NZ Engine

Source: New Zealand Parliament

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s the first opportunity I’ve had to take a call on this bill and I want to talk to some of the impacts it’s going to have on my community.

The first comment I want to make is that this bill is a mean-spirited little bill that’s been snuck through the House under the cover of darkness during urgency. It hasn’t had the opportunity to go to select committee, which means that people who are actually affected by this bill haven’t had an opportunity to come to the Parliament to put their views to MPs to ensure that a bill like this actually is fair. Because it’s not fair—it’s not a fair bill.

When I was doing my reading of the bill prior to putting my notes together, I did take a look at the explanatory note. I think it’s worth noting to the members over the other side of the House that this policy was actually introduced in 1992. Who was in Government in 1992? The National Party. And here in the bill, it even reads—I’m just going to read it out—”It was intended to encourage better utilisation of State housing (ie, occupation of empty rooms) and encourage beneficiary [houses], particularly sole parent beneficiaries living in larger State houses, to take on a boarder, or boarders, to offset some of their costs.”

In the context of the nation’s housing crisis, it’s important that we actually look at what will be the unintended consequences of a bill like this. What it will lead to is higher costs for those who have a boarder or people not taking a boarder on in the first place.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Unintended consequences—cumulative effect of 25 percent inflation under your Government.

RACHEL BOYACK: At the moment, the situation we’re facing—I mean, I just want to note, Mr Campbell, you did have an opportunity to take a 10-minute call. It was less than a minute.

Dr Hamish Campbell: No I didn’t.

RACHEL BOYACK: Yes, you did. You had an opportunity to speak for 10 minutes. [Interruption] You’ve obviously got something to say—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Order! We don’t want conversation across the House.

RACHEL BOYACK: I know, but he’s heckling me so I’m just responding. But he’s obviously got something to say. It is within the rules to respond to a heckler. He took about a minute; he had nine minutes where he could have said all this, that he’s, you know—so—

Dr Hamish Campbell: It was a split call.

RACHEL BOYACK: Oh, it was a five-minute call. OK, it was a split call. So you took one minute of your five minutes—

Joseph Mooney: Point of order.

RACHEL BOYACK: I withdraw and apologise for getting my timings wrong.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Point of order, Joseph Mooney.

Joseph Mooney: No, she just addressed it. She got her timings wrong. It was five minutes, not 10.

RACHEL BOYACK: Basically what I was saying was that he had four minutes that he didn’t use, but instead he’s decided he’s just going to shout at me. If that’s just how you want to behave in the House, it’s up to you.

Hon Member: Tell us about the Nelson Hospital.

RACHEL BOYACK: Just coming back to the bill—oh, I will tell you about Nelson Hospital.

Hon Member: Oh, great announcement!

RACHEL BOYACK: Fewer beds. Fewer beds. Fewer beds. We’ll run out of beds in about five or six years and we’re going to have to come back and build the last building. You cancelled the last building that Nelson needs. It’s a disgrace. So don’t believe the spin that your Ministers have given you because they’re wrong. It’s a disgrace.

Hon Matt Doocey: Whoever the mayor is, he’s happy.

RACHEL BOYACK: Oh look, the mayor had 30 years to get their hospital built and he didn’t.

So anyway, Madam Speaker, I’ll come back to this bill, which is really important for Nelson because we have a policy in Nelson set up by the wonderful people at Nelson Women’s Centre called HomeShare for Her, which runs across the Nelson-Tasman region.

HomeShare for Her. What it does is it matches a woman—normally an older woman who is living in their own home or renting a home and often it’s a larger property—and to take on a boarder. One of the things that we find in Nelson is we do have a growing and ageing population, which is why we need more beds than what National have promised. One of the things is that women are often living in their own homes that might have an extra two or three bedrooms. They want to stay living in their own homes for safety, to help reduce costs, for companionship. So what HomeShare for her has done is it allows a matching process between those women, and then women who are single, who might be working, studying, or not able to afford their own home. So it allows—you know, coming back to the purpose of the original policy—greater utilisation of that home. It’s a great scheme and it’s allowed matching between these women.

What this policy will do for any of those women who are receiving the accommodation supplement because they might still be paying their mortgage and be on superannuation or be living in a rental, that’s going to increase the cost for those women. So it actually has an unintended consequence and has a poor impact—

Steve Abel: I think it’s intended.

RACHEL BOYACK: —on those. What was that, sorry?

Steve Abel: I think it’s intended.

RACHEL BOYACK: Yeah, I think it’s intentional too. And—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’ll just remind the member again not to engage across the House.

RACHEL BOYACK: Madam Speaker, I understood under the Standing Orders that you can respond to heckles. I think that was all right.

But one of the issues in Nelson as well as we have seen an increase in our homelessness and we’ve seen through the ending of some of our emergency accommodation provision, a growing number of people living on the streets. We’ve also seen, as part of that, unfortunately, a growing number of women living on the streets. One of the things around how women present through homelessness is it’s often a bit different to how men present. Often women will end up sleeping rough on someone’s couch, in a garage, potentially with children. They’re not necessarily sleeping on the street, but the homelessness is still there and present.

That’s one of the things I love about this HomeShare for Her policy that was set up by this group of women was: that it both served the older women who were wanting to get greater utilisation of their home, and then it also supported those women who were on a low income, unable to find a home. What this bill is going to do is add costs to those people. It’s going to add costs to those women and it’s potentially going to disincentivise the number of people living in in those homes.

The other thing that we face in Nelson which is really specific to this bill is we do have a lot of State houses that do have three to four bedrooms, where we have a really high need for one- and two-bedroom properties in Nelson—and that’s shown on the Housing Register. We had begun building those one- and two-bedroom properties. We had got quite a few built, including the one recently finished on Waimea Road which has 29 one-bedroom units in it, which is fantastic

But some of those future properties have been cancelled—those builds. There was one in the inner city that was going to build another 30 or so one-bedroom homes that would have served particularly our older population, our disabled population, very, very well. That build has been cancelled under this Government and so we’re seeing the latest release of information from the Nelson Tasman Housing Trust saw the highest ever housing need from people who are in that space where they might not qualify to go onto the Housing Register, but they do have a housing need in terms of being on a low income. So they’ve seen a real spike in numbers, unfortunately.

When you have a place like Nelson, which is one of the most unaffordable regions in the country after Queenstown, when you compare income against rent and a real squeeze on housing—because we do have a growing number of people choosing to retire into Nelson—what we see is a real lack of access to housing. It is a real issue in Nelson, it has been for some time. The option to have people boarding is a really, really good solution, and it happens a lot in my community. So my biggest concern here is that we’re going to be penalising people on low incomes who have looked to say, “I’m going to take on a boarder.”

The other area where it can impact is those who are taking on like students—they may have a student come to study at Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, for example—take on a boarder because they might be an elderly person who’s looking to supplement the income on their rental property. Making those kinds of decisions is going to become less attractive to those people, and so it’s going to limit the amount of housing supply we have. Because in a place like Nelson, we need to look at every single opportunity.

There is going to be, if you look at social housing, around 6,200 households across the country have boarders. Those people will have to find around $132 more each week towards their income-related rent. That’s a significant amount of money for people at a time when, alongside the housing crisis, you actually have a cost of living crisis. The 8,200 households who receive the accommodation supplement are going to be affected and 7,000 of those people will have a reduction in support from the Ministry of Social Development.

So this bill should have gone to select committee. To pass it like this when it had actually been put in place during the Budget in 2024 just shows the Government can’t actually line its ducks up properly to actually get a bill into the House at some point last year, put it through to select committee so that those people who are affected, so that the Government members who have been shouting at everyone but not taking lengthy calls—so choosing to shout instead of listen—actually hear the real impact of this bill. And I do not commend it to the House.

Source: New Zealand Parliament

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Make no mistake, if the Minister was actually serious about improving the accuracy of the Ministry of Social Development entitlement assessments, she would be investing in the front line and supporting them adequately, rather than continuing to undermine them and pushing through more and more decisions to a computer system, where there will be less accountability should it not adequately calculate benefits. This is a part of a plan to cut the lifeline for countless people so that the Government can meet their target of 50,000 less people receiving income support, not about people getting, basically, more support or getting into employment.

Joseph Mooney: This guy doesn’t understand what he’s talking about.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Joseph Mooney says that I don’t know what I’m talking about, but I’d really invite him—because he didn’t in the previous debate—to actually tell us about the substance of this bill and who this is affecting the most. Last debate, he didn’t talk about how the previous bill would affect people in hardship, so I welcome him to do the same. I say this because, as the Minister said—and she’s basically opened up for us to link those two together—she said this bill was integral for her to meet the intent of the previous bill, which does what? Leave 14,000 people worse off, between, on average, $100 each week, to, potentially, $200 worse each week.

These so-called “mandatory reviews”, they are also an excuse to, basically, punish people and strip them of their benefit, particularly for those on the supported living payment, who then will be left off, again, in hardship, because we know that disabled people are more likely than many other groups to be living in poverty. The child poverty reports tell us exactly that: that being disabled is actually one of, unfortunately—and it shouldn’t be that way—the largest reasons why somebody could find themselves in poverty, not because of the disability but because of political decisions being made to strip away support for disabled people, to scapegoat them, undermine them, discriminate them, instead of allowing everyone to have the life that they need.

This bill introduces mandatory reviews for things like the supported living payment, the emergency benefit with an expiry date beyond 52 weeks or no expiry date at all, the accommodation supplement—and this is where the Minister tied in the intent of tying this bill with the one that we just passed—the disability allowance, and the New Zealand superannuation with a non-qualified partner or grandparent. The thing is, should this review happen—I think particularly for the supported living payment it makes very little sense, since they already face a 52-week review anyway, so it just kind of feels like duplicating things—and people find themselves receiving less, the reality is that that just means that they will be pushed deeper into poverty. People on the supported living payment, for example, they’re not living a life of luxury, unless, you know, the Minister somehow thinks so.

If those mandatory reviews find disabled people earning less each week, I don’t see anywhere in this bill any provisions that take into account, for example, people’s hardship, wellbeing, the likelihood of them becoming homeless before, for example, the machine—the computer—puts them in a disadvantaged position, because we know, right now, due to the inaccuracy of benefit entitlements, some people are getting more than what the system may prescribe. And you know what? For those people, I welcome that. They should be getting roses and bread and far more because, you know, the so-called “overpayments” they’re receiving are not making these disabled people live a life of luxury. They may be allowing them to adequately be able to afford their rent or food and pay their—

Kahurangi Carter: Feed their kids.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Yeah—and keep a roof over their heads. I’m really concerned that the broadening of the automated decision-making, and I think it’s also really intellectually not transparent for the Minister to not have told us that this was her intent, when in the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill, which allowed for the broadening of the use of automated decision-making, this is what she was planning to do and to use automated decision-making for.

I think this reeks of a Government that is hoping no one will be paying attention to the bills that they’re pushing through with urgency. Why? Because they haven’t told us about the real negative impacts on families as a result of the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill and the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill. We look forward to scrutinising this bill and putting forward amendments that mitigate the harm that the Government is planning to inflict on our communities. Shame on the Minister and this rotten-to-the-core Government for pushing through legislation that harms our most vulnerable.

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.

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.

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.