household pūtea”. It’s another amendment.

Then another one, just for the Minister to consider, is after clause 23, insert and replace it with “household kete moni”, which is about having money in a kit—very, very accessible for Māori at ground level—

Joseph Mooney: Are you gifting it to the House, Willie?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —Mr Mooney, who have been suffering under your Government and need some support. So I’m asking again, in connection with the earlier questions, what is the commitment from this Government in the Treaty area? What is the relationship with ngā iwi Māori, with mātāwaka? What is the consultation process? All of this is linked to the Māori questions, and I think it’s appropriate, given the Minister’s own organisation—the Ministry for Social Development (MSD)—is particularly clear about this—

Joseph Mooney: Only got one minute 51 seconds—you can do it.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —that there has to be regard for the negative statistics and the huge disparities that are happening at the moment. Mr Mooney knows, as he chairs our Social Services and Community Committee. Sadly, he doesn’t understand what I’m talking about tonight, but it goes with the flow in terms of National Party MPs. But we have MSD, who are the major player here, saying to the Minister, saying to the Government, that there must be some regard for Māori. There must be some regard in terms of the partnership. And we’ve had a Minister here tonight who hasn’t answered one question, not one question, with regards to Māori, whether it’s from me, the Greens, Te Pāti Māori—not one response have we had. What does that say to our communities out there? It says that we have got a Government that does not—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Come back to the bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’m coming back to it. We’ve got a Government that doesn’t care about te reo Māori, doesn’t care about the statistics, doesn’t care about what’s happening at ground level. So I reiterate: Part 2, amend clause 23 after the words “household income” by inserting and replacing it—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Got it.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —with “household kete moni”. You got that, Madam Chair? You don’t need me to continue? No? Quite happy to! Thank you, Madam Chair.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m going to take one or two more questions, but I’ve got to say, even the Labour Party is saying they’re repeating themselves, so there’s very little left here. I’ll take a call from Steve Willis.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you, Madam Chair. So—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry, Scott Willis. Sorry.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate this opportunity, because this is the first time I have been able to take a call on this subject. [Interruption] I hear some surprise from across the committee. My real concern for this in Part 2 is that I’m thinking that we have an issue here with the healthy homes Act, and what we’re understanding is that this Act has been in place for quite some time—

Hon Member: 1992.

SCOTT WILLIS: —1992, in fact—and this is something that we are finding that even Kāinga Ora isn’t aware of or isn’t necessarily making sure that properties are up to scratch. So if we’re thinking that we are now looking at the increase in rent for Kāinga Ora homes—this is clause 20, replacing section 73(4) with: “In the case of an increase in rent, the notice must comply with section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, except—(a) subsections (1)(d) to (h) and (1A) of that section do not apply to the increase in rent if Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities has received a notification from the agency under sections 106 and 118A(3) of this Act that the rent for the housing must be its market rent for the time being: (b) to the extent that section 74 of this Act provides otherwise, in any other case.”

Now, my concern is that we don’t know—we don’t know—whether the rent, and how appropriate Kāinga Ora has been with its tenants to make sure that the properties that they are renting respect the healthy homes Act. So the answer I’d like from the Minister is: if we are assuring that they are complying with the Act, which Acts are they complying with? Are they also complying with the healthy homes Act? Because we know that this is not something that is being complied with at the moment, and this is something that has been widely—widely—talked about—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): As it relates to this bill.

SCOTT WILLIS: So to bring it back to the changes in rent, which is the section 73 amended, if the Minister could be clear, if we are looking at rental properties, how are we going to make sure that these properties are actually suitable to be rented? Are they up to standard? Are they meeting existing Acts, or is this simply a fix that is ignoring the problems that already exist in the sector? So if the Minister could give us a response to that, I would really appreciate it.

If you’d forgive me, Madam Chair, I’ve come to this with a particular focus, because this is something that is a real problem for our most vulnerable, and it happens even to those who are renting Kāinga Ora homes. So we need to be mindful not to create extra problems, extra situations, by overlooking the existing challenge that we have.

So I’d really appreciate a response from the Minister, and that is in relation to “Section 73 amended (Changes in rent)”. The section that says, “Replace section 73(4)”—and I read that out before, so you can pick that up. But also, clause 21, “Section 93 amended (Changes in rent)” “Replace section 93(4) with: (4) In the case of an increase in rent, the notice must comply with section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986”, which relates to the healthy homes standards. So if the Minister would like to give a response, I would really appreciate it. Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): This is a very simple piece of legislation. It’s very tight. It’s about the relationship between boarders and the accommodation supplement and their income-related rent. It’s got nothing to do with the healthy homes regime. I know that that might be of interest to that member, but it has got zero to do with this bill.

NANCY LU (National): I move that debate on this now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that debate on this question now close.

Arena Williams: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): All those in favour, please say Aye.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: A point of order was called.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We’re taking a vote. All those in favour, please say Aye, to the contrary, No.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Ayes have it. The question is agreed. Point of order, Kieran McAnulty.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Madam Chair, Arena Williams sought a point of order before the vote was called. She informed you of that and you ignored her. That is totally inappropriate.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I had already called her—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: She called the point of order beforehand.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Well, I’m sorry; I did not hear it. There was so much racket. I can take the point of order now.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought you might like to know that the motion was incorrectly put by the member; it did not follow the prescribed wording for such a motion.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): OK.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that debate on this question now close. All those in favour—

Tangi Utikere: Point of order. Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I am putting a vote—

Tangi Utikere: Madam Chair, you’re not able to. There were two consecutive closure motions that you have sought.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Settle down. We’re just going to get some advice on putting the correct motion.

Tangi Utikere: Can I speak to the point of order?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Not just now. [Pause in proceedings] So my decision stands, and the question was agreed to.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. In light of that, given that there is specific wording outlined, in the Standing Orders, for the way in which a closure motion must be put—and it is contended that it was not put—to then accept, following on from that, another closure motion, although a correct closure motion, without seeking to give it to an Opposition party or anyone else who is seeking the call for another purpose is, we contend, out of order and we invite you to perhaps reconsider your decision. Otherwise, I will move that the Speaker be recalled.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Speaking to the point of order: two points, Madam Chair. The first is that I understand the motion needs to be close to, but doesn’t have to be, exact. The second point is that it’s actually disorderly to interrupt a vote, which is what has happened.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): And that is the advice that I have received from the clerks: if I understood what the closure motion meant, even though the wording wasn’t exactly correct, it was fine—at the end of the day, it was my call. I did put another one to get the wording correct, but the decision is still the same.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this a new point of order?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I’m going to seek an action that I can only do through a point of order, Madam Chair—so, point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Point of order—Kieran McAnulty.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I move to recall the Speaker. [Pause in proceedings]

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Protocol says that I need to put the question that the Speaker be recalled. All those in favour, please say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Noes have it.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: The convention is that it is not voted against.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Well, that’s the advice I was given. This is the—[Pause in proceedings] OK, right, we have got some clarification from the clerks and some Standing Orders. I was able to put the question that the Speaker be recalled. However, by convention, members do not oppose a motion to recall the Speaker, but if a party vote is called for, I declare the result on voices. That’s referring to Speaker’s ruling 81/2.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Now, given you were quite happy to take two closure motions concurrently, which in itself is against convention, surely you would, therefore, given you’ve just read out that Speaker’s ruling, be willing to put the question again, and perhaps the Government members may like to reflect on their decision given that it is against the convention of the House. No one here, I’m certain, can recall another occasion when that, indeed, was done.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Speaking to the point of order, I think the member may have a short memory, because that member himself voted against exactly this motion in the last Parliament and voted down an attempt by the then Opposition to recall the Speaker. But that point aside, Madam Chair, it is clear that you have the sole discretion to rule on closures. You have done so and then been interrupted repeatedly, which is disorderly. The vote should stand.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): That is the advice I have been given as well.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this is a new point of order, Kieran McAnulty?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I move to recall the Speaker.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Speaker be recalled. All those in favour, please say Aye, to the contrary, No.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Party vote. Record it on record.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): A party vote is called for. If a party vote is called for, the Speaker’s ruling says that it’s declared on the voices.

Tangi Utikere: Well, how did you declare it?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Well, I haven’t got to that yet, because I was interrupted by a point of order. The Noes have it.

Tangi Utikere: Unbelievable.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The reality is, in declaring or accepting any motions on the floor, that it’s the sole discretion of the Chair.

Tangi Utikere: Unbelievable.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Maybe it is hard to believe, but that is the rule. We are going to change Chair—

Joseph Mooney: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this a new point of order? Because I don’t think we need to be—

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): This is a new point of order. It’s highly disorderly for a member to be challenging the chair.

Tangi Utikere: She can determine that herself; she doesn’t need you to help her out.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): And it is a matter for me. Maybe it’s just the hour; I think we all need to settle down.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I’m wide awake now.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): So am I. We’re just waiting on a new Chair to come.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to confirm, we are awaiting the vote to be conducted.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes, we are.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: The closure motion having been accepted, the vote will now take place, presumably?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes, but we’re just waiting to change roster. It appears that there’s still a closure motion in front of the committee, because I did take a second one. I’m going to put the closure motion again: that debate on this question now close. A party vote is called for.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, people, we’ve got ourselves into a situation here where we have a huge number of amendments, which haven’t had a chance to be grouped. We have a vote that has been called. We have a couple of options. One of them is we start voting and someone may choose to seek leave, at midnight, to pause voting and we can carry on voting in the morning, or we are just going to have to take it one vote at a time, and it’s going to be a very long night.

STUART SMITH (Senior Whip—National): Point of order. Madam Chair, I raised this before—with the previous Chair—that there are so many amendments that are so close together, which—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, we know that, but we haven’t had a chance—they are still actually coming in, Mr Smith. The amendments were coming in as I was out there, and there has not been a chance to group—I don’t have groupings in front of me.

STUART SMITH: Well, I do, and they are here in—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s a decision for the Chairperson, not for the committee, and I—

STUART SMITH: I realise—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, I’m not going to set a process that’s going to create a precedent.

STUART SMITH: Well, I realise that, Madam Chair, but the point is here that what will happen with this is you’re setting a precedent where members can jam the system up by throwing in a whole lot of amendments just prior to a vote going in so that they can, effectively, filibuster the House. That has consequences that will be quite long-lasting, and remember that the sides of the House change from time to time, and the other members on the other side will experience the same thing.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Look, we get all that—we get all that—but I don’t have—

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Speaking to the point of order, the first point is that I don’t think it’s appropriate for members to threaten others with future actions of that nature. But it is actually quite clear—and it is spelt out in the Standing Orders—that proposed amendments that are similar in nature can be grouped.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: But it seems to me that your explanation to the committee is that the clerks in the Table Office simply haven’t had the time to be able to do that—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s right.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —before the vote was called, and the fact that the closure motion was accepted when it did and the vote commenced when it did—that has caused the issue. It’s not a situation of precedents being set. The rules are quite clearly outlined in the Standing Orders, and if your suggestion to the committee is that we can either commence voting now and every member remain on precinct for quite some time, or that we get the leave of the committee to conclude the vote at 5 to midnight, then I, therefore, seek the leave of the committee to commence the votes and conclude the vote at 5 minutes to midnight to allow the Chair to be able to report progress.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Leave is sought for that—

Joseph Mooney: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, leave has been sought, though; I want to actually put that. I just want to clarify that leave would be sought to suspend the vote at midnight, but it wouldn’t be reporting progress—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. Leave is—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Just for that clarification—simply trying to put into motion what you’ve suggested is one of the options of the committee, and if that’s how it’s worded, then I so word it.

Stuart Smith: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): A point of order—it was Joseph Mooney first.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair, for that clarity. Under Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand section 38.12.3—and I’ll just read it out, because it was mentioned before—“Where multiple similar amendments are proposed to a single provision, the Chairperson may select a handful of indicative amendments on which to put a question in order to test the will of the committee.”

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I get that, Mr Mooney, but I haven’t actually had the ability to have those in front of me to do that process, and I’m not going to accept that someone else has done that process.

Stuart Smith: This is a different point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): A different point of order.

STUART SMITH (Senior Whip—National): Madam Chair, the leave was sought to suspend the House at 5 to 12, to be precise—so just to ensure that the member’s leave is actually correct in what he said.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, so I am going to put—so we’re very clear, I would like the Hon Kieran McAnulty to repeat the leave that he has sought so that everybody is very clear on what he was asking for.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): OK. I thought we’d sorted that, actually, but anyway—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, well, I think we have, too—well, I think we have. I’m clear on what you’ve said, but I just want to make sure that the committee is.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: All right. On the basis of this discussion and the advice and guidance that you’ve given, I seek leave for the committee to suspend the vote at midnight.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?

Hon Members: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to delete clause 19 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 74

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 20 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 20, new section 73(4)(a), to replace all the words after “rent if” with “the agency considers it to be in the interests of fairness to the tenant” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 21 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 22 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 23 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘household manaakitanga’ ” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘household/kāinga income’ ” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘household/whānau income’ ” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘household kete moni’ ” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘household pūtea’ ” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘household residential pūtea’ ” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that last one is an example here of the challenge we’re running into, and I refer to specifically—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, I—[Interruption] No, Mr van de Molen, we have run ourselves into a space where I made it very clear, as the Chair, that we didn’t have time to have them grouped and analysed. The committee has made a decision to go forward on the vote, and on that basis, we’re going to carry on with the vote.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: I’m not talking about grouping, Madam Chair. If I can complete my point of order, you’ll understand where I’m referring to. It’s specifically Speaker’s ruling 128/5, which states—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Naughty, naughty.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: —this is a point of order, which is to be heard in silence—“Proposing amendments that simply seek to change the order of the words in a particular clause, or to substitute words with the same or very similar meaning—”. That last one was a prime example where the word “income” was proposed to be changed to “revenue”—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, look—[Interruption] No, Mr van de Molen will resume—[Interruption] Resume your seat, Mr van de Molen. We made it very clear before the vote, and the committee made its decision.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘residence revenue’ ” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘property income’ ” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘household moolah’ ” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to Part 2 to replace references to “62%” and “38%” with “50%” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 23(4) and (6) to replace references to “62%” with “30%” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to 23(4) and (6) to replace references to “62%” with “28%”, I am ruling out—[Interruption] There’s a lot of talking going on. No one will know what they’re voting for in a minute. I’m ruling that one out because it’s inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

I am also ruling out Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to 23(4) and (6) to replace references to “62%” with “25%” as also inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to 23(4) and (6) inserting “that exceed $600 per week” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 24 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 25, new section 118A, to replace “discrepancy” and “discrepancies” with “inconsistency” and “inconsistencies” in each place be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “10 working days” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, I’m ruling out as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee, because it’s also looking at changing “working days”.

I’m ruling out Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 25, which is also looking at replacing “working days”, as inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

I’m also ruling out Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 25, which is looking at replacing “1 working day” with “30 working days”, as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

I am ruling out Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 25, looking to replace “1 working day” with “15 working days”, as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendments to clause 25, new section 118A(3), replacing “10 working days” with “15 working days” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(3), is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment—Helen White’s amendment to clause 25.

I am ruling out Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, which is wanting to replace “10 working days” with “20 working days”, as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

I am ruling on Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 25 replacing “10 working days” with “30 working days” as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

I am ruling out Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 25 replacing “10 working days” with “60 working days” as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(3), replacing “the agency must” with “the agency may use its discretion whether or not to” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to delete clause 27 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to delete clause 28 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

Rachel Boyack: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Did I hear a point of order?

Hon Member: Rachel’s being unruly.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Look, the evening is, at the moment, unique. It’s not going to be assisted by any calls from the floor. Thank you, members.

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

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 74

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We come now to Schedule 1. The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1 replacing references to “March 2026” with “March 2027” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

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

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2 replacing references to “March 2026” with “March 2027” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

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

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We now come to Schedule 3. The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to Schedule 3 replacing references to “March 2026” with “March 2027” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

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

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15;

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

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

Sitting suspended from 1.01 a.m. to 9 a.m. (Saturday)