Madam SPEAKERI have also received a letter from Sue Bradford, seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the disconnection of the Muliaga family’s electricity by Mercury Energy. The disconnection is a particular case of recent occurrence and, having been effected by or on behalf of a State-owned enterprise, I accept that it does involve the ministerial responsibility of the Government. The incident has been the subject of considerable public interest since it occurred, and this is the first opportunity the House has had to consider it. I consider that it does warrant an urgent debate being held today. I therefore call on Sue Bradford to move that the House take note of the matter.
SUE BRADFORD (Green) Link to this
I seek leave to split this call in half with my colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons.
I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about this sadly defining moment in our country’s history. The disconnection of the Muliaga family’s electricity by State-owned enterprise Mercury Energy, and the death of FololeMuliaga a few hours after the electricity was cut off to her home and her oxygen machine, are a tragedy that has highlighted tensions of ideology and a gap of empathy in this country. But before I speak any more, I would like to formally offer my condolences and those of my Green Party colleagues to the family of FololeMuliaga. My heart goes out to them as I imagine their hardship and sorrow and what they have had to deal with over the last 2 weeks.
It was 2 weeks ago today, at around this time, that Mrs Muliaga died. She died because as a society we have come to value efficiency and profit before people. The strict chain of events surrounding Mrs Muliaga’s death started when she became sick and had to give up her job as an early childhood teacher. That reduced the family income to $400 a week for the four of them. Mr Muliaga was working as much as possible in his minimum-wage job, earning while his wife was sick. Although their income was drastically reduced, at the same time the price of power has gone up by 40 percent in real terms since 2000 and went up by 7 percent just last year. As most families who are surviving on a benefit or a minimum wage know, it is often not possible to have a roof over one’s head, warmth, clothing, a full stomach, running water, and bills paid in full and on time. People are forced constantly to make tough choices, regardless of whether someone is sick or there are children in the family.
One of the compromises the Muliaga family was forced to make was paying off the power bill in instalments. That, apparently, was not acceptable to Mercury Energy, or to the State-owned enterprise Mighty River Power—a State-owned enterprise that made record profits last year. Despite another payment being due in 2 days and two payments having recently been made by the family, the company decided to disconnect the electricity. At one stage the company was even reported as saying it believed that through cutting off the power it was helping the Muliaga family, by making sure it did not get further into debt,. The contractor involved was apparently disconnecting power to several houses that day. Who knows the stories of those other families? How many children across the country were left shivering in their beds that night, as a result of those disconnections and all the others that took place? How many pregnant women went to bed feeling cold, and without having had hot food? How many people with mental or physical illnesses or disabilities were left in darkness?
After the tragedy of 2 weeks ago, it quickly became apparent that Mercury Energy itself was turning off the power of hundreds of households a week. I think that all of us may have been shocked by the extent to which not only Mercury Energy but other power companies have been turning off the power across New Zealand every day, and in tens of thousands of households a year. This was a tragedy waiting to happen. It could have happened anywhere in New Zealand, and it could happen again any day now.
I thank the Government and the Prime Minister for their quick response to the matter. I appreciate that they have identified the need to develop some guidelines for power companies. However the guidelines, in so far as they have been talked about so far, do not go far enough. They are not mandatory. They will be introduced after 1 month’s consultation, and then monitored by the Electricity Commission for 3 months. The commission will then report back to the Government next year, and advise as to whether the guidelines are working or whether there needs to be more regulation. In this case, it appears that the threat of regulation is considered to be more important than the possible consequence of not doing something more regulatory, and that leads to the conclusion that there could again be further tragic circumstances. Effectively, the companies are being slapped on the wrist and told not to do it again, when we already have codes of responsibility and codes of practice for them that should have stopped them from doing it, but did not.
What is almost worse, though, in this whole debate is to realise that racist, blame-the-victim views seem to have gained such a foothold in our communities, particularly in places like talkback radio. To hear people turning all the blame for this tragedy on to FololeMuliaga and her family reminds me of the worst aspects of the 1980s and 1990s, when over and over again the victims of deliberate Government policies and corporate greed were held to blame for their circumstances rather than the system that had caused their unemployment or poverty, their ill health, or their death. Many of us remember those times, and it has been really sad to hear that kind of blaming raise its head again over the last 2 weeks.
This recent tragedy has, I believe, marked a turning point for us as a country. We have been internationally shamed. I think a number of us would have been shocked by the way this story went worldwide instantly and by the international reaction to the fact that a country such as ours, which is seen as a kind, caring, and compassionate country with a welfare state, would have allowed this incident to happen. If we are to reclaim our image and our reality as a country that actually adheres to and believes in fundamental principles of humanity, equity, and compassion, we should immediately take a number of steps.
The first step is to require a law providing that not only electricity companies but also gas and water companies put alongside any household having problems with its bills a community or social service agency to help it work through the payment problems, and to advise that family or household of any Government assistance that is available. Community-based groups helping with that work should, of course, also be funded by the utility company for their work. I realise this is in part what the Government is saying; the issue is simply that the Greens believe it should be mandatory. Alongside that, we are also saying over and over again that it is not just power that is at stake here but also gas and water. Those are all necessities of life.
Secondly, companies must be required to notify the Ministry of Social Development before anyone’s power is cut off, and the ministry should be expected, as a matter of course, to do everything it can to help the family concerned, whether it is already in the benefit system or whether it is on a low income—whatever its situation is. The rules inside the Ministry of Social Development must be changed in order to make it clear that the provision of power, gas, and water to households is a health and safety issue and an essential of life. The Government should also introduce a new ministerial directive within Work and Income on advances for residential utility payments. Such a directive, separate from other directives, could see the ministry working in with the power and water companies to ensure no one’s supply is cut off and that no one is denied reconnection. The Ministry of Social Development could use combinations of recoverable and non-recoverable payments to make sure than no one’s situation gets worse and becomes out of hand, and to make sure that the supply is maintained.
Thirdly, it should simply be illegal to disconnect water, gas, or electricity, except in cases where it is clear that people who can afford to pay are arbitrarily refusing to do so.
My colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons will now discuss a further key measure that should be taken in relation to the pricing of power.
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
Can I add my condolences to the Muliaga family to those of my colleague.
Household electricity prices have risen 18 percent in real terms over just 8 years and we are faced with a paradox of pricing. At one end, power is now too expensive for people on low incomes to afford their basic needs; and at the other end, power is still too cheap to prevent a lot of people from wasting it. It is time to address the pricing structure, because there is a pricing structure that can address both of these issues; it is used in a number of places overseas, and—in fact—is known in those places as a lifeline tariff. This is called progressive pricing and it goes like this.
Every household, and only households, would be able to buy a basic block of power at a low price. That is not a subsidy. New Zealand generates lots of power from our old hydro stations that is really cheap, and that price just reflects that. Then, above that block of power, households would pay an increasing amount for further blocks of power so that at the margin the price would always be higher than it is on average. This has been Green Party policy since the 1970s when I presented a computer run of exactly how it would work, for the Auckland Electric Power Board—the ancestor of today’s Mercury Energy. The board thanked us politely, sent us away, and did not consider it further.
It is high time to consider that policy again and I was most interested to find that last year the Government did exactly that. The Ministry of Economic Development produced a report last year on various pricing structures. It was starting to get embarrassed by the fact that electricity company margins had doubled in just 3 years and that the windfall profits that the State-owned generators were making were starting to become quite embarrassing for the Government. The ministry considered a number of options along with progressive pricing, and unfortunately decided to do virtually nothing.
The report is interesting. It acknowledges that this would be a way of making a basic amount of power affordable to people on low incomes. It acknowledges that it would do that without causing a huge explosion in power consumption and that, in fact, the high marginal price of power would be likely to cause people to use it more efficiently—meeting both the goals of the Government’s social policy, which is that everybody is warm and fed, and the goal of the National Energy and Conservation Strategy, which is that we use electricity a great deal more efficiently than we do now.
Why did the ministry decide against that? It decided against that because it is not compatible with competitive market arrangements. So we have something that works very well to address the needs of real people, it works very well to address the needs of the environment, energy efficiency, and climate change, but it does not work very well to implement the ideology that the market must be totally free and competitive, and so it was abandoned.
Never mind that one could perfectly well legislate for that one basic block of power and the price that had to be charged for it for everyone, and that then one could allow the competitive market to determine the prices of the further blocks above that—and the power companies would no doubt look after their interests. So there are ways of dealing with market competition as well as with the needs of the poor and the needs of climate change.
The report from the Ministry of Economic Development is very disappointing. It is quite shallow. It puts up a heap of straw men about how we would have to have different-sized blocks for different-sized households. We already have research that shows that power consumption is not closely linked to the number of people in the house. It is much more linked to the fact that there is a house and there is one fridge, whether there are three people or one person in the house. That is so, even in the case of hot water, which is most closely linked to the number of people. If one has, for example, six children in the family, one is probably putting them through the same bathwater anyway. So there is not a close correlation between numbers and power use.
The biggest correlation that exists is between power consumption and income. High-income families have high power bills, and low-income families tend to have lower power bills because they cannot afford it. We could combine the idea of a rising block tariff for power with two existing ones. One is the attempt to insulate all the old homes so that people on low incomes have their power bills managed, because they are not expensive to heat. The other is the new technology of smart meters, which are starting to be rolled out, which give the customer feedback about what they are using and the cost of what they are using.
The combination of a lifeline tariff and a smart meter would enable households to see how they are going and decide for themselves whether they can afford to go into the second band of power at the higher price that month, or whether they want to try to stay within the lifeline tariff. They would be in control of their situation, they would have the information they need, and we would not have people unable to meet their power bills, and being disconnected because of it. I believe that the Government should look at this idea again and, if necessary, a select committee should look at it, because it is a good idea. It has been around for 30 years. Other places do it; why should New Zealand not do it?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. Along with all members of this House I share the feelings of loss that the family have had, and I would like to thank the previous speakers for passing on—on behalf of all of us, actually—the surprise and condolences around this very real family tragedy.
This is a useful opportunity to be able to delineate the decisions that have already been taken by Cabinet, and the processes that will be followed in future. As members will be aware, a decision has been made. A large part of that is already in the public domain, but not in the wider sense understood by people in detail yet, and that is why I think today’s debate is particularly useful. A decision has been made to proceed with special requirements, particularly around the needs and the situation of vulnerable consumers. None of this is without semantic difficulties, and it is fraught with definitional issues. That is why I think the timing of the development of this policy is particularly useful.
The Electricity Commission will issue draft guidelines in line with the decisions made by the Government. After 3 months from the date of implementation of those guidelines the commission will be monitoring and coming back to the Government to see whether there is sufficient compliance with the guidelines. It is my view that the guidelines to date, albeit voluntary, have generally been quite well complied with. We certainly have had an appalling example of non-compliance, which led to this incident and to this debate, but I think it is important not to criticise unreasonably the other companies, public or private, involved in the industry because of the totally unsatisfactory performance of one supplier. That is why I think cautious decisions about the need to regulate further, depending on performance, is the desirable way to proceed.
The Government will be introducing legislation in due course to amend the Electricity Act to make future regulation possible, should that need to occur. So that is a given. I think it is important that members of the House and the New Zealand public are aware that the Electricity Commission has advised us that retailers have already taken on board—well and truly, I would imagine—the sad lessons from the last couple of weeks, and that the commission envisages it will get very good cooperation indeed throughout the implementation phase of its guidelines, and I will talk a little later on about the detail of those guidelines and the changes.
Essentially, the wording in the guidelines will be much stronger. Words like “should” will be changed to more appropriate language, such as “must” and “will be required to”, and the guidelines will make absolutely clear the requirements and expectations of these companies delivering essential utility services. I believe that the threat of regulation will be as effective as it has been in a large number of other areas. I am only too aware of all sorts of voluntary accords in my environmental portfolio area that have been well complied with, and, interestingly, the people who previously argued for voluntary regulation are often now coming to the Government and asking us to regulate to make sure that there are no freeloaders and that everyone is on board. That is good news. I believe that the threat of regulation will indeed be very effective, as it should be.
There are, however, as I commented a moment ago, some very good practices among electricity retailers. The example of Meridian in Christchurch has already been quoted. I am advised that Meridian funds a number of agencies to provide people with the sorts of budgetary advice services and support that are often provided by the Ministry of Social Development in various forms, particularly in the form of Work and Income, but also via other agencies. I compliment them on that. I have no reports of things not working well in that area. I am also only too aware of a, perhaps, too informal but none the less very effective protocol—that term might be an overstatement—or working arrangement with Contact Energy in my Dunedin electorate. Irrespective of the chills of the North Island, people will be aware that the criticality of power supply is often much greater in the south, particularly at the moment, and as a result of disconnection concerns from constituents some years ago, my office and I made contact with the local Contact Energy operators and have come to a regime that has ensured there are grossly fewer problems—I would not say none—with that company and with supply in our area than there have been in the past. So I think it is only too clear that retailers have learnt from this.
I need to put on record that the Electricity Commission and the Ministry of Social Development did negotiate in good faith, on their own initiatives, the first set of guidelines, and now we are in the situation, because of these tragic circumstances, where we clearly want to strengthen them and improve them.
What has happened over the last couple of weeks has clearly been a huge wake-up call for those who do not have good practices or are not ensuring that good practices are being followed. I am sure they are hurrying to make sure such practices are in place, because after the consultation period of a month, which I referred to, and the rewritten, strengthened guidelines being finalised, there will be a 3-month period for implementation. At the end of that period, we will be looking at the Electricity Commission surveying exactly what the practices are, observing and monitoring the level of disconnection, and coming back to the Government with further recommendations. Of course, given that that period will be during winter, I think that will be an instructive exercise.
The Electricity Commission, as I intimated earlier, is absolutely clear that it will recommend regulation if it assesses that there is not a satisfactory level of compliance with the new guidelines. We believe that the wake-up call from what has happened—the tragic events we have seen—has already sent retailers the very powerful signal that the expectation is that compliance with the new strengthened guidelines will be absolute.
We are going to be seeing in the community a much stronger set of guidelines, and if they are not properly complied with there will be, if necessary, further regulation. We will make sure that there is good monitoring of the issues around vulnerable consumers and disconnection issues, that other consumers are being properly advised of where they can go for advice should they need it, and the monitoring regimes that the Electricity Commission will be put in place. Can I say, though, in order to leave no possibility for doubt, that it is my view that in a country like New Zealand, irrespective of the particular issues of this or any other case, it is just not acceptable that any consumer who happens to have a debt of less than $200—as it was in this case—should be disconnected from the power supply. I just do not believe there can be any reason where, at that debt level, disconnection would be acceptable.
The previous speaker quite rightly identified the issue. We do expect all of us in this community to face up to our financial commitments. But it is equally an indicator of the humanity of a society that we make sure that those who, for whatever reason—and there are many valid reasons—are unable to do that, or find difficulty doing that, get the level of support and advice they are entitled to as members of this community. In that respect, members of this House and members of the New Zealand community will be only too aware of the lengths to which this Government has gone to make those financial burdens lighter. I guess, in many ways, the attitude to this matter characterises the different flavour of the politics and the philosophy of the different parties in this House. Labour, in one of its first moves in Government, reindexed the floor of national superannuation, and has shifted it annually since 1999. This Government reinstated the public provision of accident compensation and has moved the minimum wage annually since 1999—not a record that predecessors in the House would be able to claim.
Of course, that very shift in people’s base income is one of the key factors in making the payment of utility services infinitely more affordable. Members of the House are only too aware that the Working for Families package, now in the final implementation phase since 1 April this year, is providing very substantial assistance to around 360,000 New Zealand families. These are families that because of extra tax credits and other types of support as part of the components of the Working for Families package can obviously find it easier—if not completely easy, in many cases—to face up to the cost of the provision of utilities such as power. In addition to that, of course, that package will lift a very large number of children out of poverty—and energy poverty is an important part of that deprivation. Clearly, the last phase of Working for Families has put huge extra amounts of money into families’ pockets—the increases in family support and the family tax credit level, and the regular inflation adjustment, in particular.
The previous speaker also alluded to the energy insulation and retrofitting initiatives that have been running for a number of years. Those sorts of conservation measures are a clear and valuable part of the sorts of initiatives—very substantial initiatives—that this Government has incrementally put in place since being elected to the Treasury benches in 1999.
I will share with members one small example of a pretty typical New Zealand family. Chris and Allan live in Onehunga. They have three children. Their Working for Families package has increased their income by $365 a week. That is $365 a week they would not have, had this Government not been in power, and that is $365 a week that makes it easier for them to pay their mortgage, to pay their bills for utility provision, including electricity, and to make ends meet rather more comfortably. So for a very large number of New Zealanders it is much easier to meet those financial commitments; but for those who still need support, we will provide that.
In closing, I send one very clear message, both to members of the House and to the community. I would urge people who are having issues, around power supply in particular, or who have historical issues in that regard, not to hesitate to contact Work and Income. Anyone facing disconnection or having trouble paying a power bill can call and ask for assistance, whether or not that person is a current client of Work and Income. We will assist people privately and confidentially by looking at their financial circumstances and giving them advice ourselves on what assistance they can get, or, indeed, providing assistance if that is appropriate. We will continue to advise people—whoever they are and whether or not they have an existing relationship with Work and Income—on what other Government or other assistance might be available, such as the Working for Families tax credits that I have referred to, or a very substantial range of other budget services such as budget advice, which is often provided by other, independent agencies, a large number of which are funded by various sorts of Government funding, or, indeed, by some of the utilities such as the one I mentioned.
Of course, the sooner people put their hands up and ask for some advice to help with the ordering of their affairs, the sooner they can be assisted. As someone said during question time, often we do not notice things until they arrive, which is too late. This is an area where, for example, the guidelines will insist that there are no disconnections, or discussions of disconnection, on Friday or over the weekend, so that we can come to a much more manageable arrangement when people have difficulty. Thank you very much for the opportunity to clarify some of those matters.
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this
Might I first express my condolences to the Muliaga family for what has been a most tragic death for them, in circumstances that—it would appear, on the face of it—most New Zealanders are not comfortable with at all. I further say that it is somewhat difficult when we know what the family is going through, and will go through for many, many months and, possibly, years ahead, to discuss this issue in the way that it perhaps should be discussed.
But the reality we are faced with is that the Prime Minister of New Zealand stepped into this argument and made some extremely strong statements about her view on this particular matter and what she expected to have happen. Despite the fact that her Minister had been somewhat cautious, she went out and said that heads will roll and someone will be publicly accountable. Today the police have decided not to charge anybody in connection with this incident. So where are the heads that are to roll?
The Prime Minister also said that the law would be altered, and that State-owned enterprises would be given a pretty hard message, by way of a legislative change, to ensure that this kind of incident never happens again. Yet yesterday the Government backed way off that and reverted to the voluntary code situation that existed prior to this incident. The question then arises of who is to be held accountable for the voluntary code, in the case of Mercury Energy, not being followed—not being picked up or exercised. I think it should be sheeted home directly to the board of Mighty River Power, which is the parent company of Mercury Energy. Why has the Prime Minister—who is, after all, the shareholders’ prime representative—not called that board in for some discussion? Why was it OK for her to go to the family to share in the occasion of their greatest grief, and, quite frankly, to grandstand off the back of this issue, but then do nothing? Nothing has been done. If members read through the press releases from the Government yesterday, they will see that there is nothing there that was not there before.
The chair of Mighty River has made a public apology. Good. Why has the chair not been brought in and asked why she and her board were derelict in their responsibilities under the State-Owned Enterprises Act? That Act states—plain as day, in black and white— “An organisation that exhibits a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community which it operates and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so.” That seems pretty clear to me. We know that guidelines were put out by the Electricity Commission as to how these situations were to be dealt with. But in this case they were not followed.
So why do we have a Prime Minister saying that this is terrible, that heads will roll, that she is right alongside the family—she has had her photograph taken with them, and she has made the tough statements—but then she does nothing? She has not even called in the board to ask a question about it. She has not even called in the board to ask it those simple questions.
We know that other companies are doing the right thing. No less a person than the Minister for Social Development and Employment has suggested this afternoon that Meridian Energy’s practice in Christchurch is a good example. I think it is. Nine social agencies are working with Meridian Energy to ensure that when people get into difficulties, any assistance available gets to them.
The other interesting argument that was run this afternoon was that we might be able to separate out blocks of electricity for sale under special conditions and special provisions to those who, effectively, are the vulnerable in our community. But that denies the fact that one of the problems we have in this country at the moment is a scarcity of electrical energy. Any look at the demand on our system, any look at the peaks in demand that are there at the moment, tells the person looking why there are high electricity prices in this country.
Hon Parekura HoromiaIt is interesting that the Green Party is suggesting that we might adopt this practice, when in many ways the Green Party is part of the problem. I tell Mr Parekura Horomia that over the last 7 years we have not seen the sort of investment in electricity generation in this country that we should have seen. We should in particular have had far more investment in renewable energy. But we have not had it, because project after project has been knocked over.
Jill PettisMembers on the other side scream out that it is the system—the system put in place some time ago—that is the problem. Well, after 8 years of a Labour Government, I ask why it has not changed. It has not changed because, fundamentally, it works. What is wrong with it is the fact that every time a generation project comes up for consideration in this country, it has to go through such a big hoop of Resource Management Act compliances and other such exercises—including stopping off at the office of the Minister of Conservation—that not one project of any considerable size has been given consent. There is all this hot air about wind power, but we find that even wind power projects are getting knocked over.
Well, while there is scarcity of supply there will be rising prices. This afternoon we heard the figure of 18 percent, in real terms, in 7 years, but I can tell the House that the figure is much higher—much higher. In some districts it is up to 40 percent, in real terms, and that is a lot of money for struggling families to find.
I heard the Minister for Social Development and Employment say: “Well, look what we have done through family support.” This family was a working family, and I would like to know whether it was getting the $256 a week in family support that it should have been getting. Well, no one seems to know. The Prime Minister has not bothered investigating that, and the Minister himself could not tell us that here today. So this wonderful Government, which is so caring and concerned about people in this sort of plight, talks the talk but does not walk the walk.
Well, I can tell this House that the next National Government will ensure that there is a substantial amount of new generation investment in this country, the next National Government will ensure that New Zealanders have rising incomes through work rather than welfare, and the next National Government will not excuse itself from the responsibilities it has in this sort of situation by simply raising spurious arguments about how well it has done in social welfare policy in this country.
These people are in grief, and it is not fair that we talk too much about their situation. It is not fair that we use their family situation to any great political extent. That is why, I have to say, I am very dark on what the Prime Minister did last week. I think it was cynical manipulation. I want to make it very clear that it was not the National Party that brought this issue to the floor of Parliament today; it was the Green Party. I do not think that discussing personal tragedies in the way that is happening here is particularly useful in any event. I certainly do not think the Prime Minister deciding to grandstand on the back of this family’s tragedy then doing nothing is acceptable. That is what this Government has done. It has talked about it, it has got the photographs, but it has done nothing.
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this
I will commence by offering, on behalf of my colleagues, our sincere condolences to the Muliaga family members on the loss of their wife and mother. This should not have happened. Nobody—nobody—should die in this country because he or she has not paid the power bill. Nobody should have an oxygen machine switched off because he or she owes a power company $168. That is an absolute disgrace, and it is a further disgrace that the company that switched the power off is a Government-administered company. There are protocols in place, and now there has been talk of making them compulsory.
The power companies are run by highly paid executives—highly paid executives—and all the contractor out there had to do was to press a button on his cellphone and ask whether he could leave the power on because there was a lady there with an oxygen mask who needed to use that equipment. That was all he had to do, but what did he do? Nothing! He simply said that he was just doing his job. That is appalling. It is no wonder this incident made international news, and no wonder it was reported on the BBC. This is a country that prides itself on its compassion and its caring, but we allowed an event like that to happen.
When I heard about this incident first off, I am on record for producing a media release that said somebody should be held accountable for it, to the degree of being charged with either murder or manslaughter. I have to say that personally I am still of that opinion. It is the sort of incident, to my mind, where somebody should be held accountable. I am not talking about politicians; I am not talking about the Prime Minister or anybody else in this House. But there should be somebody in that company who says yea or nay in relation to whether the power stays on, and that person should be held accountable.
I note that the family members themselves have said that they do not want to persevere with the police inquiry, and that they have compassion for the contractor. That speaks volumes, in my book, because no compassion was shown to that family—none at all. I cannot think of anything worse that somebody could have done than simply to say he was sorry, but he was just doing his job. I do not know whether the contractor even said he was sorry.
Did he? Well, let us give him the benefit of the doubt. In fairness to the man, I understand that he is feeling pretty awful right now—
—and I agree with the Minister; so he should. It is beyond belief that a person can walk into a family’s house, see a person with an oxygen mask on, and say he is sorry, but he is only doing his job and he is turning the power off.
We have to come to terms with what we are doing in this country, in relation to power. We have heard from the Greens and from National about the escalation in power prices over the last few years. I believe that the Greens’ figure of 18 percent is on the low side. It may be an average, but I believe that generally it is on the low side. The fundamental reason for the increased cost is that we are not producing power plants at the required rate. As a nation, we are relying more and more on electricity—more and more. We should, in my view, have a gas-fired power station at Ōtāhuhu. I know that Government members will shrug their shoulders at that and say no, we should be given a few windmills somewhere else. But Contact Energy would build a gas-fired power station tomorrow if the Government was willing to give it a bit of support, and that would not only give us more power fairly promptly but also ease the problem regarding the transmission lines through the Waikato.
The Bradford reforms were set up in 1997-98 to create a bit of competition in the industry, but at that time there was a surplus of power—there was more power than New Zealanders needed. We rapidly overtook that surplus and, in my view, we are now barely keeping pace with the power that is required. We cannot build coal-fired power stations, because of climate change problems. We cannot build gas-fired power stations, because of climate change problems. This country produces 0.2 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions in the world—0.2 percent—and we cannot build coal-fired power stations! Since the Kyoto Protocol has come into being, between them India and China have produced 800 coal-fired power stations. In this country people are kicking up about our one and only coal-fired power station, at Huntly. People complain about the new E3P power station that is coming on line, which will burn gas. I ask you!
We must get our priorities correct when it comes to power in this country. Shortly we will have people freezing in the southern part of this country—going to bed with blankets wrapped around them, because they cannot afford their electricity bills. The 121 of us here in this House live in relative comfort compared with some New Zealanders. Some New Zealanders need power on an essential, ongoing basis, not only for medical reasons but for warmth and heat in their homes. For the sake of $168, we cut off a family’s power. The family had been paying back, on an irregular basis, some of the money it owed. I think it owed $15 more this month than it did last month, and we cut the power off. Why? Why are we putting the need for money, and even the needs of the environment, ahead of people’s welfare? Why have we got into that way of thinking in this country? We need to address this issue from a people’s perspective and from a compassionate perspective. People are relatively low-paid in this country, and people need power. We should be able to produce power, and we should be able to produce it more cheaply than we do. The effect on global warming of another gas-fired power station, or even of another coal-fired power station, would be negligible.
I think the Australians produce the equivalent of 1.5 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, but 75 percent of Australian power is generated from coal. The Australians are taking a long-term, practical-assessment view of climate change and climate change problems. We should join with them in doing that. We should work in tandem with the Australians and address those problems in a proper, professional, and workable manner.
If we had power at a reasonable price, the lady in this family would still be here. The Greens have the idea of blocks—I do not know; is it selling in low blocks at a cheap rate? I do not recall the Greens ever making that information available to any other political party in this House. This very afternoon I asked Jeanette Fitzsimons for some information. She stated that that system operates in other countries—in other places. On behalf of New Zealand First, I can say that my colleagues would be very interested to know where, and to what degree, that system is working. It seems like an idea that should be examined. But the Greens have not come across and offered any sort of advice to us on that system. We would have a close look at it. I cannot say here and now whether we would support the idea, but from what I heard today it certainly sounds like an idea that is worth examining.
We must make power available in the quantities that New Zealanders need and require, and at a reasonable price. I say—and I hope I am in step with my colleagues in saying this—there is nothing more important than that. Climate change problems can be addressed in the fullness of time, and as Tony Blair said only last week, without the Yanks—without the Americans—without the Indians, and without the Chinese on board, addressing climate change problems is a waste of time. We must start to put our people, particularly low-paid people, ahead and at the top of our priorities. Thank you.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, kia ora tātou katoa itēneipō. Hei whaiwhai haere i te ia o te kōrero, ko te wāhanga ki ahaui te tuatahi, ko te tuku ingā poroporoaki ki tērā o ngāwhāea, kuangaroneii te tirohanga kanohi, ingāwikitatakuahipaakenei.
Kei te rongoi te āhuatanga o te ngau o mamae. Ka tapirihia atu tērā o ngāaituā ki tērā o ngāpēpii mate neii te marae o Hoani Waititi. Ka mutu, ki tērāi pa mai ki a au, ki a Te Arawa, a ko Weterina Harris.
Me pēneirawa te kōrero, haere koutou, haere koutou, haere koutou ki te rua kōiwi o ngāmātua, o ngātūpuna, moe mai. Ka huri ki tēneiwhakatipuranga, tātou e noho neii roto i te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou.
[Greetings to you, Madam Speaker, and to us all tonight. To follow the trend that the debate has taken, the part for me to address first is to add my condolences to those expressed already to a beloved mother who died in tragic circumstances in the weeks just past.
The pain of the loss through such tragic circumstances is keenly felt. To that one, I add the tragic death of the toddler at Hoani Waititi marae as well. Finally, I acknowledge Witarina Harris, whose death is keenly felt by me personally and Te Arawa.
And so I say to them, farewell, farewell, farewell. Return to the resting place of the ancestors, rest there. And now to you of this generation, to us seated about in this House, greetings, greetings, and greetings to us all.]
This issue, the tragic loss of life that the Muliaga family has experienced over the last fortnight—and indeed, it has had major ramifications throughout this country—is not, we regret to say, the first event of this nature. We in the Māori Party have been painfully aware that in too many families there have been lives lost, hardship endured, poverty experienced, and no one taking responsibility. Responsibility must rest in the hands of many, not the least being the State and its agencies. We concentrate here within this Parliament on our ability to make a difference. In this case, we know there were rules and policies that should have been followed, we know that there are already electricity and gas commissioners, and we know that there have been guidelines for low-income and vulnerable consumers. So the question would be: why did this tragedy occur?
Some have chosen to point the finger of blame at individuals. We have been appalled that the crisis that occurred for the Muliaga family should have been turned inward on the community, on to the family, and on to consumers, rather than people looking at blaming those with the responsibility for what occurred. Responsibility and accountability for crisis management must be taken seriously, and not just in this sad case.
We think, too, of the train crash last Tuesday at Kerang in Australia, in which New Zealander Nick Parker lost his life. That crisis sent shock waves across the Tasman. It is not the first time, of course, that fatalities have occurred in public transport. Who will ever forget Christmas Eve of 1953, the night that 151 people died when the rail bridge at Tangiwai collapsed, causing the Wellington express to crash into the flooded river? Later investigation suggested that although a lahar was undeniably responsible for the disaster, warnings by amateur geologists about the state of the crater wall should not have been ignored by the authorities.
April 10 of next year marks 40 years since the Wahine sank in the worst recorded storm in our history. The court of inquiry, which was held 10 weeks after the disaster, found that although conditions had been fatally dangerous, errors of judgment had been made both on board the ferry and onshore.
We can fast-forward to 1979 and to the Mount Erebus disaster, which was New Zealand’s biggest single tragedy, killing all 257 people on board Flight 901. The Chippendale report attributed the captain’s decision to drop to a height below the approved level as being the main cause of the accident. A year later Justice Peter Mahon’s report instead placed the blame for the accident on the airline’s systems. Public opinion has remained divided ever since on where the blame for the disaster should rest.
Then 12 years ago 14 people lost their lives when the viewing platform at Cave Creek collapsed. That platform had been designed, approved, and built by people who lacked engineering, building, or design qualifications. A commission of inquiry found that the Department of Conservation had acted illegally and negligently in constructing the platform. Resignations followed and procedures were changed, but no prosecutions resulted.
Although mass fatal disasters such as those are engraved on our collective memory, less known but just as worthy of attention is the number of individual deaths that have occurred from the malfunctioning of corporate, State, or company responsibility. Edited out of the glossy annual reports has been the fact that people have been dying of poverty and neglect for years. Every member of this House will have been approached by advocacy groups such as Grey Power, the Child Poverty Action Group, and others who have warned us all that the savage and consistent toll of rising rates, electricity, and other prices is creating accelerated levels of severe hardship amongst many superannuitants, beneficiaries, and low-paid workers. Have we listened? What have we done? We have elderly people who die from the cold every winter. We have children who die from their basic needs not being met, yet the agonising price of poverty is considered to be of less interest than the debate around a sports stadium or the victory at Valencia. Hospitals and health authorities have buried their fatal mistakes in hearings that blur the boundaries between medical misadventure and medical error.
On the question of life and death, who will take responsibility? When will we recognise that when tragedies occur and corporates are involved, we expect people to take responsibility? How hard is it to say one is sorry? Not only did the Muliaga family suffer because of the neglect of a State agency but what must be of serious concern to all members in this House is the way that the family was treated after the tragedy occurred. One would have expected the police, with their recent profile, to show far more sensitivity than to rush into the house and treat the children—the recently bereaved children—as witnesses in terms of a crime sheet. It is very sad and disappointing that innocent children, heartbroken by the loss of their mum, were then exposed to the cold process of interrogation, which has been reported at large. And then for the widowed husband to be put through the gauntlet as well—well, that beggars belief!
Accusations of brutish, corporate heartlessness in the wake of recent events have given rise to the call of the Māori Party to consider the relevance of providing for an offence of corporate manslaughter. It is a concept that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions President, Ross Wilson, has previously supported, suggesting that in cases of gross negligence, company principals should not be protected from criminal law by the corporate facade. Of course, we do need to have proper guidelines in place. We need regulations in order to determine where responsibility lies—the lines of accountability between companies, State-owned enterprises, businesses, and the Government. But when accidents occur, and when tragedies happen—as they do and will continue to do—the law must see that justice will be done.
Justice will be seen to be done when we have effective laws in place to prosecute organisations that pay scant regard to the proper management of health and safety—with fatal results. Justice will be seen to be done when an organisation accepts liability if the way that its activities are organised causes a person’s death. Justice will be seen to be done when a corporate body acknowledges that its culpability amounts to a gross breach of the duty of care owed by that organisation to the deceased. Justice will mean that we have legislation that will make it easier than it is at present to prosecute companies when gross negligence is deemed to have contributed to death.
We in the Māori Party believe that many more issues surrounded the health and well-being of FololeMuliaga. We asked why she was discharged from hospital, when clearly her health was in a crisis state. We asked why the guidelines that Mercury Energy and Mighty River Power already had in place were not followed in that case, and perhaps in many others that we have not heard about. We asked when agencies will take seriously the task of making information freely available to their clients in order to enable them to be able to enjoy a quality of life, rather than having their guidelines and policies simply gathering dust and sitting in manuals that are never looked at. I personally have been asked by people about what they should do when they get into situations like that of the Muliaga family. We think that New Zealanders have the right to ask for information about basic services—services that sustain life and well-being. We do not think that is too much to ask for.
We cannot let another tragedy like this occur again. It is up to all of us in this House to ensure that information is available, that guidelines are tight, and, most of all, that communities are cared for. Kia ora tātou.
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) Link to this
I want to begin by extending my condolences and very deepest sympathy to the family of FololeMuliaga on this tragic set of events. The loss of a mother and a wife is something that strikes hard at the heart of every family, and the grief that that family will be enduring at this moment can only begin to be imagined. As human beings, one to another, our hearts go out to them. But we need to be very, very careful in a situation that is so charged as this, that is so shocking, that we as parliamentarians do not overreact to those circumstances.
Of course we need to ensure that the circumstances that gave rise to Mrs Muliaga’s death are rectified, that there can never be a repetition, that people who are in need of urgent medical services have access to those at all times and in all circumstances. But I was extraordinarily angered last week, on the very day of her funeral, to listen to Morning Report and a slanging match between the two major political parties in this House about culpability. That was what prompted my comments about political grandstanding, not the attendance of the Prime Minister at the funeral, at the family’s invitation. I could not begin to conceive how insensitive it was, on the day of the funeral, when the family’s emotions would be at their most taut and most strained, to have the so-called leaders of this country arguing about whether heavy-handed regulation, or something more cavalier, was the circumstance that required action. That was the height of insensitivity. It was callous, and it was brutal.
It is a timely reminder to all of us, in such awful circumstances—and these are awful circumstances—that our responsibility is to ensure that there are no repetitions but not that we rush to judgment, not that we leap up and down and aggravate an already difficult and tense situation by trying to score the ultimate point.
I think many, many, many New Zealanders will be shocked by the turn of events of the last fortnight. Our egalitarian status—and I agree with my colleague Mr Brown—has taken a huge knock in this country and around the world, at the thought that these circumstances can occur.
I guess emotions naturally run high in that situation. We have to act to make sure this never happens again, but, please, can we do so without resorting to making this the sort of sensational story that only demeans the reputation of Mrs Muliaga and her family, in the way I think we have been guilty of doing in recent times. This is not something to be proud of. This is not the New Zealand way. We support people. We work with them. We reach solutions. Surely one solution must be that if ever anyone is prescribed lifesaving or necessary medical equipment, there be an automatic flag from the district health board to the utilities to make sure that that equipment is able to be operated. Had that been in place in this situation, these events would not have occurred. I believe that that is the point at which we should be starting to think about solutions, and that is the ultimate way in which we can move forward.
I want to end simply by repeating my condolences—my sense of sympathy—to the family in the loss they have endured, and my hope that in the days ahead they can derive strength from the support of their community and can again come to grips with life and have very positive and powerful memories of the contribution of their wife and mother.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) Link to this
This is indeed a solemn occasion and a solemn debate, and, like the previous speaker and others, my heart goes out to the Muliaga family, to the late mother, and to family members who are mourning her passing as we speak. This indeed was, and is, a tragedy.
I think Mr Dunne spoke well when he spoke of our egalitarian spirit. In his own way he talked about the outpouring of grief for the family, putting his own interpretation on it—an interpretation that I respect but in some ways disagree with. I say to Mr Dunne, and to others, that that is done in different ways, and people can interpret it as they will. I just wonder, though, what the media response would have been, what the country’s response would have been, and what, in a sad, political sense, Parliament’s and this House’s response would have been had the Prime Minister and the Government not taken the view they did and described what happened in the terms they did—that is, as a tragedy. What would have been the response had the Prime Minister not acted in the way she did—had she not attended the funeral, at the invitation of the family, and had she not spoken at the funeral, at the invitation of the family? What statements would have been made in this House in those circumstances?
I note Mr Brownlee’s comments. Without getting political, I do note the fact that at the end of his 5-minute speech he said that he was not going to trawl over the family’s grief at this time, after he had spent 5 minutes in doing so—questioning, of course, whether the family was receiving Working for Families assistance and the family’s financial state. I will not comment on that behaviour, but leave it to the people to judge.
But I do wonder what this House would have done if there had been a different response from the Government and the Prime Minister. I think I know what it would have done, in its own petty, political way. There would have been members who said that the Prime Minister had not reacted and that the Government had not expressed grief. They would have asked whose responsibility the tragedy was, and said that as a State-owned enterprise, an organ of the State, was involved, the Government should step up to the plate. And I think they would have been right to make that judgment.
It is a bit difficult to win in politics sometimes, but I think that the outpouring of emotion from Parliament, from the Prime Minister, and from the Government to share in the family’s grief and to lend the family support in its time of need after such a tragic passing, as all Kiwis would do, is appropriate. In fact it is very Kiwi to do that. It is not Kiwi to stand aside, to do nothing, to posture from the sidelines, to talk about it, and to blow the debate from one about the simple but tragic circumstance of an error of judgment into a debate about whether we have enough electricity supply, about the price of electricity, or about who did what to whom 10 years ago when the industry was deregulated, or whatever else. I do not think that, in its essence, adds to the mana of this Parliament or of the speakers, or adds to this debate.
Here are the facts. A tragedy has occurred and a family has lost a mother. There were those in the community who chose to lend support; others chose to do that in other ways. It is a fact that a State-owned enterprise, through a contractor, visited the house and saw a piece of apparatus attached to the mum. The mum, or the family, was behind by less than $200 in paying the power bills, and a judgment was made. I suspect that the person who cut the power off is owed a little sympathy—and the family members themselves have shown sympathy to that person. I cannot imagine what that individual is feeling. It is interesting that in that wonderful Kiwi - Pacific Island way, the family that was impacted on by the loss of a mum and a wife has shown that wonderful Kiwi spirit and compassion and has extended the olive branch to the contractor and, ultimately, to the company. I commend them for that. I do not know whether I would have had the grit or the guts, had I been in that situation, to be as generous as that family has been.
But an error of judgment was made, and the question is how to address that. The Government has taken the view—and I endorse the views of Mr Dunne, Peter Brown, and some of the other speakers who have spoken—that it is not acceptable in this day and age that under the most tawdry, stressful, or vulnerable circumstances, the basic human need of electricity should be withdrawn because a paltry sum owed on a power bill cannot be paid at a given time. The sum was $168, I believe, or less than $200. Surely there is a better way, as the Government has said, to manage that. I have worked in the private sector. I believe in free markets, actually. I believe one has to pay one’s bills, but I also believe, as most Kiwis do, that there has to be a degree of social responsibility.
The Government responded in, I think, a reasonably logical way. We would have been pilloried had we rushed in and decided to legislate, or called the House back to ram through a bill or do whatever else, as some who were trying to politicise the show said we should do. What we did was to look at the guidelines—and that is what they are; guidelines. The guidelines recommend that a State-owned enterprise should provide information to victims if they are in the mire and cannot pay their bills. The record, I am told, shows that over the 5 to 7 years that this family had some problems, that basic information—that recommendation—was not taken up and the information may not have been passed on. The Government has moved to say that it will strengthen the guidelines. Instead of insisting that it is recommended to State-owned enterprises that they provide information, we have simply done this. We have said they must advise consumers who may have difficulty paying their bills of the assistance available from Government agencies and community service providers.
In essence, actually, State-owned enterprises are to do what most companies in the private sector that are good corporate citizens do anyway—that is, talk to their customers. They want to be paid, and the way to be paid is to talk to customers and work through the proposition, not to pull the pin or flick the switch. But we have deemed it appropriate to ensure there are some compulsory safeguards in place, so it will be a requirement that that information is furnished to those people. We say that retailers must take steps to identify vulnerable consumers who are having difficulty in paying their bills, and must consult with the Ministry of Social Development before disconnecting power from any vulnerable consumer. At no time during that process, we say, can a retailer disconnect power from a vulnerable consumer.
I would have thought that is a pretty good package to put in place. It goes from a recommendation to a requirement. It states that once people are identified as being vulnerable—and, of course, I am sure the Opposition and others will say there will be those who will try to pull the wool and abuse the system, but it is better to have that than to have a repeat of the tragedy we are debating today—there is a default position of referring them to our social agencies, which can then, hopefully, do a deal and assist those people. The power keeps flowing, the budget advice goes in or whatever else is needed, the power company is paid, and by doing that, firstly, everybody stays alive and, secondly, the problem is resolved.
Mr Brownlee has said to me on air that there is too much regulation. Well, I think that this is actually a very logical and common-sense proposition. Many companies that I have worked for in the private sector actually exhibit social responsibility, and do members know why? It is because it makes damn good business sense to treat one’s customers well. It ensures that they pay their bills, it ensures that the company receives the money, and it gives the company a good name as a decent corporate citizen. Social responsibility makes sense. It is not some sort of PC, kaftans-and-sandals type of concept that wanders around the ether. It makes corporate sense to look after and communicate with customers, and to go the extra mile sometimes to ensure that customers are looked after, so that they pay their bills. This is a logical commercial business proposition.
I just conclude by saying that history will judge those who have participated in this debate, and it will judge them on the way they acted publicly. I share the grief of the family. As I say, I do not know whether I would have had the generosity of spirit that its members have shown in a terrible time of tragedy. I suspect I would not have had it; to be honest, I probably would not have had it. But they have shown a generosity of spirit. The Prime Minister and the Government have tried to move to that space and resolve a problem swiftly, so that we do not have another tragedy like this one, which should have never happened and should never happen again. I think that is a position of logic and of compassion, and at the end of the day Kiwis will judge it as such.
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) Link to this
I add my condolences and sympathies to those expressed by my colleagues in this Parliament to the Muliagafamily at this tragic time. I think that the hearts of New Zealanders went out to this family because this was a hard-working Kiwi family. This was not people bludging off the system; this was a family with four children that was trying to make ends meet and, we understand, earning a low income.
That is what I want to ask the Government about this afternoon, because I believe that it is a hugely important issue. In New Zealand, over many years now, New Zealanders have come to take some pride in the fact that where people in this country make the effort to help themselves and to take care of their families, we are prepared to step in and support them. That is the basis of family support, which was started as a policy in this country many years ago by a Labour Government. It is the basis of this Labour Government’s flagship Working for Families policy, so one question that I think needs to be answered in the debate this afternoon is whether this family was benefiting from that policy. From what we read, we are led to believe that this hard-working family was trying to make ends meet on $400 a week—that is what I read in the media somewhere—which is $20,000 a year, assuming the income earner is working full time. No family of four can live on that; it is simply not possible to live on that amount. That is why, over the years, a whole series of policies to support hard-working families has been put in place, and supported by successive Governments, to make sure that no working family has to try to survive on $400 a week, because it simply is not possible.
This afternoon in this debate I heard the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon David Benson-Pope, crowing about the Government’s wonderful Working for Families policy and the amount of money the Government has put into it. That is fine; I guess that a Labour Minister will do that. I heard the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, who has just finished speaking, criticise my colleague Gerry Brownlee for asking whether this family was in receipt of all it was entitled to, under New Zealand’s systems to support our low-income, hard-working families. I believe that there are questions this Labour Government should answer, because the Working for Families package is one of its flagship policies. At the last election, people may recollect that taxpayers in this country poured another $800 million, I think, into the Working for Families package in order to help low-income, hard-working families. Over the next little while I want Labour members to make it clear to the public whether this flagship family support policy is working.
We know from what we are told that the Muliaga family is a proud family, and I congratulate it on that. This family did not want to be on a benefit, which perhaps it could have been on. So I presume that the father of this family is working independently of the benefit system and, we are told, trying to survive on $400 a week. The salary or wage this family is earning is $20,000 a year; I asked the Minister of Revenue not that long ago what kind of support under the new Working for Families package such a family would receive. One of the four children is, I believe, beyond the age of being called dependent, so let us say that three of the children are dependent. I do not know the facts for certain, because I do not want to get too specific in relation to the particular family’s circumstances.
The Minister of Revenue told me that a family with three dependent children, independent of the primary benefit system and earning $20,000 a year—that is, $400 a week—would be entitled to the following tax support. It would receive a family tax credit of about $1,300. In addition to that it would receive family support after abatement—although, in fact, at that level of income there would be no abatement—of $10,192. In addition to that $20,000 of earned income, if the family were independent of the benefit system, it would also receive $1,320 of in-work payment after abatement.
So on $20,000 of earned income, after PAYE had been deducted, and after the proper tax credits had been paid under the Government’s flagship Working for Families policy, that family should not have been trying to live off $20,000 a year, but it should have been getting well over 50 percent more than that—and I presume, living in Auckland, that it would have been entitled to the accommodation supplement as well. This means that it should have been entitled to something more like twice the level of income it was getting, without having to go on to standard benefits or into the standard benefit system. Just through the tax credit system alone it should have been entitled to support of more than 50 percent of its earned income—that is, its net support, which does not include an accommodation supplement.
I believe that Government Ministers must make it very clear whether this family was in receipt of those entitlements. If that family was legally employed in this country—and I have no reason to doubt that it was—then there has been a major, major policy failure that far exceeds issues around the cost of electricity. It is a major policy failure if the flagship family support policy failed to look after a family in this country that was working—working hard, and working for income that seems extraordinarily and sadly low. I have not heard that question answered, because it is possible that the family was not receiving that level of support. I think that members of this Labour Government should make it clear whether their flagship policy was working, because if that hard-working family that suffered this unthinkable tragedy was not getting that full level of support, then that is a major, major failure of policy by this Labour Government and we should know whether that failure has happened.
I put it to this Labour Government that in the legislation recently introduced following the Budget—the Taxation (Annual Rates, Business Taxation, KiwiSaver, and Remedial Matters) Bill—those various elements of support for working families have had their names changed. Whoopee do—they have had their names changed! For example, a family tax credit now becomes a minimum family tax credit, etc. But what has not changed is how these family support elements are made to work.
The Taxation (Annual Rates, Business Taxation, KiwiSaver, and Remedial Matters) Bill will now require employers, when they employ someone legally, to go through a whole new rigmarole of enrolling them in a savings scheme. Would it be beyond the wit of a Government to come up with an implementation policy that enabled employers to make sure that when they employ people, they actually get them on the various tax credit support systems they are entitled to, without there being a risk of a low-income family like that falling through the cracks?
Judging by the way Government members are hanging their heads, I suspect that this family did fall through the cracks. I suspect that this family was probably not in receipt of the support entitlements it was entitled to, and I believe that that is a grave failure in policy. This Labour Government should be thinking about how it makes sure that someone who is legally employed in this country should be legally entitled automatically to receive the various tax credits to which he or she is entitled.
Of course, the moment that that does not happen, people have to have the knowledge to apply for those credits. Some hard-working families may not know that they have the opportunity to apply for them, or they may not have the wherewithal to do so. If it is good enough for people legally employed now to be able automatically to be put into savings schemes, it ought to be good enough for our hard-working, low-income people in this country automatically to get the tax credits to which they are entitled. Sadly, I feel that this family probably did not get those credits.