edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
SpeechDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to rise and take a call at this third and final reading of this bill the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill. I must say I've never seen so many members of the Government benches give so many full call speeches in the House today. Is something going on or are they trying to filibuster their own members' bills here in the House? But never mind we digress. This is a really good bill and I do want to take time out to acknowledge my colleague Dr Parmjeet Parmar for raising this issue. It is a really important issue and in particular at a time like this when a lot of our community organisations—Hon Willie Jackson: Put her on the front bench.DAN BIDOIS: Yes Willie Jackson—a lot of our community organisations are under pressure in a post-COVID world. They're under pressure financially and the last thing they need to do is prepare a duplicate set of financial statements just to satisfy the legislative requirements.So Dr Parmjeet Parmar has found a fantastic way to help relieve them of their pressure—some of their compliance pressure—by removing the need to comply with the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) based accounts and instead you can just go and comply with the GAAP: the general accounting accord practices—Michael Wood: Generally accepted accounting practice.DAN BIDOIS: Generally accepted; there you go. Thank you Michael Wood for correcting me on that. There's somebody that's knowledgable in this area.But I do just want to say to you—Rt Hon David Carter: Be a cynic.DAN BIDOIS: That's right. I do want to say to you that look as I said this is really important in a post-COVID environment. We've got to make sure we support our many community organisations. There are some fantastic organisations many of which have been traversed today: the New Zealand Opera the surf life saving the rescue helicopter the water safe and drowning prevention in northern region and the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra. These are fantastic organisations who employ people and who look after the beating heart of our communities in Auckland. So all I want to say is I commend this bill to the House; it's a fantastic way to streamline unnecessary compliance. And the previous member Jami-Lee Ross did raise a good point: there is unnecessary burdens in there and we want to remove those where possible.So look I commend this bill to the House. I want to do a special shout-out to everybody in those organisations in Auckland whether you're a volunteer or an employee or a staff member: thank you for the fantastic work that you do on behalf of this House and we salute you from this House. So without further ado I commend this bill to the Parliament.
SpeechDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you very much for the chance to speak on this private bill under Dr Parmjeet Parmar's name. Thank you Dr Parmar for picking this particular piece of legislation up. We realise that you've had a very special connection with Stardome Observatory and Planetarium as the list MP based in Mt Roskill. It is now a great privilege that it has come back into the Maungakiekie electorate. There's been a few members of the House mention that particular charity but of course there are nine in this bill and I well remember as a former city councillor listening to all nine come in to Auckland Council as they do on an annual basis to update us on the work that they were doing given that Auckland Council is part of the administration of the funding that goes out to them. I'm going to read out their names deliberately Madam Speaker not to kill time I assure you but because they genuinely deserve the creds and the saying out loud of who they are and what they do. You only need sit as I did on an annual basis and listen to the work that they do. Any one of those organisations deserves incredible recognition for their work: Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra New Zealand Opera the Auckland Theatre Company Auckland Arts Festival Stardome which I've already mentioned Coastguard Northern Region Surf Life Saving Northern Region Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust and WaterSafe Auckland and Drowning Prevention Auckland—the merger of them. What's interesting about this bill is that normally when you're looking at funding regimes you'll be possibly looking at total operating expenses or total revenue when it comes to funding. But this of course is a cap of rates revenue 2 percent of rates revenue—not all revenue but of rates revenue. And I think it's interesting the restraint that's shown because technically these organisations are allowed up to a maximum if we look at the 2019-20 fiscal year of $34.3 million and instead their funding envelope has been $15.5 million. I'm sure they'd like to get their hands on the remainder of that available funding as per legislation. But what we've seen as I just mentioned is a really heart-warming process of all nine incredible charities doing their best to put their best foot forward in terms of funding. And that's exactly what Dr Parmar has done here: put her foot forward for these charities to make sure that their life's a little easier and a little easier as per regulations and accounting practices. We support this on this side of the House. We thank all nine charities for the work that they do and we look forward to hearing of all their good work in the future. Thank you.
SpeechLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It's a pleasure to speak to this bill—another one where there is universal agreement across the House. It's actually a very simple piece of legislation but it is important because we sat at select committee and we listened to the double-up of financial reporting standards the requirement for people to spend extra effort money time and resources in meeting two standards when fundamentally only one standard is required. We also heard at the select committee that a number of the filings of returns were technically probably illegal and they needed to be tidied up. So this bill has some sort of retrospective parts to it which make that right.It's clear that the entities—the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra the New Zealand Opera Auckland Theatre Company Auckland Arts Festival Stardome Observatory Coastguard Northern Region Surf Life Saving Northern Region Watersafe Auckland and Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust—are all entities that are vitally important to the people of Auckland. I want to congratulate Dr Parmjeet Parmar on bringing this to the House on showing the initiative on turning up to the select committee every time you were requested arguing your case. And I also want to congratulate Dr Parmar on the interactions she had with officials as part of this because there is a very technical side of two types of accounting standards that are required but all of us on the select committee could see through the advocacy of Dr Parmar that this was a very much needed but relatively simple thing to do and nobody should stand in its way.I acknowledge and support the comments of the last speaker Golriz Ghahraman who said this is really quite a good piece of legislation we all agree with it and it makes common sense. It does sort of surprise me though that we can pass some piece of legislation—or perhaps it doesn't surprise me based on the last month. But generally we should be able to see these things when accounting standards or other things are changed—changes that are made to the Charities Act changes that are made to different accounting standards.So in a nutshell this is a common-sense solution to a problem. We've taken away a lot of grief and cost and anxiety for the people that run these entities and we've at last made them legal. These are good entities much loved by the people of Auckland important to the people of Auckland and now we've allowed them to operate in a legal fashion and importantly we've given some retrospective approval—unusual in this place I know; retrospective approval—to mean that all their actions in the past have now been legal. I commend this bill to the House.
Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise to speak to any bill in this House that has as unanimous support as this one. And others have said the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill is a technical bill but it is important and it's especially—of course—important for Auckland my home.It is important to stop and acknowledge of course our charities and all of the volunteers and people that put in all of the heart and the soul and the blood sweat and tears day in and day out. The previous speaker pointed out the numbers and it's astounding. We've got 230000 volunteers that keep our charities going here in New Zealand and they do that work well. They do it expertly they are experts in their sectors they've been doing it for years and years. They work in domestic and sexual violence in child poverty in the arts and music and we owe them a lot in our communities. But that work is made so much harder by all of the accounting and the red tape and all the admin that they also have to do which none of us are particularly expert at necessarily and it does take away from their capacity to deliver on the services that they actually do want to deliver on and they have the expertise to deliver on.So we had Charities Week last week and the Green Party welcomes anything that celebrates the people that are at the grassroots of our communities doing that work that are focused on the level of the community that we often as parliamentarians can become alienated from unless we do turn our minds deliberately to it unless we go down there and we do the work ourselves of collecting for example—and most of us do that for charities. But it is really important to stop and think about the grassroots in this House.So we do commend this bill. What it does is it takes away from the nonsensical double-up of accounting regulation and requirements that charities have to do. So it was an important bill to bring and I do thank the member who has brought it Dr Parmjeet Parmar and the select committee for processing it and having it shepherded through this House. It's a tidy-up bill and we've got a lot more of those to do but it is important and I think it'll make a significant difference for all of the people who've been spending their time instead of delivering on the services that they are passionate about doing extra accounting. So I commend the bill to the House.
SpeechMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to address this Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill. New Zealand First considered this bill carefully and we did note that the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 threw up some inconsistencies in terms of tax treatments and conflicts in terms of the charities involved having to file under different accounting standards. I won't traverse those because the previous speakers have covered that at some length but I did note there's a wide and quite eclectic mix of charities in these Auckland amenities: the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra WaterSafe Auckland Surf Life Saving Northern Region and something called the Stardome which I'm not familiar with. We don't have a Stardome in Lawrence; nor do we have a surf lifesaving club or a philharmonic orchestra. We do have a pub though so all is not lost. But this bill does make life easier for these charities and I think that's worthy of the member bringing it forward. Just in passing we did note that the Hon Paul Goldsmith passed an amendment to the Charities Act that came into force in 2015 without spotting this anomaly which means that we're here today having to take up the House's time clearing this up. I won't take too much longer. I know the House is looking very much forward to Darroch Ball's Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill and of course we'll be building to a crescendo later in the night when the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill comes before the House under my name. But I will commend the member Dr Parmjeet Parmar for bringing this forward. It is a good and important local issue for those nine charities that are affected by this so I do commend her for bringing it forward and congratulate her for what looks like successfully bringing this forward. I thank the Governance and Administration Committee for the work that they do. This looks like it has been a little bit of a technical bill. I'm glad I didn't have to trawl through the accounting details that would have been involved in that but New Zealand First without further ado will support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker's Rulings — Oral Questions—Transferral
Mallard TrevorWEDNESDAY 1 JULY 2020The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.SPEAKER'S RULINGSOral Questions—TransferSPEAKER: Members yesterday when the House reached question No. 4 a member sought leave to transfer the question back to the Minister to whom it had been originally directed. I put the leave to the House. I regret to inform the House that I should not have done that. Previous Speakers have made it clear that the matter of transfer is over to the Government and the Speaker should not put leave to transfer the question back. I direct members to the very good ruling of Mr Speaker Carter at Speaker's ruling 154/5. In future I will not put leave to transfer questions back and will reinstitute the view of Speaker Carter that to make such a request is disorderly. We come to oral questions.
Tuesday 30 June 2020 (continued on Wednesday 1 July 2020) - Volume 747
Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2 Clauses 1 to 3
VoteThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 529 in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
VoteClauses 1 to 3A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 1 agreed to.
VotePart 2 Related amendmentsA party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 2 agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 1 agreed to.
Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran's Pension Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 3
VoteThe question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to Part 3 be agreed to: in clause 37 new section 189(4) replace 79" with "82"in clause 38 replace "Part 2" with "Part 4"in clause 38 heading to new Part 3 of Schedule 1 replace "Part 3" with "Part 5"in clause 38 new section 79 of Schedule 1 replace "79" with "82"Amendments agreed to.Part 3 as amended agreed to.Part 4 Amendments to other enactmentsThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 508 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to Part 4 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Amendments agreed to.Part 4 as amended agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 508 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently."
VoteThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 508 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Amendment agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran's Pension Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 508 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran's Pension Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteThe question was put that the amendments recommended by the Environment Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a second time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Motion agreed to.
Fuel Industry Bill — Instruction to Select Committee
Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill — First Reading
SpeechGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill.Our country and our world is actually better for the actions—the courageous actions—of whistleblowers in the past. So many examples that we would think absolutely abhorrent today were only stopped or brought to light because someone had the integrity and the courage—and actually probably had to face a huge amount of pressure—to stand up for what they believe in as right. So I want to thank every single whistleblower in New Zealand and around the world. We've seen high-profile individuals from Snowden in the US to our own whistleblowers in New Zealand uncovering examples of public misspending and private unlawful behaviour. I want to thank them. This law is about improving the existing regime which dates back 20 years. I note in 2017 the Ombudsman Judge Boshier said we need to give it a shot of adrenaline and this is what I think we're achieving in this legislation. We look forward to hearing the select committee submissions. I note there's been widespread consultation in the development of the bill but it's important to get those voices heard. I note National members are raising concerns around vexatious whistleblower applications. I'd note there are protections designed into the legislation. But look I don't think anyone whistle-blows for the fun of it. They're doing it because they believe in it and they're trying to uncover something. Of course there are examples where maybe the facts are in doubt or there's some grey area. That's dealt with by this legislation. But look I don't think a potential hypothetical risk of vexatious complaints should be a barrier to us giving the legislation that shot of adrenaline the Ombudsman has called for. The Green Party is proud to support.
SpeechDARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. I don't intend to take a long call on this Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill but I think it's important to state the main points of it and why New Zealand First supports it.The first thing I actually want to do is reference the State Services Commission analysis and advice. In the first paragraph they've wanted to define what the problem is and then move on to the approach to solve that problem. I think they sum it up quite well when they state that the research that they conducted found that reporting by employees is the single most important method by which illegal or corrupt activity in the workplace is brought to light. Obviously a clear and effective regime that not only supports but encourages people to speak up about the serious wrongdoing is an absolute essential nature and element of a strong integrity framework and obviously we pride ourselves in New Zealand on that strong integrity framework that we have and base our society on. Basically that's the intent and purpose of what this bill is and what it wants to achieve.As we've heard this bill seeks to repeal the current 20-year-old Protected Disclosures Act and the main reason for that is because it's outdated; it's not working as well as it should; and most importantly as it notes not only do people not actually know how to use the Act properly but they don't feel safe in using it. I think that it's important that we need to remedy that.The half a dozen main key changes that this bill wants to achieve first is to report serious wrongdoing direct to an external authority. We've heard that from both sides and how extremely important that aspect is. It strengthens the protection for disclosures it requires a provision of support for disclosures it extends the coverage of serious wrongdoing to include misuse of public funds or resources and other important extensions as well it requires public sector organisations to state in their published internal procedures how support for disclosers will be provided and ensures listing the ways in which retaliation against disclosers may occur.So I think wrapped up in the intent and the purpose of this bill is obviously making sure that the Act is fit for purpose that it's working well that it's effective and most importantly from New Zealand First's point of view people actually feel safe in using that and supported in using that. I think that the bill that is in the House as it stands is a balanced bill—the intent and purpose of it is balanced. Obviously it's quite a large bill and as we've heard from both sides already the select committee process will be a very important stage in this moving through the House. We look forward to hearing from the submitters and the experts and their advice on any potential changes to the bill in moving forward and New Zealand First commends it to the House. Thank you.
Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill — In Committee
SpeechParts 1 to 3 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): As the Minister in the chair the Hon Nanaia Mahuta will know and this committee will know we are supporting this bill. However I do—at this stage in the committee—wish to ask the Minister really some questions as to how this relates potentially to the review of Three Waters and potential announcements of that and in that space effectively how some of the costs that are being incurred on councils from this piece of legislation will be dealt with. Specifically I know the cost of the regulator are being funded by the Crown but where the regulator finds that there needs to be upgrades of certain things to meet the standards will that issue be addressed through other reforms that the Minister is considering and at what time will those other reforms be announced? Because while this bill is important—and as I say we support it—it is important we understand the context of the total decision-making of the Three Waters.
Doocey MattTAUMATA AROWAI—THE WATER SERVICES REGULATOR BILLIn CommitteeMATT DOOCEY (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave of the committee for the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Those were matters outside the scope of the bill but they were worthy matters worth considering as you rightly pointed out Mr Yule. The ability to have applicants include their IRD number to verify their income is a very useful suggestion and it's one that we are going to ensure that the Secretary for Local Government can consider. And as I say this bill paves the way for the potential of an online application. As you consider online applications of any nature you start to build the architecture that provides your risk—a profile around that whole approach. I welcome the suggestion from the Social Services and Community Committee around the IRD number matching. I think that's a worthy suggestion that should be considered and it will be. However it's outside the scope of this bill.
SpeechLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): I wish to follow up with the Minister on her commentary. I understand the number of cases that have been investigated and I'm not suggesting for a minute it's widespread but it could be far greater—the element of fraud—than what is being assessed. A question for the Minister: I notice in the papers that it talks about—and I encourage this as we get into more online application—the use of Inland Revenue numbers and data and the sharing of information because in my view that's probably where the greatest fraud potential can exist in terms of the assessment of somebody's income and the ability to say that the income is X but by the end of it it's Y. I know that in the papers it says it's possible to get Inland Revenue tied in but there are some consequential changes that need to be made. Are those consequential changes requiring legislation or are they changes that can be made by regulation or by the chief executive of the Department of Internal Affairs as an example?
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Well let's be really clear so that there's no mincing of words. In terms of the potential for fraud there is always a potential for fraud in many places in many ways. The risk assurance system within councils I think tries to mitigate absolutely around this happening through many of its processes. But let's go to the facts so it's not a sense. There have been annually between five to 10 investigations not prosecutions in this particular area which indicates in itself that there are robust measures within councils in terms of how they process things. So again I won't mince words. I'll be very clear. If there are only five to 10 investigations annually no prosecutions in the living memory—and I'm happy to provide further information around this—then that actually speaks volumes in terms of the potential that you're proposing today and the reality of what has happened
SpeechDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you Minister for some of those comments. I'm just picking up on words and I'm not quite sure I got the context right but you referred to my sense" of what councils will do when picking up the amended regime that this bill creates. So my question for you is: what is that sense based on? What's your understanding? What are the conversations that you've had with councils who will obviously have to dedicate staff to verify information in that application process that this bill outlines?You can sense where we're coming from on this side of the House—it's very simple: the difference between the inconvenience of going to apply for the rates rebate versus accountability. We need assurance on this side of the House of accountability for taxpayer money and not opening ourselves up to a regime which will in fact create more breach or fraud—or however you want to phrase it—that's our concern. So more than just a "sense" what assurance do you have that council and council staffing will be able to dial up to make sure that the new verification process is watertight?"
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Thank you for the question. In terms of the removal of the statutory declaration in favour of verification there must still be supporting documentation required so the existing processes of being able to verify the supporting documentation will remain in place as will the current considerations around any potential risk in terms of the decision making. So from an operational point of view it's my sense in the implementation that councils will remain robust in the way that they look to authorise the verified documents and that it will continue to be a matter of assessment as they look to the uptake of the rates rebate.I do believe however that when we talk about the issues around improving access and online formats we are getting better and better at ensuring that there's less prospect for fraudulent activity but it's not a 100 percent assurance. That is the challenge in many many things. If we look at the most robust way of using identity to verify applications RealMe for passport applications we would say as members of this House that there is a high level of assurance and integrity of using that system for a document of that nature. Is it 100 percent? We would hope so but in your risk analysis of the process there will inevitably potentially be opportunities for people to penetrate the system and that is always going to be a challenge.Now I don't want to compare apples with pears but I just say that when we introduce the potential for an online process we must try and assure ourselves—and councils will do this. This paves the way for an online process. This paves the way for councils to be able to build a robust architecture around any online process in relation to this matter and I'm confident that there has been a lot of thinking within local government about how to improve the processes and how to introduce online systems in a way that not only gives decision makers greater confidence but also ratepayers as they access the system as well.
SpeechLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): I thank the Minister for her advice and input. Generally I'm very supportive of the rates rebate scheme and in my previous life have been hugely supportive of getting it out in the community. But Minister the judgment here—and I invite you to respond to this—is I support online and other provisions that make the rates rebate scheme more accessible but as you go down that path you do run the risk of more people fraudulently using the system. I accept that up until now the figures you've given are very small numbers but I liken it to the wage subsidy effectively where a whole lot of people applied for the wage subsidy and then there was an auditing and verification process that sought to make sure that people were following the rules.Minister what I'm not clear on here is in the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) or under the Secretary for Local Government how in fact—or are you signalling that there will be a more rigid investigatory regime of auditing? Because I think this side of the Chamber would be somewhat more satisfied with this if we knew that applicants actually knew that there was an auditing regime of quite regular basis to confirm what data was being given. Because effectively we're signing away statutory declarations and I know from previous history if you go to a council or a council officer comes to your home with a statutory declaration they will very likely go through the information with you. There is a much greater degree of accuracy when that occurs. So if we're going to trade that off is the Minister signalling that DIA will have an extra capacity to effectively conduct audits on a more regular basis to ensure compliance? Because I think if people knew that there's a regular auditing process they're more likely to give accurate information. That in many ways would take away some of the concerns this side of the Chamber has. I'd be interested to know if any work has been done on that Minister.
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I'd say that the Government has such a full legislative programme that we have to take every moment including urgency and extended sittings to be able to work through some pretty substantial and also some small but meaningful changes that will make a difference in people's lives. It's not for me to respond to the issues regarding business of the House but I would make that observation and absolutely support putting this small but substantial amendment through under these provisions because the issue has gone to select committee. It's not as if the select committee hasn't had time to consider submissions ask questions of submitters and then make a determination and if that's the best the member can come up with oh my gosh.Hon Member: Ooh.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Well look we—but let's come back to the point of contention in relation to the potential for fraud which I still maintain is a dim view of things and it's actually a dim view of people who work long and hard within the local government sector in councils and often there are dedicated people who understand this space who are interacting on a daily level with people in relation to the rates rebate because of the profile of that demographic who actually benefit from the rates rebate. I'm informed that around about five possibly five to 10 matters get investigated annually in this area but in the living memory of certainly people who are working at the policy level in Department of Internal Affairs there's been no prosecution to date. So that in a sense highlights that while it has been identified by members in the Opposition as a potential the reality is a very different thing.The other point that was made—and again it's been made again and again and again through the second reading and the committee stages of the House—is that a statutory declaration is not a taxing process for many but if you're living in a rural community if you don't have access to a car and you have to rely on your niece or your nephew or your neighbour to take you in to council to actually verify your rates rebate form—those are the people that this particular change will benefit. Actually I think more and more if we can improve processes for ratepayers to have access to the rates rebate through potentially what will inevitably be an online process with the right verifications with the ability of people who understand the group of people the demographic who will benefit from this type of support then you will get a more efficient service less administrative costs for councils but actually an improved uptake of the rates rebate which is eventually where I want to get to—an improved uptake of the rates rebate scheme.
SpeechHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Firstly can I just point out to the Minister that I am a very cheerful fellow and I don't believe that I have said anything this morning that indicates that I am not of good cheer—Matt Doocey: Debatable point.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Ha ha! But I'm also somebody who takes my responsibility seriously and I don't think that a fairly gratuitous comment of that sort suffices as an answer to a question. Because while I accept—in fact I agree with the Minister that there are many who will welcome a system which can make this easier. As I said before there's no question that a rates rebate is a desirable thing for many people particularly those on low and fixed incomes and particularly in this post-COVID environment when many household incomes are under even greater stress. But that doesn't explain—in fact the Minister didn't even begin to answer my question—why we are dealing with this matter under urgency. I say it again because it's a very important point and if Opposition members don't stand up for the authority of Parliament and the need for legislation to be dealt with in a considered appropriate fashion then we would be really letting down the public of New Zealand. I made the point that when bills are dealt with under urgency quite frequently mistakes are made and I drew attention to one where that happened just a few days ago. I'm disappointed that the Minister didn't explain to us why when there's been plenty of time during this parliamentary term here we are on a Wednesday morning sitting under urgency to deal with this matter. It is a significant point because of course that has a domino effect on select committees. My select committee had to begin at 8 o'clock this morning and then suspend at 9 o'clock. Leave wasn't granted—and the reason for that is of course many of us have to be in the House to debate these bills and you can't be in two places at once. So the Minister does need to explain to us why urgency is being used for a non-urgent matter and has become so common under the regime of this Government that people are beginning to forget what due parliamentary process is.I heard her answers on the rates rebate matter and why it is being introduced but I do not believe she's given an assurance to others who are law-abiding citizens yet as to how the potential for fraud or to prevent fraud is being dealt with in this bill. She's mentioned that it's simplifying that and it certainly is. But really the requirement to obtain a statutory declaration in the existing provisions the status quo are not that taxing. They're not that difficult. In fact for those who perhaps live with disabilities or would find travel particularly difficult arrangements can be made. So why is it felt that it is reasonable to put in place a regime that could be ripe for exploitation and abuse in order to fix the problem that the Minister has identified? Surely there needs to be a better remedy than this. So I invite the Minister to respond to those and if we get a satisfactory answer we probably don't need to prolong this debate much further.
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Well the first thing I would say to that member Tim Macindoe is Cheer up!" That's a pretty dim view to start a debate on a matter that actually makes a fundamental difference and contribution to those on low fixed incomes—many senior citizens many people that actually have a physical disability. So let's just get back to the substance of the bill. Yes it is a small change but it's an important one because enabling eligible applicants to apply for the rates rebate by removing the requirement to make a statutory declaration fundamentally changes quite a lot of things for a lot of people in a practical way. They don't have to travel into a council office to get a statutory declaration; they can do this from the comfort of their own home and in fact the changes enable an online process to be adopted. But verification is key so the bill also ensures that the verification form that is provided for is in a manner that is approved by the Secretary for Local Government. And it also ensures that the existing regime in relation to fraudulent claims on a verification form will lock in the provisions in the principal Act. I know and I heard the debate from members of the Opposition in the second reading about potential for fraud. That is always a potential in any circumstance but I do not believe it's going to be caused simply by moving from a statutory declaration process to a verification process. However can I also state that some of the things that were very useful in terms of the committee's deliberations were to ensure that the immediacy of the bill comes into effect as soon as possible. I am signalling that on the Table there is Supplementary Order Paper 529 which amends clause 2 of the bill to change the commencement date from 1 July 2020 to "the day after the date of Royal assent" and that takes on board the many comments around the immediacy of provisions taking effect so that people can access the rates rebate in the form that we are proposing as soon as possible.Now I unlike the member who previously spoke am very confident that the group of people who access the rates rebate—those on low fixed incomes; mainly senior citizens—by and large welcome this practical change to enable them to have access to a contribution that makes a big difference in their annual rates payments. In 2019 in that rating year 103000 people had successfully applied for the rates rebate. If we improve access in the way that people apply for this small but substantial contribution to the annual rates I think we are making a good contribution and a little bit of difference for good in a lot of people's lives."
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Yeah sure; I don't mind speaking to that. I think many of us particularly electorate MPs would have received correspondence at some point in time from those that are impacted by spousal deduction.So for those that don't know in New Zealand if you say have worked overseas and you also qualify for superannuation that is in line with what ours is here and you decide to come back and settle you can't claim both superannuation packages or amounts. There is a deduction policy and so if say you are getting superannuation from another country and dollar for dollar it matches what you would get here you actually do not see any New Zealand superannuation. The issue that we are addressing here is that it actually has had an impact on the partners of those who receive overseas pensions—in that if someone was receiving an overseas pension and it exceeded what they might qualify for here individually dollar for dollar it would also have an impact on their partner. So their spouse would have deductions made and some actually were not receiving any superannuation here in New Zealand of their own at all because of the amount that their spouse was getting through an overseas pension.So I think that many of us who have been lobbied on this over the years have seen this as being unfair and there has been I think the will—well certainly the interest—in addressing this and I know that previous Governments have looked into it but we've never quite got there. So it is an achievement that all of this House can finally agree that the spousal deduction policy is not appropriate and that we are finally going to get rid of it. I think the last figures I saw were that currently there are about 400 people that are currently affected by the spousal deduction policy but over time obviously there would have been more.Hon Tim Macindoe: There must be 200 of them living in Hamilton!Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes. They have been a very vocal voice on this particular issue. It is unfair; so I can understand why and so it's great that as part of the changes that we're agreeing to today in the House we will finally address this issue and put a little more fairness back into our own legislation and our Social Security Act and New Zealand superannuation policy.
SpeechPart 3 Amendments to Social Security Act 2018Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Mr Chair. This of course is the part where we can consider the spousal deduction issue. I don't think it's necessary for me to repeat the questions and some of the thoughts that I expressed and I apologise for when I did so at the inappropriate time earlier on. But I would welcome an opportunity now—Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Repeat them.Hon TIM MACINDOE: The Minister would like me to repeat them but essentially I was making the comment that probably the issue of the spousal deduction is the one that is most commonly raised with constituent MPs and has been I have to say over many many years. In fact those who have been around for some time when we were talking in the second reading debate were nodding their heads in agreement when I commented on how often this is being raised with us.So this was something that I mentioned earlier—it was work that began under the previous Government. I am pleased that the current Government has picked it up and that we are now in a process where I think a number of people will finally see that their concern has been dealt with and we add our strong support to it. But I do think it would be really helpful if the Minister could outline for those who are listening her understanding of what the issue was how widespread it was because I think it would be interesting. She'll probably have better knowledge than I do of just how many people over the years have raised this question and how many different citizens who have come to New Zealand from different countries have raised this matter. Quite often it's useful to have that little bit of flesh on the bones for us to be able to explain to our constituents that this was the problem this was the solution and let's hope now that we've dealt with the matter appropriately.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): My understanding is it is both but when we're looking at the carryovers to what applies to New Zealand super and then of course to the veterans pension then both have to be able to make that determination. So therefore as I mentioned earlier there are some things that have to be reflected in Part 2 with respect to the Veterans' Support Act so that we have consistency in terms of treatment regardless of whether someone is receiving New Zealand superannuation or the actual veterans pension.
SpeechAGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd just like a point of clarification from the Minister on section 159(2) amended by clause 25. Under Meaning of living alone" we've got various modes of accommodation listed there in that section. Under paragraph (f) we've got "a mobile home … that VANZ"—Veterans Affairs New Zealand—"is satisfied is sufficiently self-contained". I just want to ask the Minister why it is we've decided that it is Veterans Affairs that makes that decision and not the Ministry of Social Development in terms of the satisfaction of that. Could I just get some clarification on that thank you."
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Yeah sure. So I don't mind answering that question. Really some of the work that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has been undertaking had to be delayed during the COVID period and so it was a direct impact of all the other work that they've had to take on as part of our COVID response. So there has been a delay in this work. We have been busy with things like the wage subsidy the income relief payment and the demand that we've seen come to MSD during this time as well as doing things like implementing apprenticeships alongside the Ministry of Education. So they have been quite busy. This is the earliest date that they could give for commencement and so I thought that was fair and reasonable and that is the date that we've been given. I will say that I do find it to be quite interesting that on one hand we've got questions being raised about why this needs to come through here in urgency and then on the other hand we've got a member of the same party saying we shouldn't be delaying this for any reason.
Upston Louise; Rurawhe AdrianHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Mr Chair. I specifically want to raise a query with the Minister for Social Development on her recent Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) around the commencement date. As has been stated in the House the National Opposition are supporting the legislation but we actually didn't support the Minister's SOP to delay the start of this. I think if we look through the submissions they were by and large in favour of the changes that were made. So my question very directly is: why the delay Minister?CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I think that debate comes up in clause—Hon Louise Upston: The Minister referred to it.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I don't mind answering.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Oh sorry. My mistake.