Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:3977] 
1. JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: When do the Government’s new measures to improve the rates rebate scheme for those on low incomes come into effect? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is a final warning. Questions are to be asked in silence. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be able to tell the House that from 1 July an estimated 300000 New Zealanders will be eligible for a rebate of up to $500 under the rates rebate scheme. This marks a significant increase from last year when fewer than 4000 people received a rebate. We now know that this is exactly the sort of scheme that the National Party would scrap to fund its tax cuts for the rich. That is why National joined ACT in voting against this part of the Local Government Law Reform Bill which extended this coverage both during the Committee stage and the third reading of the bill. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will recall last week that you pulled up someone on this side of the House for asking a question that you considered to be outside the Standing Orders. You referred to Standing Order 372. I believe that Standing Order 377 which is the mirror image of Standing Order 372 prevents Ministers from answering in the way that Mr Burton just did. So I would ask Madam Speaker that if you are to be consistent and require that we adhere to the Standing Order in the asking of questions that Ministers be required to adhere to the Standing Order in the answering of questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I recall that at the time I said that the Standing Order did apply to both questions and answers. I thank the member for reminding the House of that matter. 
Jill Pettis 
: Could the Minister please advise how this new measure would impact on a single woman on New Zealand superannuation living in the community of Wanganui? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Under the current thresholds sadly she would not be entitled to any rebate. But as of Saturday if she was paying average regional and district council rates she would be entitled to a rebate of $500 on her rates. That is very different from what would have happened had National and ACT got their way last week. 
Mark Blumsky 
: Did the Minister take into account the impact on all ratepayers of the rates rebate scheme considering that the Auckland City Council has complained that the administration costs alone have increased the rates bill of Auckland City by up to $160000? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: We did indeed take into account the overall effect. I guess it illustrates the difference in the priorities of this Government and the National-ACT Opposition. 
Jill Pettis 
: Could the Minister please advise the House what would have happened if Part 7 of the Local Government Law Reform Bill which provided for the inclusion of uniform annual general charges in the rates rebate scheme had not been passed? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: If the bill had not been passed people in districts or regions where those charges make up a significant part of the rates bill would not have had their eligibility entitlement. So that is why people like Bill English’s constituents in Gore John Carter’s in Kaipara and Bob Clarkson’s in Tauranga would be outraged to know that their representatives voted against their getting that increase. 
Rodney Hide 
: Could the Minister advise the House in light of this rebate scheme what the total extra cost is that central government has imposed on local government over the last 7 years—or does he not know or care—and what does he say to Auckland ratepayers who are staring down the barrel of a 37 percent rates increase over just 3 years? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Firstly this rates rebate scheme has not imposed any costs over the last 7 years; it is coming into effect only on Saturday. Secondly considerable draft rates increases are being proposed at the moment. They are not yet finalised in most parts of the country. Many of them deal with long-overdue infrastructure investment and I have to say that during the 1990s a great deal of the effect of that under-investment was compounded.