Parliament Hansard Report – Thursday, 22 May 2025 (continued on Saturday, 24 May 2025) – Volume 784 – 001489

Source: New Zealand Parliament

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment providing that where 52 weeks is specified in the bill, it is deemed to be two years, is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 4 deleting new subpart 3A is out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing every instance of the word “reviews” with an “automated AI-dystopian review” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing every instance of the word “reviews” with “automated AI-dystopian review that may be inconsistent with concern about entrenching inequality” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing every instance of “mandatory” with “automated” is out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new Subpart 3A of Part 6, to replace every instance of the word “specified” with “particularised”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new Subpart 3A of Part 6, to replace every instance of the word “mandatory” with “compulsory”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new Subpart 6A and Part 6 of the principal Act, to replace every instance of the word “review” with “review by a natural person which must not use automated AI systems of any kind unless specifically authorised by the Minister”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310A, to require the Minister to consult with sector representative groups, including Mā te Huruhuru, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310A, to require the Minister to consult with other sector representative groups, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310A, to add the words “except for an unsupported child’s benefit which will not constitute a specified benefit”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 55, Noes 68.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310A, to add the words “except for a child disability allowance which will not constitute a specified benefit”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, I’m just correcting the previous vote. I should have said that the Ayes were 53; the Noes 68. Thank you.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310A, to add the words “except for an orphan’s benefit which will not constitute a specified benefit”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310A, to add the words “except for New Zealand superannuation”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310A,, to add the words “except for a veteran’s pension”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310A, to add the words “except for assistance paid under the Guaranteed Childcare Assistance Programme”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing the words “set out in subsection (2)” with “all of the alleviation of child poverty” is out of order as being inconsistent with the objects and principles of the bill.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing the words “set out in subsection (2)” with “of the alleviation of child poverty and social inequity” is out of order as being inconsistent with the objects and principles of the bill.

Ingrid Leary’s’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310B(1) to replace “must” with “may” is out of order as being contrary with the objects and principles of the bill.

Benjamin Doyle’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310B(1) and the heading above it to replace “must” with “may” is out of order as being contrary with the objects and principles of the bill.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310B(1), to replace “must” with “may”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310A, to add the words “except for a youth payment which will not constitute a specified benefit”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310A, to add the words “except for a young parent payment which will not constitute a specified benefit”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310A, to add the words “except for childcare assistance which will not constitute a specified benefit”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310B(1)(a) to add the words “52” is out of order as being not in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendments to clause 4 amending new section 310B(1)(a) and (b), to replace “52 weeks” with “2 years”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 4 amending new section 310B(1)(a) and (b), to replace “within” with “at”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 4 amending new section 310B(1)(a) and (b), to insert the word “specified”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 4, amending new section 310B(1)(a) and (b), to replace “52 weeks” with “a period determined by the chief executive after consultation”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310B(2) to replace “ascertain” with “determine” is out of order as not offering any significant change in the meaning of the provision.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310B(2) to replace “purpose” with “intended purpose” is out of order as not offering any significant change in the meaning of the provision.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310B(2)(a) and (b) to replace “entitled” with “eligible” is out of order as not offering any significant change in the meaning of the provision.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310B(3)(a)(i) to replace “commenced” with “started” is out of order as not offering any significant change in the meaning of the provision.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310B(3) to replace “no later than” with “within” is out of order as not offering any significant change in the meaning of the provision.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310C(1) to replace “must” with “should” is out of order as not offering any significant change in the meaning of the provision.

Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310B(1)(b) to add the words “52” is out of order as being not in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310B(3) to replace “must” with “may” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310B(3) to replace “must” with “may” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310B(3) to add the words “52” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310B(5) is out of order as being outside of the scope of the bill.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310C(3) to replace “not being able” with “unable” is out of order as not offering any significant change in the meaning of the provision.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing the words after “circumstances have changed” in new section 310C with “materially, having regard to the overall fairness of the circumstances” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing the words after “circumstances have changed” in new section 310C with “materially, having regard to the overall fairness of the circumstances of the beneficiary and their household” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing the words after “time allowed” in new section 310C with “with absolute discretion in the interests of fairness to the beneficiary” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing the words after “time allowed” in new section 310C with “with absolute discretion in the interests of fairness to the beneficiary, their whānau and community” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 310C(1A) into the bill, relating to processes for completing a review, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new section 310C(2A) into the bill, relating to MSD taking reasonable steps, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Benjamin Doyle’s tabled amendment to clause , amending new section 310C(2) to replace “determines” with “ascertains” is out of order as not offering any significant change in the meaning of the provision.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310C(2)(a), to include the words “with feedback from the affected beneficiary”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310C(3), to replace “20 working days” with “25 working days”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310C(3), to replace “20 working days” with “a date specified by the beneficiary”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310C(3), to replace “20 working days” with “30 working days”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310C(4), to replace “must” with “may”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310C(4) to replace “must” with “may” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310C(4), to replace “the end of the day before” with “the day after”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310C(4), to include a 30 – working-day delay to a suspension under that section, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310C(5)(a) to insert “or” after “subsection (1)” is out of order as not offering any significant change in the meaning of the provision.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting “emergency benefit” into the benefits listed in new section 310C(6), be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting “student allowance” into the benefits listed in new section 310C(6), be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting “Jobseeker Support—Health Condition or Disability” into the benefits listed in new section 310C(6), be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310C(7), to replace “must” with “may”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting new subsection (7A) into new section 310C be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310C(7) to replace “MSD must” with “MSD may” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310C(8)(a), to replace “8 weeks” with “12 weeks”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310C(8)(a), to replace “starting immediately” with “starting 4 weeks after”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I’m just getting some clarity on some questions that needed to be put but that were not put, and then we will continue.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting “jobseeker support” into the benefits listed in new section 310C(6), be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting “working for families” into the benefits listed in new section 310C(6), be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting “sole parent support” into the benefits listed in new section 310C(6), be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting “emergency housing” into the benefits listed in new section 310C(6), be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We’re just doing a check to make sure that we’ve got all the questions that need to be put.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting “disability allowance” into the benefits listed in new section 310C(6), be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting “special disability allowance” into the benefits listed in new section 310C(6), be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting “winter energy payment” into the benefits listed in new section 310C(6), be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 4, inserting “supported living payment” into the benefits listed in new section 310C(6), be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310C(8)(b), to replace “2 years” with “3 years”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310C(9), to delete “113” and “290”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310D(1), to replace “20” with “30”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena’s Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310D(1), to replace the words after “MSD must” with “either in a reasonable timeframe or”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310D(1), to replace the words after “MSD must” with “either in a reasonable timeframe or a period of 90 days or”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310D(1), to replace “at least 20 working days” with “at least 8 weeks”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310D(1)(a) to add “and” after “for the review” is out of order as not offering any significant change in the meaning of the provision.

The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new paragraph (c) into section 310D(1) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310D(2), to insert the words “the benefit of compassionate consideration and” before the words “a notice”, be agreed to

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310D(2), to insert the words “the benefit of compassionate consideration, and justice, and” before the words “a notice”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310D(2)(a)(iii), to replace “will be” with “might be”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310D(2)(a)(iii) replacing “fails to” with “unable to” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310D(3), to replace the words after “not apply” with “to this Part 3A – mandatory reviews”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310D(3) to replace the words after “not apply” with “to this Part 3A—mandatory reviews and all subsequent clauses in this Act” is out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310D(3) to replace the words after “not apply” with “to this Part 3A—mandatory reviews and all subsequent clauses in this Act” is out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310D(b)(ii) and (iii) to replace “way” with “manner” is out of order as not offering any significant change in the meaning of the provision.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310D(4), to replace the words “as soon as practicable” with “on the day before the suspension ends”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310E, to replace every instance of the word “MSD” with “the Minister”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310E, to replace every instance of the word “MSD” with “the relevant agency”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310E(1)(b), to delete “or times, or at all times”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310F to replace the words “complete a review” with “at all” is out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.

Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310F to add the words “particularly if the consequences of the review would cause hardship, homelessness or poverty” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310F to replace the words after “complete a review” with a full stop is out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.

Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310F to insert “and Subparts 12 to 14” after “sections 326 to 330” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310F to insert “and subparts 9 to 11” after “sections 326 to 330” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310F to insert “and subparts 7 and 8” after “sections 326 to 330” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310F to insert “and subparts 2 to 4” after “sections 326 to 330” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Benjamin Doyle’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310F to insert “and subparts 5 and 6” after “sections 326 to 330” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310G(2) to insert “reasonably” after “as soon as” is out of order as not offering any significant change in the meaning of the provision.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310G, to replace the word “practicable” with “fair”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310G, to replace the word “practicable” with “reasonable and just”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310G(2), to replace the word “review” with “consider the fairness of”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310G(2), to replace the word “review” with “consider the fairness and appropriateness of”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310H, to replace the words after “apply” with “if in the view of MSD that would result in a fair outcome”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310H, to replace the words after “apply” with “if in the view of MSD that would result in a fair outcome under the assessment of a natural person and not AI”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310H, to replace the words “all necessary” with “all suitable”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310H, to replace the words “all necessary” with “fair and reasonable”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310H(b) by replacing the number “306” with “311” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310H(b) by replacing the number “306” with “310” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310H(c) to replace the words as written with “the purposes of social security” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310H(c) to replace the words as written with “the purposes of social security net availability for all New Zealanders” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310H(d) to replace the number “8” with the number “4(2)” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310H(d) to replace the number “8” with the number “4(3)” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310H to replace every instance of the word “certain” with “specified” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310H to replace every instance of the word “certain” with “every” is out of order as being not in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310H to replace every instance of the word “section” with the words “for the avoidance of doubt, there is no application to this part of section” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310H to replace every instance of the word “section” with the words “for the avoidance of doubt, there is no application to this part of sections or clauses” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310H, to replace the word “all” with “no”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 amending new section 310H, to replace the word “all” with “none of”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5 amending new section 363A(3) to include “the fair and reasonable use of electronic systems to make decisions” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 5 deleting new subsection (3)(b)(i) and (ii) of section 363A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 5 deleting new subsection (3)(c) of section 363A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is, That Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 5 deleting new subsection (3)(d) of section 363A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Part 1 agreed to.

Parliament Hansard Report – Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2 – 001488

Source: New Zealand Parliament

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is, That Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Adjustments to Boarders Contributions)” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve had a look at these tabled amendments, and just before we go through any more voting on them, can I just point to Speakers’ ruling 130/2 on page 130, which says “An amendment to the title of a bill must be a serious or objective description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise its contents.” I’ve looked through at least 12 of those in the tabled amendments lodged by the Green Party. And the second point—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, if I may, Mr Mooney—if you could wait, you’ll see just how they will be ruled on. It may well be that you might be surprised to find there may be some agreement with your observations on some of them.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Prevention of Double Dipping)” is ruled out of order as being contrary to a previous decision of the committee.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(National Loves Cars So Much That They Want More People to Live in Them)” is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Accommodation Adjustments and Additional Acclimitisations)” is ruled out of order as being contrary to a previous decision of the committee.

The question is, That Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Changes to Eligibility of Accommodation Supplement and Income Related Rent Subsidies)” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Reduction in Accommodation Supplement and Other Matters)” is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

The question is, That Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Inclusion of All Boarders’ Contributions and Other Matters)” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Punishing Boarders in Order to Pay for Landlord Tax Cuts)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Automated Decision Making for the Purposes of Accommodation Supplement Eligibility and Other Matters)” is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

The question is, That Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Adjustments to the Administration of Accommodation Supplement and Income Related Rent Subsidies and Other Matters)” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Pushing People who Board into More Precarious Housing)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

The question is, That Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Higher Threshold to Receive Accommodation Supplement and Income Related Rent Subsidies and Other Matters)” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(More People in Hardship)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Make Life Harder for Disabled People)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Disabled People Can’t Live with Their Support Workers)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Solo Mums Get Left in the Cold)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Isolate Disabled People)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Lonely Kaumatua)” is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Francisco Hernandez tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Social Security Act, Public and Community Housing Management Act, Public and Community Housing Regulations 2018)” be agreed to.

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Francisco Hernandez’ tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(We )” is out of order as not being a serious amendment. Francisco Hernandez’ tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Boarder Restriction)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Francisco Hernandez’ tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Subsidisation Limitation)” be agreed to.

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Scott Willis’ tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Except for Our Most at Risk)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment. Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Reduced Household Moolah)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Reducing the Accommodation Supplement in Certain Circumstances)” be agreed to.

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Let Them Eat Cake)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment. The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Loss of Accommodation Supplement for No Good Reason)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Reducing Accommodation Supplement As Soon As There Is A Boarder)” be agreed to.

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Kick Them When They Try To Get Ahead)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment. Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Reduced Whanau Income)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment. Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Removing Putea from the Vulnerable)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment. Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Banning Boarders)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment. The Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Kick the Maoris in the Guts)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment. The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “(Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent)” with “(Penalising People for Taking on Boarders)” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to replace “2026” with “2028” be agreed to.

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to replace “2026” with “2027” be agreed to.

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 2 is out of order being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2 replacing “2 March 2026” with “1 January 2027” be agreed to.

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

Parliament Hansard Report – Point of Order – 001487

Source: New Zealand Parliament

POINTS OF ORDER

Recall of the Speaker—Closure Motions and Party Votes

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. I apologise to the Minister; however, this is the first opportunity we’ve had to raise this point of order, given that we’ve just come out of committee. We would have had the opportunity to raise this if our motion to recall the Speaker was approved by the committee. It was not, which is regrettable. Nevertheless, this is the appropriate opportunity to do so.

There are two matters that I wish to raise. One is regarding closure motions and the other is regarding calling for party votes. Specifically, I’m referring to Standing Order 137(1). Now, in that Standing Order, it specifically prescribes what is required when a question is being put around—or should be considered around—the closure motion. And in Standing Orders, it quotes what is required.

Now, last evening, the presiding officer at the time indicated that it doesn’t need to be exactly accurate as outlined in Standing Orders, but it just needs to be there or thereabouts in so far as the presiding officer understands the intent of the motion and therefore can proceed. Now, that is a significant departure from what is outlined in Standing Orders. Now, sir, I’m not asking for you to rule on that now, but what I am asking for is a commitment to report back to the House to provide absolute clarity. In the absence of that, it is possible that a new Speaker’s ruling would be created that is counter to Standing Orders, which I don’t think is in the interest of anyone in this House.

The second point is in regard to calling for party votes when there is a motion to recall the Speaker. It’s not my intention to dispute the decision that was made around the Speaker. I think there’s a fair bit of reflection being made around the House at the moment. There was one instance in the previous Parliament where that was voted against; that was wrong, it should not have happened. There was one in the previous Parliament, there’s now been one in this Parliament, I’m hoping that the House can decide that, “OK, we’ll call it even. We’ll go back to the convention in regard to motions to recall the Speaker.”

However, what is of concern is the decision that was made in committee that a party vote would not be put. So the motion was made to recall the Speaker, the Government members voted No, a party vote was called, and the presiding officer did not allow that to happen. Now, that is actually also counter to Standing Orders. The process for dealing with a motion to recall the Speaker—Standing Order 179 doesn’t indicate that there isn’t to be a party vote. So in the absence of any specified information about that, the only option that we’ve got is to go back to Standing Orders 142(1), which quite clearly outlines the process for a party vote to be considered when it is called for. And so there is nothing else in Standing Orders around that—that is the only thing that we can go for. So all I’m asking for is a commitment for both of those points to be reflected on by the Speaker’s office alongside the Clerk’s Office, and a report back so that the House is very clear around the process on both those things.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Speaking to the point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. All of the points that were just made are actually irrelevant because the Clerk—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I’ll decide if they’re relevant.

JOSEPH MOONEY: Certainly. Well, I just sort of wanted to make the point—I accept absolutely it’s your decision, Mr Speaker, but the point of order was raised by the Opposition after the Chair had decided to commence voting. Voting had commenced and the Opposition disrupted that not once but twice. They disrupted it first when they were of the view that the question hadn’t been completely put. It had been mostly put, but not completely. There were two words, from recollection, that were missing. The Chair then put the vote again, accepted a full closure motion with full wording, and then the Opposition disrupted that again with a point of order. So they disrupted the vote twice. So everything that followed I would suggest is irrelevant.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): —of events. I’ve got three points here and the rest of the points we can go back and reflect on. So just to the points from the Hon Kieran McAnulty: he is correct, but in the heat of the moment the exact words might not have been gotten right. But nothing has changed: the exact words of Standing Order 137 should be used. And just to acknowledge that there is a longstanding custom of the committee agreeing to recall the Speaker— Speaker’s ruling 81/2; it is not an absolute right, but it would be unfortunate if it was opposed and would likely slow down committee stages. So just to note that as well.

There should also be no need for a party vote because the recall should be agreed to. Where it’s not, a party vote is the way to decide it. And, also, to note that the presiding officer who was here in the Chair is at the moment having discussions with parties as well. So in terms of the points that I have talked about just before, that has taken care of some of the issues. If there are other prevailing issues outside of that, we will get back to you. I now call the Hon Louise Upston.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Speaking to the point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify one particular point that the previous person, Joseph Mooney, has mentioned in terms of the voting process. I wanted to get clarification from you, Mr Speaker, that in the context of that, when a vote is called but prior to the vote being called a point of order was raised but then because the mic wasn’t on and the presiding officer couldn’t hear it, in those circumstances would a point of order that was raised be considered before or after a vote has been triggered? Because I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to say that—if we go back and look at the video from last night, when that was done we deliberately and explicitly mentioned to the presiding officer at the time that the point of order was raised prior to the vote being called. But the presiding officer couldn’t hear properly because there was a lot of other noise around the presiding officer at the time. So I just want to get clarification from you, Mr Speaker, in that particular context, when the point of order is raised, would that be considered prior to a vote or do we assume it’s after a vote has commenced?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I’ll just take some advice on that.

Joseph Mooney: Speaking to the point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Sit down. Look, just to note for the House that these issues are done. I have made a ruling. There are extra things that may be addressed, but that can happen outside of this Chamber. If you do have extra points that need to be revisited, we can do that, but it’s not enough to actually hold up the business of the House.

Budget 2025 a betrayal of working people

Source: Etu Union

E tū, Aotearoa’s largest private sector union, is condemning Budget 2025 as a direct attack on working people, particularly women in frontline care and community services.

The Government has slashed nearly $13 billion that would have gone to pay equity claims, gutting the mechanism that ensures fair pay for women in undervalued, female-dominated sectors like care and support. These cuts will pay for their Budget which includes tax breaks for businesses.

“This Budget is a theft of wages from women,” says E tū National Secretary Rachel Mackintosh.

“The Government is paying for its corporate handouts by stealing from the pockets of caregivers, teacher aides, and social workers. It’s a cynical, calculated betrayal.”

The pay equity changes, rushed through under urgency, have extinguished 33 active claims and raised the bar so high that future claims may be impossible.

“The Government has made it clear: if you’re a woman in a caring profession, they don’t care about you.”

The Budget also halves the Government’s contribution to KiwiSaver, dropping the maximum from $521 to just $260.72 per year.

“This is a short-sighted move that undermines the retirement security of working people. It’s a massive barrier to building a future where everyone can retire with dignity.”

Public broadcasting has also been targeted, with RNZ facing an $18 million cut over four years.

“At a time when misinformation is rampant, gutting our public broadcaster is a dangerous step backwards. It looks like the Government is afraid of real scrutiny from the fourth estate.”

Other cuts include the full means-testing of the Best Start child payment, tighter welfare rules for young people, and the removal of pay equity funding for community and iwi providers.

“This Budget punishes the people who hold our communities together. It’s not about fiscal responsibility, it’s about ideological cruelty.”

E tū is calling on the Government to reverse these cuts and engage in genuine dialogue with workers, unions, and communities.

“We will not stand by while the Government dismantles the foundations of fairness in Aotearoa. This fight is far from over.”

Government move to kill pay equity process is an attack on women workers

Source: Etu Union

E tū is slamming the Government’s announcement that it will make it harder for workers to claim pay equity, describing it as an attack on women and a green light to pay them less for work of equal value.

The changes, announced by Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden, will raise the bar for proving historical undervaluation in female-dominated workforces – cutting off current claims and making new ones near impossible.

Marianne Bishop, a retired residential aged care worker, says the move is a slap in the face to workers who have been fighting for fairness for years.

“I am absolutely disgusted. It makes me angry as a woman, and makes me feel like we’re going backwards,” Marianne says.

“We’ve been fighting for 13 years. To have the rug pulled out from underneath us now is unbelievable. We thought we were going to get there – this just removes our road to fairness.”

Marianne says the impact on the care sector will be severe.

“This will make it even harder to get people working in aged care. People won’t go the extra mile anymore – why would they, if they’re not going to get paid fairly? This announcement is terrible for women and families now and in the future.”

Tamara Baddeley, a home support worker, says the Government’s actions show total contempt for the workers who hold the care system together.

“This makes me feel f***ing angry. This Government is a nest of vipers – they speak with a forked tongue,” Tamara says.

“I challenge every single one of them to come and work with us. On our wages. Getting assaulted at work, paying for travel out of your own pocket. Then tell us why cutting off our pay equity claim is a good idea.”

“Our claim’s been sitting there for 1,040 days. Why the f*** are we still waiting?”

E tū National Secretary Rachel Mackintosh says the decision is cruel, ideological, and deeply anti-women.

“The Government is dismantling one of the most important tools for fixing gender-based pay discrimination,” Rachel says.

“These changes are not about evidence – they are about saving money by keeping women underpaid. It’s a disgraceful reversal of decades of hard-fought progress and an insult to the working women who carried this country through a pandemic.”

Rachel says workers will not stay silent.

“We won’t go back to the days where a woman’s work is automatically worth less just because it’s been done by women in the past. We’re not going to stand quietly while this Government rips up the rules and tells us to be grateful for whatever we get.”

“This is a line in the sand. And women across Aotearoa will fight this every step of the way.”

Bupa under scrutiny for tax practices as workers face cuts

Source: Etu Union

A new report from E tū and international tax watchdog CICTAR has raised serious questions about whether aged care giant Bupa is shifting profits offshore to avoid paying its fair share of tax in Aotearoa.

E tū is calling for urgent reform and transparency in aged residential care funding, following the revelations that Bupa – the country’s second-largest provider – has paid just $12 million in income tax over the past decade, despite reporting nearly $300 million in profits.

“We spend billions of dollars each year on aged residential care, but there is very little transparency about whether that money supports decent jobs for workers, or simply subsidises corporate profits,” says Edward Miller, researcher with the Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research (CICTAR).

“Our research suggests that over the last decade, Bupa earned $3.3 billion in revenue and $293 million in profit, but only paid a total of $12 million in income tax – an effective tax rate of just four percent.

“In addition, a major intercompany loan appears to have reduced their taxable income by $150 million over the last decade. That could have cost Aotearoa up to $27 million in lost tax revenue over that period.”

E tū National Secretary Rachel Mackintosh says the report reveals a disturbing pattern.

“At the same time as Bupa is sending tens of millions overseas in interest payments on questionable debts to other Bupa subsidiaries, they’re pushing through dangerous new rosters that cut hours and destabilise care,” Rachel says.

“Care workers are rightly asking whether Bupa is putting tax planning ahead of providing safe, decent care for residents. In 2023, for instance, Bupa made $12 million in pre-tax profit but paid just $11,000 in corporate tax – that’s about what a Level 4 care worker pays.”

Rachel says while more funding is urgently needed for the sector, companies must also be held to account.

“We need increased investment in aged care, but with it must come transparency. New Zealanders deserve to know their taxes are going to support quality care, not just boost overseas profits.

“It’s time to put the wellbeing of our elderly and those who care for them at the centre of this system.”

E tū welcomes defeat of Treaty Principles Bill

Source: Etu Union

E tū, New Zealand’s largest private sector union, welcomes the overwhelming defeat of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill in Parliament yesterday. The bill, which sought to redefine the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, was rejected by 112 votes to 11.​

E tū President Muriel Tunoho expressed immense pride in the union’s active opposition to the bill:​

“I am extremely proud that E tū took a stand and made submissions to oppose the Treaty of Waitangi Principles Bill too. Thank you all for playing your part in this incredible fightback.​

“It was right to finally see the bill consigned to the past and into the bin. The results show that this is not us.​

“We don’t need to rewrite or re-define the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We just have to live them!”​

E tū National Secretary Rachel Mackintosh highlighted the bill’s potential to undermine the foundational agreement between Māori and the Crown:​

“This bill sought to fundamentally alter the meaning of Te Tiriti o Waitangi by selectively and incorrectly interpreting the reo Māori text. It tried to undermine the separation of powers under the rule of law by using the power of Parliament to change Aotearoa New Zealand’s constitutional foundation, all based on a legal and historical fiction.​

“This bill has done damage. It has given airtime to false and racist ideas.​

“It also galvanised hundreds of thousands of people to stand up – toitū Te Tiriti. More than 90% of the submissions on the bill called for it to be abandoned. E tū and thousands of our members were among the voices in those submissions. The submissions stood up for the truth of Te Tiriti as the foundation on which we can build a society where tāngata whenua and tau iwi take care of each other.​

“Now that Parliament has voted it down, we can start to repair the damage and to build an Aotearoa where we honour Te Tiriti and respect each other.”​

E tū remains committed to upholding the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and advocating for a just and inclusive society.

Notification: E tū Special Conference

Source: Etu Union

E tū is calling for a Special Conference to be held online on Thursday, 26 June 2025, at 7:00 PM.

Purpose of the Special Conference

E tū is required under the Incorporated Societies Act 2022 to register a new set of rules. The National Executive established a Constitutional subcommittee in late 2023 to review and draft a new Constitution. This draft was subsequently approved by the National Executive.

The goal of this review is to ensure compliance with legislative requirements while maintaining the existing powers and obligations under our current rules. Notable changes required by law include:

  • A register of interests for governance members,
  • Inclusion of a National General Meeting, and
  • A disputes-resolution process.

To finalise the adoption of these new rules, E tū will hold a special conference on 26 June 2025, where delegates will vote on the draft constitution.

Who is eligible to attend?

Only delegates who attended the 2024 E tū Conference are eligible to participate in this special conference. This includes:

  • Delegates who were physically present at the 2024 Conference.
  • Delegates who were elected but were unable to attend the 2024 Conference.

Eligible delegates will be contacted by email with more information, including the links to attend the online Special Conference, closer to the time.

Budget 2025 boosts primary care funding

Source: New Zealand Government

Health New Zealand will deliver a significant increase to primary care funding following investment in Budget 2025, Health Minister Simeon Brown says.
“Primary Care is critical to delivering better health outcomes for all New Zealanders but has not received the investment needed in recent years. That is now changing,” Mr Brown says.
“Budget 2025 provides a significant boost to ensure more New Zealanders can see a GP, get timely care, and avoid unnecessary hospital visits.”
The Government’s record investment in health enables the following key funding uplifts for primary care:

$285 million in performance-based funding over three years, over and above the annual capitation uplift, to support primary practice to be more accessible for patients and deliver more services in the community.
Annual capitation uplift negotiations are now underway between Health New Zealand and primary care providers. The Government provided Health New Zealand with a $1.37 billion uplift in Budget 2025, including to support a primary care capitation funding uplift.
$447 million primary care investment in Budget 2025 in 24/7 digital health services, after-hours and urgent care, and more funding for training doctors and nurses to work in primary care.

“This is the largest increase in primary care funding in many years. It gives providers the opportunity to begin addressing the impacts of years of underfunding by the previous government.”
The $285 million performance improvement package will:

Increase access to general practice for patients.
Incentivise immunisations through targeted performance funding.
Support GPs to carry out minor elective procedures, helping reduce pressure on hospitals.

“This additional investment has been made possible by the Government’s record investment into health which increased health spending by 7.4 per cent in total funding over the next financial year, an increase of 6.2 per cent per capita.
“When patients can see a GP quickly and affordably, the whole system works better. That’s why this funding matters – because it delivers real results for patients and value for taxpayers.
“We are focused on delivery, investing in more doctors, shorter waits, better care, and smarter investment where it’s needed most.
“Our focus remains on strengthening services, reducing pressure on GPs, and ensuring Kiwis can access the care they need, when they need it. I look forward to making further announcements on how we will increase and retain more doctors and nurses as part of this package,” Mr Brown says.

EIT to host international Work-Integrated Learning conference

Source: Eastern Institute of Technology

April 10, 2025

EIT is set to join Work-Integrated Learning New Zealand (WILNZ) in hosting the annual Work-Integrated Learning International Conference, bringing together educators, researchers, and industry leaders from across Aotearoa and beyond.

To be held on April 15 and 16 at EIT’s Hawke’s Bay Campus in Taradale, the two-day event will explore the theme Transformative Work-Integrated Learning: Preparing for a Changing Future.

The annual Work-Integrated Learning International Conference will be held at EIT’s Hawke’s Bay Campus in Taradale next week. Pictured is Dr. Ondene van Dulm, EIT’s Executive Director for Student & Academic Services and Vice President of WILNZ.

More than 50 papers will be presented, covering topics from generative AI to community-based projects, with contributions across a wide range of disciplines including architecture, construction, social work, and criminal justice.

Dr. Ondene van Dulm, EIT’s Executive Director for Student & Academic Services and Vice President of WILNZ, says the conference reflects EIT’s strong focus on applied learning.

“Work-integrated learning is deeply embedded in our programmes—from nursing and teaching practicums to automotive and carpentry workshops, to on-site services in hairdressing and beauty therapy,” Ondene says. “These real-world learning experiences help prepare students for the fast-changing world of work and lead to better employment outcomes.”

The conference features roundtable discussions and presentations that reflect a wide range of good practice and research, bringing together both the university and vocational education sectors. Sessions focus, among other things, on enhancing the student experience, supporting effective industry partnerships, and exploring innovative approaches to learning and assessment.

Keynote speakers include EIT graduate and tutor Levi Armstrong (Ngāti Kahungunu) and Australian scholar Dr. Bonnie Dean, a leading figure in the global work-integrated learning community.

Ondene says the event is a timely opportunity to showcase EIT’s commitment to practical, community-led, and future-focused learning.

“It’s also a chance to highlight not only our rebuilt campus post-cyclone in the year we celebrate EIT’s 50th anniversary, but also our long-standing strength in vocational and applied education and training,” she says.

“Work-integrated learning bridges the space between students, industry, and education providers—something that’s more vital than ever as we prepare learners for jobs that may not even exist yet.”

Although based in New Zealand, WILNZ is part of a global network of similar organisations, with strong connections to Australia, Canada, and Europe. The conference fosters conversations informed by international perspectives and grounded in the needs of today’s graduates.