MIL-OSI – Page 219

May 28, 2025

Pharmac seeks feedback on potential brand changes from annual medicines tender

Source: PHARMAC

When a medicine is no longer under patent, suppliers can sell a generic, often less expensive, version of that medicine. Once a year, we invite suppliers to bid to be the main suppliers of medicines that are no longer under patent. Depending on which supplier’s bid is successful, the funded brand of medicine could change.

The annual tender process kicks off in July, when we release consultation on a draft list of items that we are considering including in the upcoming tender.

We ask clinicians, people who use the medicines, and suppliers a range of questions, including whether or not the item should be included in the tender, and what we should consider when reviewing bids and product samples. We are keen to understand any support that might be needed if we were to change brands.

Once the consultation closes, we send the information to our Tender Clinical Advisory Committee, which is made up of doctors, pharmacists, nurses and other clinical specialists, for its input.

After we’ve considered their advice, we finalise the list of items to be included in the tender and issue an “Invitation to Tender” for these items. This invites suppliers to submit their commercial bids. The tender closes in December, and then we start evaluating the bids.

We then ask some suppliers to send us samples of the medicines they’re bidding to provide as the main supplier. We hold a two-day meeting of the Tender Clinical Advisory Committee in February or March, where Pharmac staff and committee members inspect labels, open packages, test creams, taste medicines, shake bottles and discuss what might work best.

Sometimes, the committee will identify usability issues, which we must consider as part of the bid assessment. A crucial step is identifying what information people prescribing, dispensing, and taking medicines would need to help them understand a potential change in the medicine’s brand.

Our goal is to ensure we provide enough support so people can feel reassured during a change.

We then assess the bid against our decision-making framework, the Factors for Consideration. Specifically, we evaluate whether:

the supplier can meet demand and has a reliable supply record
the brand is approved by Medsafe
the price is sustainable and offers savings that can be reinvested into funding more medicines
there are groups of people for whom a brand change may not be appropriate. If so, we consider what actions Pharmac can take to mitigate or prevent any negative impacts on these individuals and their families or whānau.

We announce these decisions throughout the year, at the end of every month.

May 28, 2025

Stats NZ information release: Employment indicators: April 2025

Source: Statistics New Zealand

Employment indicators: April 2025 – 28 May 2025 – Employment indicators provide an early indication of changes in the labour market.

Key facts
Changes in the seasonally adjusted filled jobs for the April 2025 month (compared with the March 2025 month) were:

all industries – down 0.1 percent (2,246 jobs) to 2.35 million filled jobs
primary industries – up 0.1 percent (108 jobs)
goods-producing industries – down 0.3 percent (1,393 jobs)
service industries – down 0.1 percent (1,081 jobs).

Files:

May 28, 2025

Advocacy – Invercargill to consider ethical procurement amid scrutiny of illegal Israeli settlements – PSNA

Source: Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA)

Yesterday (Tuesday 27 May), Invercargill City Council agreed to commission a staff report on a proposed change to its procurement policy, aiming to exclude companies involved in building or maintaining illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The motion, brought by local residents and members of Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA), was presented to councillors yesterday. “We’re delighted Invercargill councillors have taken this first step,” said one of the presenters. “If this passes Invercargill will become the next New Zealand city helping to end Israeli impunity for human rights violations.”

If adopted, Invercargill would join Christchurch City, Nelson City, and Environment Canterbury, which have already aligned procurement with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334. That resolution, co-sponsored by a National government in 2016, declares Israeli settlements a “flagrant violation under international law” and a major obstacle to peace. It calls on states to distinguish between Israel and the territories it has occupied since 1967.

A similar motion is being prepared for Environment Southland Council.

“Western governments have failed to hold Israel to account. Last year the International Court of Justice ruled Israel’s 57-year occupation itself is illegal and breaches international law on apartheid and racial segregation,” the group member added. “This is a small but important step to ensure we’re not complicit. More must follow.”

Invercargill PSNA spokespersons stressed the proposal is not a sanction against Israel, but a narrow ethical measure.

“This is about local responsibility,” the team said. “We’re grateful to the councillors who showed leadership by requesting the report and giving local residents a say in upholding international law, which protects us all.”

“We look forward to the report coming back to council and urge councillors to stand with cities across Aotearoa to ensure ratepayer funds are spent ethically, and in line with foreign policy.”

The date for the council vote will be set once the staff report is complete.

May 28, 2025

Parliament Hansard Report – Thursday, 22 May 2025 (continued on Saturday, 24 May 2025) – Volume 784 – 001494

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 veterans’ 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 “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 to 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 to 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 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): 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 4, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

May 28, 2025

Parliament Hansard Report – Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2 – 001493

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 ruled 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 Kaumātua)” 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‘s 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’s 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’s 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’s 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 Whānau 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 Pūtea 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 Māoris 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.

May 28, 2025

Parliament Hansard Report – Point of Order – 001492

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.

May 28, 2025

NZQA fee consultation

Source: Tertiary Education Commission

Last updated 28 May 2025
Last updated 28 May 2025

The New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) is consulting on proposed changes to its fee levels and structures.
The New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) is consulting on proposed changes to its fee levels and structures.

NZQA proposes extending the Credit Reporting Fee to all qualifications, micro-credentials and standards from 1 January 2026, and to end the annual fee and the consistency fees that some tertiary providers pay.
NZQA is also proposing to raise the hourly Professional Services fee from 1 January 2026 to partially reflect inflation and cost increases.
The consultation is open until 24 June and further information is available on the NZQA website.

May 28, 2025

Hairdressing and barbering regulations given the cut

Source: New Zealand Government

Regulation Minister David Seymour says that from the end of July, barbers and hairdressers will be freed from costly, annoying, and pointless regulations. The Government is scrapping 80s-era rules so hairdressers can focus on cuts, instead of compliance.

“This review and the changes announced today show the power of a sector review,” Mr Seymour says.

“Much like the perm, hairdressing regulations from the 80s are outdated and costly. Freedom is back in style though, by the end of July this year existing regulations will be revoked.”

Cabinet accepted all of the changes recommended by the Ministry for Regulation.

“Existing regulations aren’t making a practical difference to safety, but the compliance is frustrating and costly. We anticipate that revoking all existing regulations will save the industry a minimum of about $1 million per year.” Mr Seymour says.

“The review found that existing regulations are either unnecessary, already managed by other rules, or applied inconsistently between local authorities.

“Local government is responsible for setting annual registration fees. These can range from anywhere between $140 to $495 depending on location.

“Examples of absurd rules include how far apart salon seats should be, how bright the lights in the business are, whether you can have a ‘cuppa’ with your cut, and whether dogs are allowed in salons. From the end of July now these decisions will be up to the business owner.

“Compliance with health and safety, building regulations, and general public health requirements is required already. There is no reason to also require compliance with hairdressing regulations from the 80s which aim to achieve the same thing – manage health risks.

“The Ministry for Regulation will work with the Ministry of Health on guidance for industry related to hygiene, disinfection and sanitation practices in salons and shops to manage public health risks. This will be given when existing regulations are revoked and will accompany Worksafe’s existing guidance for the industry.

“The Ministry for Regulation will then monitor the new regulatory system and report back to me on its effectiveness in two years. Work is also underway with the Ministry of Justice to respond to the issues with alcohol licensing raised by submitters.

“In a high-cost economy, regulation isn’t neutral. It’s a tax on growth. Every completed review makes it easier to do business, access services, and innovate in New Zealand. The Hairdressers and Barbers Sector Review is another example of what smarter regulation looks like in action.”

May 28, 2025

Police statement on TAIC report

Source: New Zealand Police

Attributable to Assistant Commissioner Mike Johnson:

Police accept the findings of the Transport Accident Investigation Commission Maritime Inquiry MO-2022-206 into the charter fishing vessel, i-Catcher capsize in Goose Bay, 10 September 2022.

This was a terrible incident for the community and our thoughts remain with the victims, their families and friends, and the community.

Police is continuing work with Rescue Coordination Centre New Zealand (RCCNZ) on the findings of the report.

In addition to supporting a large number of events led by RCCNZ, Police manages more than 2,000 land and marine search and rescue (SAR) incidents each year.

RCCNZ and Police continue to collaborate on opportunities to enhance operational SAR responses, and continue with regular practice SAR exercises. Our on-call practices and tasking processes have been streamlined and continue to be improved.

The joint Maritime Rescue Plan for Tasman has now been prepared and is in the final stages of being signed off. Standard operating procedures have also been updated to include that Police’s National Dive Squad must be contacted for advice and availability in life-threatening water rescue events.

This investigation by TAIC has been important for all of us to learn from. We are putting recommendations in place and looking at where we can support partner agencies across all the recommendations.

You can read the report at: https://www.taic.org.nz/inquiry/mo-2022-206

ENDS

Issued by the Police Media Centre

May 28, 2025