edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. Yeah I'd just like to repeat what we've been saying all along—that it is important that we look after our vulnerable. It is important that we're making sure that the stress is not added on to somebody who is going through a tough time already. Many who may not have lived alone before many who may not even know how to budget alone—having a partner leaving and having their income changing would make a huge impact on their lives. So I think it's important that this issue is resolved. My concern is as a citizen that came here—and I thought the law is the law. I thought abiding by the law is the most important thing and that under no circumstance is there a reasonable explanation to be able to continue unlawful practice once you know it's unlawful because you're intentionally breaking the law. That's my understanding and I'm just concerned that—we heard about it not too long ago and it is being fixed but is this happening elsewhere and are there other misalignments that have been found that we don't know about?So I'm just really concerned about the whole process of how this has come about how this has been brought before us and that the scrutiny of this bill is probably not as great as it could have been being done under urgency like this. But I do understand that we need to make sure that none of those 260 people will have a deduction in their accommodation allowance—and $62 a week under the current pressures of the cost of living at the moment would be a huge loss. No party in this House would want to be responsible for causing that kind of harm in a household. So ACT will support this bill but I just want to put on record that we really do have concerns at the process that has happened here and the level of scrutiny that is not as good as it could have been. Hopefully in the future we can be a little bit better with our scrutiny when it comes to things like this. Thank you Madam Speaker.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. As we finish this process I want to make a handful of reflections. As has been noted the whole House supports people who have partners in care to receive their full entitlements from Work and Income. The Greens do not believe that these entitlements are enough to guarantee a life of dignity so while I recap the comments from the Minister that there had to be resources allocated to respond to the pandemic the reality is that we still have a cumbersome income support system that is difficult to navigate where people struggle to understand what they're able to get. I urge the Minister that as this legislation passes there is some priority work to simplify the welfare system and to guarantee that people have livable incomes so that the accommodation supplement doesn't become just this growing ballooning cost and burden actually on the people that receive it. People are getting it because they cannot make ends meet based on their benefit superannuation or wages.I do hope as well that we come out of this process with some clarity about how we can better improve the transparency and the knowledge of the general public and legislators whose role it is to hold the executive to account when misalignments are happening so that we are able to identify these early as well so that we can provide constructive feedback. My understanding of when the Minister reached out to my co-leaders for example is that we didn't know at the time that there had been those interactions with the Office of the Auditor-General. And while that may have not changed how we feel about it for me it's about ensuring that we set a good precedent because as has been noted and as I mentioned the welfare system is complex. There is always the risk that there could be a much greater misalignment. So it's not good enough in my view to have a process where those of us who sit either on a committee or who are now holding the executive to account don't feel like we are reaching this debate with all the information required to make constructive contributions. But once again we commend the Minister for finally getting to the point where we're able to fix it so that these partners are able to get the support they need. And I urge the Minister to implement the rest of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendations as I believe this is well overdue and something that should be done anyway. Thank you.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a real pleasure to take a brief and final call on this bill the Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill because I think it's really important to ensure that those that find themselves living alone with a partner in care have the support that they need that reflects their circumstances. This bill ensures that that can continue to occur and I'm very happy to commend it to the House.
SpeechHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. In taking this call it's the only call from the National Party at this third reading. Acknowledging Madam Speaker in the Chair—it's the first time that I've had the opportunity to do so. So congratulations.Minister thank you for the contribution and the recognition that this is aligning policy with what the law has required. But there is some serious concern and that needs to be noted on the record: that the bill before the House is amending in an Act an Act of 2018 where the law has clearly stated what must be adhered to. To suggest for a moment that policy takes precedence is inappropriate. The law is the law and must be complied with. The purpose of this amendment bill is to adjust the law so that it reflects what the policy practice has been. In fact it should have been the other way around. There's been a juxtaposition of what the priorities are.With this bill also it is recognising the importance that our pensioners who are in need of additional support from the State at a prime time of their life after having provided service either by way of tax or services throughout the course of their lifetime—that there is the appropriate accommodation benefit supplement adjustment. And this law will do that. It also indicates too that over the last five years—and as has been emphasised in this House particularly over the last 12 to 18 months—there is a cost of living crisis. So appropriately the law being adjusted to fit and suit meeting the needs of our pensioners is done so with this adjustment.I indicated that there may be members in this House who do have family members and I do have a parent-in-law who is living in aged care whose partner spouse is living independently and would benefit from this adjustment in law befitting the policy intent and statement. So on that note indicating that we have many thousands—in fact I did say 871002—pensioners in Aotearoa New Zealand and a total of 47562 of those who will benefit with the lawful amendment to ensure that they do lawfully receive the accommodation supplement. On that note the National Party supports this amendment bill to the House.
Sepuloni CarmelThird ReadingHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I move That the Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. And under urgency as provided by Standing Order 57.I am pleased to see that this House is committed to ensuring eligible New Zealanders can pay for their rent and board or cover the cost of owning a home. This bill seeks to amend the Social Security Act 2018 and the Social Security Regulations 2018 aligning legislation to longstanding policy and practice.The bill recognises community partners as single when it comes to assessing their eligible benefit rates related to the accommodation supplement. By making current practice lawful we will be able to ensure that the approximately 260 community partners—the majority of whom are older people receiving New Zealand superannuation or the veteran's pension—do not experience reduction in their accommodation supplement and can continue to receive the support that was intended.Technical consequential amendments to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the Veterans' Support Act 2014 also are included in the bill. It confirms that a community partner would not be subject to abatement of accommodation supplement in respect of any income that was included as part of their partner in care's financial means assessment.The accommodation supplement provides essential support for low-income New Zealanders to help with housing costs. Through this bill we can continue to ensure people who have partners in care can receive this essential support with no disruption. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill — In Committee
O'Connor GregHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Menéndez March Ricardo; Sepuloni CarmelRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Just following on from that does the Minister see any merit in—if there is a work programme that is looking for misalignments that would have resulted for example in this bill coming to the House as to whether maybe the Ministry of Social Development could be working better with the general public not just the welfare advocacy groups around supporting the identification of any misalignments based on experience to better identify this and to I guess involve the general public and benefit recipients on identifying where they may feel that the law isn't always in accordance with the practice? I know that not every benefit recipient is a Social Security Act enthusiast but there are people who—actually part of the complications of accessing income support is that people actually do brush up on the law and they themselves—this is my experience—could identify those misalignments feeding into that work. So I guess are there any lessons taken from identifying this one that could lead to changes in practices on how other misalignments may be identified?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Any member of the public at any time that discovers a misalignment like this between practice and policy and legislation of course can contact the Government agency for whom the legislation sits or is aligned to and that would be taken seriously I'm sure from the Government agencies. It's certainly not just the beneficiary advocates; we do have policy people as well who are often looking to see whether or not there are things that need to be fixed. But I mean there's nothing to stop any member of the public from raising an issue like this and it would be taken serious by any Government agency.Parts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.
Menéndez March Ricardo; Sepuloni CarmelRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): For the interest of the public and other parliamentarians I guess and going back I guess to the question of public interest does the Minister in the chair Carmel Sepuloni intend to release those communications with the Office of the Auditor-General? Like is there any intent of actually proactively making the public aware? Again this does seem to be an odd quirk. I appreciate the Minister will go back around the precedent on letting people know if like there is a belief that it is in the public interest but I guess my concern is more about the element of transparency where again like as a legislator if I am aware that this has been identified and that it is being worked through that gives me a sense of comfort and peace because—I get this is a tiny issue but there could be other examples where it may not be sort of a relatively minor change and I just want to check what sort of practice the Minister wants to take on this bill so that it sets a good precedent for any other potential quirks in law and practice and that we set a good example.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): My understanding is we can't release any advice that we receive from the Office of the Auditor-General so that responds to part of the question in relation to this—I'm not sure about more broadly.Going back to what you were saying about alignment issues we do have an ongoing programme where we're constantly seeking to find if there are any alignment issues. We've got beneficiary advocates that support some of that work because quite often—and that member would know this—they are working with people that are able to discover where there may be misalignments and so it's important that we're constantly looking for those and then looking for opportunities to fix them when that is possible. I can't remember what else the member asked so I'll just leave it there.
Sepuloni CarmelHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you. I seek clarification from the Minister the Hon Carmel Sepuloni about being advised by the Office of the Attorney-General—was that August 2019 or August of this year Minister?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): What I was referring to was the Office of the Auditor-General through Audit New Zealand wanting us to treat this with urgency. And so it was in September this year that we got asked to treat this with some urgency.HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you Minister. As a follow-on question to that: in September this year to treat the issue with urgency—noting the section 73 requirement under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 mandating that the Minister must on the introduction into the House of a Government bill that proposes an amendment to the Act which this bill is addressing bring to the attention of the House the consultation process followed in formulating the proposed amendment. Minister it's known that you wrote a letter dated 1 November of this year to each of the political parties. How does that comply with section 73 when it's mandatory that on the introduction of the bill in proposing an amendment to the Act you as Minister must in bringing the consultation process to the attention of the House do so in formulating a proposed amendment? So Minister can you clarify that? Because the formulation of the proposed amendment occurred before you actually engaged in notifying the political parties in a process of consultation.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): It was in September that the Office of the Auditor-General through Audit New Zealand said we need to treat this with some urgency. My understanding is that then we needed to make sure that we were very clear about what the legislation would look like before we could really come to political parties and say this is what we're planning on doing. So 1 November was when that was done. The feedback we received from political parties I think it was just the Green Party—but we certainly didn't receive any feedback in response to say that any party had any concerns or didn't support the bill and so we've moved forward and are now here.
Menéndez March Ricardo; Sepuloni CarmelRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I thank the Minister for her assurances that no one has received less than intended and just going back to my first question from my previous contribution about whether she had considered—it's been identified this misalignment and whether it would have been in the public interest to sort of at least make people aware of that or at least those of us in the House and if not why not? I mean for me I guess whether it is common practice to not let the public know or whether this is sort of an odd situation where we're kind of only finding out at this point in time when it's now actually changing. While I totally get the delays around COVID and there is the fact that I totally take the point that this is an issue that could have potentially not drawn heaps of contributions from submitters but there still could have been a debate or there could have been constructive contributions from parliamentarians and community members. Should the public have been made aware of this inconsistency? So I guess I'm going back to my question: did at any point the Minister consider letting the public know of this potential misalignment and her intention to fix it? Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): To be fair I'm not sure what the precedent is with regards to informing people about any alignment issues that we may come across in legislation. I can imagine that scale would be an issue with this while the policy intent is still being realised. I think it would be in the public interest if someone had been disadvantaged or if a policy was going to have to change immediately and therefore potentially disadvantage future people who may need to access this support. We weren't in a situation with this particular issue where any of those things were going to be a concern so I don't feel that there was urgency on this one. The question around public interest in alignment issues and sharing that information is interesting though and I will go away and check what the precedent is for that.
Chhour Karen; Sepuloni CarmelKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister can you just bear with me here—new MP first time. So I just want to ask a question: is it normal practice to continue allowing an unlawful practice to happen after you realise that it's unlawful? So have any of these supplements been approved after the Ministry of Social Development was made aware that it didn't align with lawful practice and is that normal to continue unlawful practice knowingly?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I think it's fair to say that if the Ministry of Social Development hadn't been interrupted by a pandemic and the work log that that brought and the need to divert their energy and their resource to what was required in response to the pandemic it would've been responded to much quicker than it has been. And so I think that's the point of difference between this particular alignment issue between policy and legislation compared to some others that may have occurred. It is not abnormal particularly with very complex legislation to find these types of alignment issues. Ideally I think agencies ministries get on to them much quicker but for the reasons that I've cited it has taken longer.
Menéndez March Ricardo; Sepuloni CarmelRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you. I guess as a first-time MP this is the first time where I kind of see this happening so I would like some clarification of whether the Minister thought that it was in the public interest to let people know that there could have been a misalignment—if there was a misalignment in 2019 identified whether it was in the public interest to at least while the work is being carried out let the public know. Because reading through the legislation papers it is—you know this is the first time that we're hearing this in this public arena. The second question I had was: so it was identified that there wasn't a no-doubt sort of—that there was no doubt—so let me rephrase that. It was identified that there could potentially be doubt in how the accommodation supplement was delivered and in the law. So I just wanted to get assurances from the Minister that there hadn't been anyone who has a partner in residential care that would have not then received their full entitlements as it had been interpreted. Because obviously this guarantees that all these people are going to now but whether the Minister is aware of anyone who perhaps was getting less than others because of this kind of complex interpretation of the previous law—well the current law that we're now changing.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): My understanding is that that hasn't been the case. Referring back to what I said earlier the policy intent has been realised. I would have been very concerned if the policy intent wasn't being realised and people weren't receiving what we had intended for them to receive. They were receiving it. The problem was that the legislation wasn't reflecting the policy intent. Now my understanding is that because the policy intent was clear from the start then the guidelines and practice with regards to providing the support has been consistently provided across the Ministry of Social Development. It is the law that doesn't align with what they're doing but certainly the practice has been consistent to my understanding.
Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I've just got a follow-up question in light of that answer. The work began in 2019 and wasn't completed because of COVID I understand. There was just a mention that the Office of the Auditor-General has said this needs to be done under urgency.Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. I'm just wondering whether some of the information the member may be about to disclose was in fact in a committee session which remains confidential until the committee reports back.Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order. I think as a committee member I am aware of that risk but I just wanted to say that Karen Chhour is directly responding to the comments by the speaker. I think we're all aware of that and we're navigating with the care that there should be. I just wanted to assure the Chair that those committee members are aware of the serious ramifications of this.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): So the member obviously was not a member of the committee—KAREN CHHOUR: Yes I am a member.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): So you're aware of any restrictions around that? So just tread carefully please as you go being aware of that of the restriction around it.KAREN CHHOUR: I'm speaking to the answer to the question and the answer stated that the Office of the Auditor-General has said this needs to be treated with urgency.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: With urgency not in urgency.KAREN CHHOUR: With urgency—sorry.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We may be divided by a common language here! So carry on and I thank members for their patience.KAREN CHHOUR: I apologise for that wrong wording. So my question really is: when was that advice from the Office of the Auditor-General given to you? And how long since then has this taken?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): A quick answer to that question: September was when we got asked to treat this with some urgency—not in urgency but with some urgency—and hence we're here now.
O'Connor Greg; Kuriger Barbara; Pugh MaureenDEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill.In CommitteeParts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members the House is in committee on the Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill. Members we come first to Part 1. This debate is on clauses 3 to 11 and Schedules 1 and 2 Amendments to the Social Security Act 2018". The question is that Part 1 stand part.MAUREEN PUGH (Junior Whip—National): Point of order Madam Chair. I seek leave to take this bill as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is there any objection? There is no objection; then we shall take it as one part. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part."
Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. Usually we're standing up now and we've come back from a select committee process and we've heard from the public and we've heard from the people concerned around the issues and we'd be having a discussion about that. But I'm really interested as well in the comments made that this was discovered in a review over the 2018 and 2019 review. I understand that COVID has caused a lot of issues and there's no doubt about that and it has turned people's lives upside down and it has made processes here a lot more difficult. But when are we going to stop blaming COVID for not actioning things that are important? Surely unlawful practice within a ministry is an important issue to fix. I'm just wondering—we've had many times this year where there has been an opportunity to fix this and we haven't. I'm still uncertain as to why that is. I'm grateful it's being fixed now. I'm grateful that 260 people are not going to suffer having a reduction of $62 a week coming into their house. I'm grateful that the vulnerable people who are relying on this will have the certainty that their life is not going to get more difficult with a reduction and that people going into the future will know what they're entitled to and the help they can get when they end up in a situation where their partner is having to go into long-term care in regards to health or dementia or any other issue and that is just one less thing for them to worry about. So we will support this bill through to the committee stage.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. As has been canvassed with this bill its aim is to achieve or provide no doubt that people whose partners are in long-term residential care can have the full entitlements of the accommodation supplement as others have said. Of course everybody here seems to be in agreement that we don't want anyone unnecessarily struggling and that is a good consensus to start off with. In saying that I guess in further reflections and particularly when responding a bit to the Minister for Social Development and Employment's comments in her speech I do want to acknowledge that during the pandemic there were several challenges we had to respond to which meant certain work had to be prioritised. Ultimately though as has also been said by the Minister the accommodation supplement and the income support laws that allow this to be delivered to our communities are deeply complex. That is part of the problem in the welfare support system—that we have created a system that is so complex that individuals receiving income support often are unaware of what their actual entitlements are. Sometimes even workers at the front lines may struggle to understand how much someone would get. And it's not so much their fault; it's the policy design. So I just wanted to respond to those comments because ultimately in terms of what we choose to prioritise and the systems that we choose to create it is a matter of political will. We have successive Governments who have chosen to create complex income support systems. So what I'm hoping as an outcome of this bill and a sort of broad recognition that the income support system is complex is that we're all committed to simplifying it so that people have certainty of what they're able to receive. Also picking up from the Minister's comments: yes the pandemic started in 2020 but the rewritten Social Security Act came into effect in 2018. So I guess there are some still pending questions about at what point there were issues raised about the fact that there was doubt about whether the approach was consistent with the law. And I guess while I hear that there were other things prioritised I know that this isn't the first time we have urgency to try and fix gaps in legislation. So I am interested to better understand how that journey has come about for us to be in the House until this point debating this bill. Kia ora.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's great to see the support across the House for this bill the Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill because I think anybody that lives alone knows the extra costs that they can incur compared to somebody that's able to share that with somebody else in terms of their rent in terms of the power and in terms of the internet and the phone. And so what this bill does is it makes sure that those who are living in the community and whose partners are in full-time residential care are able to receive the accommodation supplement at a rate that reflects those additional living costs. While it only impacts a small number of people I think it's really important that they can continue to receive the support that they need that is tailored to their circumstances. So I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you. In taking this second reading call—usually a second reading comes back to the House after there's been scrutiny at select committee after the first reading. So all the more reason to emphasise the importance that although this is coming in under urgency the New Zealand public and those most affected by this have been denied and deprived the opportunity to express their concerns associated with this.I identify that this is a complex and highly specialised area of law and the Acts that are being referred to in the amendment—which this bill is addressing before the House—the Social Security Act to be amended 2018: of eight parts 459 sections and 12 schedules; also the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001: four parts 89 sections seven schedules; and finally the Social Security Regulations 2018: 295 regulations eight parts. That just emphasises and highlights the highly complex and the importance of detail in getting matters correct.So the Minister has confirmed has acknowledged and has stated that this law was introduced in 2018 that there was a review that happened back in 2018. Why has it taken four years for this to now come before the House under urgency to remedy—to rectify—policy and practice where it is a concern that there has been a non-adherence to what the law requires of our Crown agents in the application of this law?But the National Party identifies and recognises the importance of the policy intent the goodwill looking after our pensioners and that many of us in the House may well be affected by family members who are pensioners and are in care—and would be the beneficiaries recipients of this accommodation benefit. On the second reading I commend to the House.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. It's great to be able to take a brief call on the Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill. It's really important that people have that security in their golden years to make sure that they continue to be sustained.This bill makes a good change. It seeks to align legislation to practice by recognising an individual whose partner is in long-term residential care is single for the purposes of calculating that entitlement for accommodation supplement. It's only right and fair that we should make this change and I commend it to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill — First Reading
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look I'm happy to add my voice of support to the progress of this piece of legislation the Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill at its first reading ultimately looking to fix up a mistake the Government made four years ago when they put this through.Ultimately it's not impacting on the benefit that's received but I think the important part to note is that if this wasn't corrected and there was some sort of attempt to comply with the law which then led to a reduction in the benefit for those receiving it that would be a real challenge for them.I think it's important to note that particularly at a time when we have a cost of living crisis unlike we have seen for I don't know how long—if ever—these people are really facing challenges. Of course the accommodation supplement is part of it but when you look at the costs that everyone is facing—that contributes to a drain on the overall income levels—taking this money away from them would simply be unachievable and they wouldn't be able to cope I suspect in most cases.So it's important that we do tidy up the mistake that the Government made in 2018 and get on with passing this through to make sure of course that we are complying with the law.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): As previous colleagues have said this is around equity. It's around supporting people in their golden years when the stresses of life—and it should be a time to relax and to make the most of those last years. So to have a piece of legislation that ensures that someone in long-term residential care can be calculated in a different way is important. Speaking for myself—and I have been involved in community initiatives—my neighbour ended up in care and so things had to be done in terms of the processes and paperwork to get there. It was stressful. It was unnerving for the family. So to have a piece of legislation in place will I know make a difference as much of our work on this side of the House does. So I commend the Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill to the House.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora Mr Speaker. I see that colleagues from Te Paati Māori don't seem to want to take a call on this piece of legislation so I will simply acknowledge that it's an important catch-up in terms of making sure the accommodation supplement is fair and equitable for all. I commend the bill to the House.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Speaker. For the benefit of the member who has just taken her seat Terisa Ngobi this doesn't change anything other than making legal the practice that the Ministry of Social Development have being carrying out. Look it's great to have that tidied up to ensure that those payments are continued legally.It also though highlights that putting legislation through in the normal processes can still make mistakes; going through under urgency puts that risk much higher. That's why we have a select committee—which that process we won't be going through. That said I do support this and commend it to the House.
Ngobi TerisaTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Thank you Mr Speaker. With the Ōtaki electorate having the highest population of elderly in Aotearoa New Zealand this change in this bill will benefit people in my area who live individually with their partners maybe in rest homes to be able to make sure they're not penalised and are able to pay their mortgages and rent. This bill is another example of this Labour Government looking after people—all New Zealanders including our elderly—with not only the winter energy payments not only a reduction in doctors visit fees not only an increase to dental support now to $1000 non-recoverable but also this bill with the ASUP or the accommodation supplement. An individual who is at home and whose partner is in residential care will no longer be penalised. This is a common-sense bill and I commend it to the House.
Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on the Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill. This bill has just been brought before the House and I've been looking through it and we will support this bill because nobody wants to stand here and say We want to see people in vulnerable situations lose funding that is helping them to keep the roof over their head and food in their belly." So we will be supporting this bill.There are a few concerns that I have with how this is processed and how this has happened and I understand that it's become existing practice and it's outside of alignment with the legislation's original policy intent—I do understand that. My concern is: when did this become existing practice have people missed out on this accommodation supplement before it became existing practice and do we have a two-tier system currently where some people have got it and some people haven't got it? I mean I'm not saying that's happening; I just have a concern that maybe some people misinterpreted the intent and some people didn't and have been following the legislation to how it is lawful. I'm just wondering when was the you know—the concern is: when has this error been identified how long have we taken to fix this error and why all of a sudden if this has been existing practice for so long has it become such an issue that they're going to stop it and reduce 260 people's accommodation supplement? So there's just a few questions around that.I'm glad we're looking at fixing this. I want to see less stress in the lives of our elderly especially when sometimes they're going through such a stressful process already—seeing their partner or seeing someone they love and care about being put into a home. And many couples in that situation try and keep that member home as long as they possibly can and putting them into residential care or long-term care can be quite a heartbreaking decision. So if we can lessen that stress all the better. And with the cost of living crisis and everything that's going on at the moment anything we can do to assist in making the lives of mostly our elderly by the looks of this—we will be supporting. So ACT supports this bill."
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak to the Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill first reading.For context we do need to unpack a bit what the accommodation supplement is there for which is to top up people's incomes to support them and meet their accommodation costs. It's important to reflect that the fact that we have an accommodation supplement in the first place is an admission that pensions and benefits and even wages are often not enough to meet basic standards of living. Then we have this top-up which effectively becomes a subsidy for private landlords in many cases.The intent of this bill in itself and what this bill is trying to achieve is to provide clearer legislative basis for the current practice of calculating the accommodation supplement entitlements for people whose partners are in long-term residential care. This is a necessary change because as the Minister has said in her speech this is about ensuring that there is no doubt between this approach and its consistency with the Act. As other members have raised if we have known that there is no consistency and we need to actually ensure that there is consistency between practice and the Act there are legitimate questions to be asked about whether there have been instances where this practice hasn't been aligned. And if so for how long and how many people have been impacted by this?So we will be exploring those in the committee of the whole House but on the whole we do support changes to ensure that people receive enough for them to live with dignity and particularly for people whose partners may be in residential care. Once again though the Green Party reiterates our call to ensure that pensions benefits and wages guarantee a livable income and that we do not need these top-ups so that people can survive.
Kanongata'a AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora te Mana Whakawā. It's an absolute privilege to speak on this Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill.The passing of this bill today would mean 260 people that this disproportionately affects will continue to receive $62 a week. For many in this House that might not be a lot—but that will buy food that will help purchase really much-needed services for people who are affected in this bill.I want to support what the Minister had said and I'd like to commend this bill to the House.
SpeechHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise and take a brief call on the Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill called under urgency. I acknowledge what Minister Sepuloni has shared with the House in terms of that this bill is really amendments so that it aligns lawful practice which would suggest that the interpretation by the Ministry of Social Development of what's the law has been incorrect and on that basis there has been unlawful practice. However in saying that the policy application is recognising the need within the community.Although this is a brief call I was interested to look at the numbers of New Zealanders who are recipients of the New Zealand Superannuation and also the veteran's pension. Those numbers indicate that we have in total 871002 New Zealanders who are recipients of a pension. It has also been identified that those who are recipients of the accommodation supplement totals 47562. Those figures as at September 2022—this year.So it is important that there is a realignment so that policy intent is lawful application. This is an amendment to the law to bring that adjustment into lawful practice which is a concern because this is under urgency. It is a matter that has been known by the Minister and her ministry for too long. It should have been brought before the House with a reasonable period of time for engagement at select committee level. There is concern that there is a rush and the Minister has quite correctly identified that this is complex law but it is important to make sure that there is lawful practice with our ministries and that this alignment is for the benefit of our New Zealand pensioners. It's on that basis the National Party supports this bill under urgency.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. In later life it's quite a common scenario for couples to reach a point where one of them needs to go into care. At that point the income of that partner needs to go towards contributing to the care that they receive and so what happens with the partner that's remaining in the community is that they often have proportionately higher costs because they're living alone. It's really really important in particular when couples are on a lower income that they can receive the support that reflects their circumstances and so what this bill does is it ensures that for the partner that is living in the community they have their circumstances reflected as if they were a single person. So I'm very happy to commend this bill to the House because it will ensure that their circumstances are reflected accurately and they can get the support that they need.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I intend to take a short call on this to introduce the National Party's view. We are supporting this piece of legislation. We understand that the practice and the legislation have not been aligned over many years and so the adjustment to the legislation is required to match what has become common practice over a very long time.I do note the consultation period that the Government undertook with this began on 1 November and sadly none of the parties had responded by 8 November. I did think it was a bit ironic having corresponded myself with many Ministers—and one in particular that I wrote to in April and again in May and still have not received a reply. A week is not a long time to have to wait in a consultation phase.There have been some misinterpretations of the legislation over time. One of the things that the National Party will be keen to clear up is how this misinterpretation was discovered when it was discovered and the consequences of not progressing this amendment which we will explore further in the committee of the whole House. With that I commend this bill to the House.
Kanongata'a AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. The name of the bill is the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to congratulate the Minister of Transport for bringing this idea of clean vehicles to Aotearoa New Zealand. It is now common language for us to talk about clean vehicles; prior to that it was just noise from the other side. I would like to commend the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House.
Brooking RachelRACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker for this opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2). I've been in the House for most of the progress of this bill mainly this morning—and it seems that my family's cars have come into the debate somewhat and I really want to note that this bill doesn't apply to them because neither of them is new in any way shape or form and neither this amendment or the wider schemes applies to them. The wider scheme is to stop New Zealand being a dumping ground for these high-emission vehicles to decrease emissions and to increase health benefits. This amendment to that wider scheme makes pragmatic—as the Minister said—and responsive changes to make the scheme simpler. I commend it to the House.
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a short call on the third reading of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2). Our Government has acted in response to the threat posed by climate change. It's clear from the speeches that we've heard from the Opposition that once again what they'd rather do is kick the can down the road.It is this Government that is prepared to do the hard mahi and make those pragmatic changes where needed. Although it is good to see that the National Party has done a U-turn on a U-turn and now after some initial confusion is actually making it clear that they do after all support the Clean Car Standard.Earlier on we heard some National MPs asking for an apology. Well the only ones that should apologise and say sorry to New Zealand are the National Party. When they were in Government in 2009 they stopped the work that the previous Labour Government had started on introducing a vehicle fuel economy standard. The relevant Cabinet decision from National at the time read that no further work should be carried on a regulated vehicle fuel economy standard at this time. That was again National kicking the can down the road. That decision has cost New Zealanders.I'm proud to be part of a Government that's not afraid to do the mahi. I commend the Minister and I commend this bill to the House.
Rurawhe Adrian; Uffindell SamLAND TRANSPORT (CLEAN VEHICLES) AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2) Third ReadingDebate resumed.SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Sam Uffindell.SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you. We are here on the third reading of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2). We are here in urgency because the Minister stuffed it up and we are back here having to fix it up. The Minister of Stuff-ups" seems to have left early to get—SPEAKER: I'm sorry to interrupt the member; I apologise to the member. Can I ask all members having loud conversations from that corner and over here—whoever it was—to quietly leave the Chamber if you're leaving. We have a member on his feet and I can hardly hear him. I'm going to restart the clock for the member—Sam Uffindell.Hon Michael Wood: Point of order. The member referred to my absence from the Chamber in a way that was not in order. He was also wrong.SPEAKER: That might have been so but I could not hear a word he was saying. I will take the member's word for that. If the member did mention such a thing the member will have to withdraw and apologise.SAM UFFINDELL: I did—I realised after I said it. I withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: Sam Uffindell.SAM UFFINDELL: Thank you Mr Speaker. We stand here on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2) to fix a stuff-up by the "Minister of Stuff-ups" and we are here to address that. This is a clean car stuff-up. We told the Government that the original legislation was being rushed through but the Minister didn't listen. We support a delay in the changes because the industry has asked for one. We support motorcycles being exempted and frankly motorcycles and mopeds shouldn't have been included in the first place so it's good that we have been able to amend it although in a week of urgency it probably is a bit frustrating for everyone especially the Government that we're having to make amendments to legislation we shouldn't have stuffed up in the first place.In saying that for the sake of everyone here in the House I have stated earlier today that we do support bringing cars with less emissions into New Zealand. I personally think that is what we should be doing and where we should be heading. So this is heading in the right direction. The National Party does support this amendment bill and I support the bill."
Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading