Serious crash – Dannevirke

Source: New Zealand Police

Attribute to Detective Sergeant Shelley Ross  

Emergency services are in attendance following a serious crash on Victoria Avenue in Dannevirke.

Police were called just after 9.30am this morning after a pedestrian was struck by a vehicle.

At this stage it appears one person has suffered critical injuries.

The Serious Crash Unit is attendance.

Police are speaking to the driver of the vehicle and early indications are the crash was intentional. 

Anyone who witnessed the crash and has not yet been spoken to by Police are encouraged to make contact via 105 or online and quote the reference number P062662438.

ENDS

Issued by Police Media Centre

KiwiSaver changes to bolster next generation

Source: NZ Music Month takes to the streets

Changes to KiwiSaver in Budget 2025 mean young people today will retire with more savings and more financial security, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says.

“Using the Sorted website’s comparative calculator, you can see that with the Government’s KiwiSaver changes an 18-year-old today earning $48,000 a year, and investing in a balanced fund, will have almost $900,000 in KiwiSaver at age 65. Under the old settings, it would have been about $721,000.”

Changes to KiwiSaver in the Budget include extending the government contribution – and employer matching – to working 16 and 17-year-olds, as well as changing the default contribution rate to 3.5 per cent on 1 April 2026 and then to 4 per cent on 1 April 2028. People will have the option to stay on 3 per cent if they choose.

“An increased contribution rate will also grow the funds available to young people for a first home deposit. Kiwis are able to withdraw from their KiwiSaver to purchase a first home, and larger fund balances can only help,” Nicola Willis says.

“An increase in KiwiSaver balances will also grow the pool of funds available for investment in New Zealand.  KiwiSaver schemes already invest around 40 per cent of their funds in New Zealand based assets – including housing developments like the Simplicity one we’re visiting today. With greater Kiwi savings, more Kiwi projects like this will be possible.

“That’s good for the economy, and a strong economy ensures a better future for all New Zealanders – including young people.

“I want to encourage New Zealanders to find out how our KiwiSaver changes will boost their balance. People should visit the sorted.org.nz website to see what it means for them. It’s impressive how a small change in contributions can make a major difference to people’s first house deposit or retirement nest egg.

“Since Budget Day, thousands of people have already checked out what the changes mean for them. I urge more people to do so. 

“A better life for Kiwis young and old is what it’s all about – that’s what we’re delivering with the Growth Budget – a responsible Budget that secures New Zealand’s future.”

Notes for editors

The 18-year-old’s KiwiSaver example had the following inputs:

  • 18 years old
  • Currently employed
  • Current employer-matched contribution 3 per cent
  • Investing in a balanced fund
  • Salary: $48,000 (annual, paid weekly – slightly less than full time on minimum wage of $23.50 per hour)
  • Result: About $895,104 at age 65. Without Budget 2025 changes it would be $721,176. The figure is not adjusted for inflation, but when it is, savings at retirement remain higher than under previous settings.

The calculator’s adjustments can be found at sorted.org.nz/how-these-calculators-work/. Wage growth is assumed at nominal 3.5 per cent growth per annum.

Further details about Budget 2025’s changes to KiwiSaver can be found here.

Witnesses sought after series of assaults in Gisborne

Source: New Zealand Police

Gisborne Police are appealing for witnesses to a series of assaults which occurred yesterday afternoon in the central city.

The incident occurred around 1.30pm on Saturday 24 May and involved several people being assaulted in and around Gladstone Road and Lowe Street.

A 26 year old man will appear in the Gisborne District Court tomorrow facing a number of charges, including assault.

Most of the victims have been identified but Police would like to hear from anyone who witnessed the assaults, in particular a couple who have not been identified.

If you can help, please call 105 or contact us on 105 online and quote reference 250524/9179 

ENDS

Issued by Police Media Centre

Fatal crash, Number 1 Line, Manawatū

Source: New Zealand Police

A person has died following a truck crash on Number 1 Line, Longburn, Manawatū this morning.

Police were alerted to the single vehicle crash at 9.20am.

The Serious Crash Unit has been notified and towing is being arranged to remove the truck from the crash site.

Enquiries into the circumstances of the crash are under way.

ENDS

Issued by Police Media Centre. 
 

Parliament Hansard Report – Thursday, 22 May 2025 (continued on Saturday, 24 May 2025) – Volume 784 – 001486

Source: Govt’s austerity Budget to cause real harm in communities

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

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

Motion agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

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

Part 1 agreed to.

Parliament Hansard Report – Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2 – 001485

Source: Govt’s austerity Budget to cause real harm in communities

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

Parliament Hansard Report – Point of Order – 001484

Source: Govt’s austerity Budget to cause real harm in communities

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.

David Seymour: Budget Day Speech 2025

Source:

Mr Speaker,

Intro

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this Budget.

Let’s start with some simple truths about all Government Budgets.

When the Government spends, it takes from the firms, farms, and families that make up our great country.

A dollar spent by the Government can’t be spent by a family paying their groceries or renovating their house. It cannot be invested by a business creating another job, or a farmer buying new equipment. Nobody else can spend it, because the Government has it.h

Government spending has a diabolical power: Time travel. The Government can spend money now and put the debt in a fiscal Tardis. Into the future, goes the debt, one day landing on taxpayers who might just be starting on their ABCs this afternoon.

Every Government has an obligation to stop the fiscal Tardis. For the sake of future generations, every Government must return to surplus and pay down debt.

Another fact, this Budget isn’t the one ACT alone would bring.

If you’ve read the ACT Party’s Alternative Budgets in years past, you know this Budget spends more than ACT would. But I can tell you something else: It spends much less than a budget without ACT.

I’m proud of the role ACT has played questioning spending and finding savings. Collectively our party has saved current and future taxpayers billions.

This Budget has another great feature. It wasn’t written by the post-modern unicorn chasers of the opposition benches. It signals another year of stable Government for New Zealand.

The Greens have helpfully shown us their alternative budget. They would increase annual Government spending by $22 billion. For that they promise to end poverty.

It got me wondering. Has anything like this happened before? Well, last time the Greens were in Government, annual Government spending increased by $52 billion.

They cannot have it both ways. Either $52 billion of extra spending was enough to fix our problems, or $22 billion won’t be. They are intellectually bankrupt. If they ran a Government, it would be financially bankrupt.

Green bankruptcy doesn’t end there. The Greens are also morally bankrupt. Societies succeed when we push each other up instead of pulling each other down. But the core message of the Greens is that your problems are caused by others’ success, and your salvation lies in taking their money with new taxes.

There are two other Parties in opposition. Te Pāti Māori probably don’t know what a budget is. They show up to Parliament for Tik Tok, not for the good of all New Zealanders.

Then there are Labour, whose whole electoral strategy is to avoid ever taking a position on anything. That’s dangerous, a party desperate for power that won’t tell you its policies. An opposition of unicorn chasers, tik-tok wannabes, and dodgers should never be allowed near your money.

ACT’s Values

ACT’s supporters, Ministers, Members of Parliament and I are proud to stand with a Government that is saving to invest, and boosting the productive capacity of New Zealanders.

We have a simple set of values that work, the world over. Any Government is only a group of people. So is the rest of the population. Some say the Government can solve your problems. I ask: If a group of people ensnared in the politics and bureaucracy of Government can solve your problems, imagine what you could do without the politics and bureaucracy?

That’s why the Government that governs best governs less. That’s why any Government’s goal should be unleashing the creative powers of a free society. Its goal should be freedom under the law, so that people can make a difference in their own lives and the lives of those they care about.

Politicians and their grand Government schemes cannot make New Zealand flourish, because nobody can be forced to flourish. But a country can flourish when each of us are free to be ourselves and achieve in our own way.

The Values of this Budget

This Budget reflects ACT’s values. It is reducing the share of the nation’s economic pie consumed by Government, and ACT’s fingerprints are all over it.

Inflation is currently 2.5 per cent and the population has grown 0.9 per cent in the last year. That means our country’s inflation plus population growth is 3.4 per cent.

If the Government’s Budget grew by 3.4 per cent, it would grow by $4.9 billion. The question is, does this Budget increase spending by $4.9 billion?

No, it does not. It increases by a fraction of that. This Budget increases spending by $1.3 billion. That’s a 0.9 per cent increase.

When the Government reduces its share of the economy, there is more for the firms, farms, and families of this country to consume.

That is true, but it’s not the whole story. Budgets are about more than who gets what. Budgets are also about values. This Budget ensures there is more reason to flourish, to act.

Most importantly, if businesses invest in new plant and equipment, they can write off 20 per cent of the value right now.

If you’re a farmer buying new milking machines to increase your output.

If you’re a start-up investing in lab equipment to develop your product.

If you’re a restaurant upgrading a commercial kitchen to serve more people faster.

If you’re a logistics company investing in better enterprise resource management to get stuff to the right place faster…

It’s not up to any politician how this policy is used. It’s up to creative people. Whatever you’re trying to do, the new 20 per cent capital asset deduction will reduce the tax drag on investing to increase productivity and wages.

Treasury forecasts that, by the time the youngest Kiwis today enter the workforce, wages will be 1.5 per cent higher thanks to this policy alone.

This Budget doesn’t just hose money at what is politically popular. It sets the foundations for growth. It benefits New Zealanders who may not be able to vote yet, but will look back and thank today’s Government for this policy.

Less tax matters. If people can keep and reinvest more of what they make, a virtuous circle starts to turn.

Investment leads to productivity.

Productivity leads to higher wages and higher profits.

Profits can be reinvested, leading to more productivity.

Higher wages empower workers to become investors themselves.

Productivity rises some more, and all the Government needs to do is less.

The Regulatory Standards Bill

When the Budget Debate adjourns, we’ll see the Regulatory Standards Bill debated and sent on its way to become law. I said at the start, any Government’s goal should be unleashing the creative powers of a free society.

Less tax is half the equation to human flourishing. It’s not enough for the Government to just tax less of your property. The Government must also restrain itself from restricting how you use the property you have left.

For too long, politicians have come to this House and trampled New Zealanders’ rights to use and exchange their own property. They do it for political reasons.

They ban people from using buildings to show they care about earthquakes, even if no lives will be saved at the cost of billions.

They ban oil and gas exploration to show they care about the planet, even if the result is burning more coal.

They give every Tom, Dick and Hone the right to object to you building a house, to show they care about the planet, but the result is a generation without habitats for humans.

Democracy demands politicians be held accountable for bad lawmaking, and that’s what the Regulatory Standards Bill will do.

It will require lawmakers to publicly declare what problem their law seeks to solve. It will require them to show the effects on peoples’ liberties and property rights. It will require them to weight the costs and benefits of the law. They’ll have to publicly state who pays the costs and reaps any benefits.

That sort of transparency and accountability will not stop bad lawmakers. Parliament remains sovereign. What it will do is help voters identify and punish bad lawmakers when their vote.

Over time, this change of incentives will change our country. Justifiable and necessary regulations will remain, but many others won’t.

The builder who takes longer to get consent than to build the thing, will spend more time building homes for the next generation.

The educator who wanted to open children’s minds will have more time to do that and less time on paperwork.

The lawyer conveyancing property will spend more time articulating their clients’ interests, and less time checking their identity again, and again.

The Church organising an ANZAC day will spend more time preparing to honor the fallen, and less time asking permission to walk on the roads their congregation paid for.

That is the world of empowerment with less red tape and regulation that this Budget and the Regulatory Standards Bill herald.

Investment

The Budget also invests more money in things that matter.

What matters most is our basic security. The half a billion-dollar boost in Defence and foreign affairs are sadly necessary in a changing world. ACT long campaigned for two per cent of GDP to be spent on Defence.

It is a form of insurance. We hope to never use it, but the chances are higher than ever that we might. Big countries talk about peace through strength. A better option for a small country like New Zealand is peace through alliances.

This Budget allows New Zealand to take seriously our ancient ANZAC alliance. It allows us to be part of a network of like-minded democracies committed to the defence of a free society.

We also need security from thugs at home. Some Government spending just sells itself. Few things are better value than locking up criminals. Nearly half a billion dollars locking up criminals sounds expensive, but if you think crims are expensive in jail, imagine them out on the streets, robbing, raping, and murdering. Locking them up is the best money we’ll ever spend.

The Government is investing in the ultimate resource, human creativity. Better education, including $140 million more on school attendance, will help us transfer skills from one generation to another.

When children get to school, the learning support and maths help will be there. Just imagine where the Government’s books could be today if that maths help was around when Grant Robertson was a at school.

Today parents who save and sacrifice get some long overdue recognition.

Those who scrimp and save to give their children a better future at a private school pay taxes like anyone else. Their children deserve an education like anyone else. And yet, they pay more GST on their school fees than they get back in Government subsidy. The Subsidy has been frozen for fifteen years.

Savings

All the above policies are possible only because we have been prepared to live within our means.

In the reckless years of the previous Government, any problem could be solved by throwing other people’s money at it, or so we were told.

If Labour sold T-shirts they should say, ‘I voted Labour and all I got was a $100 billion of debt.’ That is all we got, and for those who blame COVID, the splurge went on far longer than that.

This Government has had to do what firms, farms and families had to do in the hungry years Labour created. If we want to spend more, we need to save somewhere else.

It makes no sense for the Government to borrow money your children will need to pay back, with interest, then put it in your Kiwisaver so you can invest in shares. That is what’s been happening, and it’s nuts.

ACT’s alternative budget proposed stopping the practice. We’re thrilled to be part of a Government that is at least halving it, and means testing. That is something future generations will thank us for. It’s also just good basic financial management.

I said Brooke van Velden saved the taxpayer billions and the Budget for the Government. Today it’s been revealed how much that saving was, it is $12.8 billion over four years.

However, I also said that she left a fairer, more affordable, more sustainable pay equity scheme. That is true. Thanks to Brooke van Velden, the emphasis on growing wages is back to the actions that economists tell us grow wages.

I heard people say they’d been ‘working’ on pay equity cases for years. Newsflash, that’s not work. That’s litigation, and it does not make the boat go faster at all. The fact that people thought that was work tells us everything we need to know about the left and the union movement.

There are not only fiscal savings from the pay equity changes, there is a proud declaration that we don’t get wealthier arguing with ourselves, we get wealthier from investment, innovation, and genuine hard work.

Of course there are many other savings. The $18.4 million reduction in RNZ funding should focus the organisation of high-quality news, the way its competitors are forced to do in challenging times for the industry.

EECA has always been silly. People already know energy is expensive and it’s good to save it. There’s no need for a Government department to do it. Over four years this change will save $56.2 million.

Ending the mad experiment of Kahui Ako, or Communities of Learning, that were actually communities of teachers taking time out of the classroom, it’s gone. The saving is $375.5 million dollars.

Crazy research grants, ‘climate resilience for Māori,’ whatever that really is, and ‘bilingual towns and cities funding.’ It’s all getting cut to save taxpayers’ money. People who work hard in the real world, treating others well, and taking each person as they find them… They are the winners when government stops taking money for identity politics fantasies and applies it to practical services that matter.

The Government will be tightening benefit eligibility for 18-19 year olds. This will save $163 million. Parents want them off the couch. The last thing they want is the Government taking their taxes and paying them to stay there.

Personal responsibility can save money in other ways. The Government is going to be far more aggressive in chasing up court fines and legal aid debt. The basic idea that your efforts should make a difference cuts both ways, and saves the Government money, too.

These are just a selection. It all adds up. Altogether the Government is saving $4.9 billion per year. $4.9 billion of taxpayer money put to better use. Saving to invest more, so that our free society can see economic growth.

Conclusion

This Budget doesn’t go as far as ACT would, but we’re proud to support it because it’s pregnant with our values. It is a Budget supporting human action, not political action. It give more resources and choices to the people, compared with government.

It focuses on growing the New Zealand economy, rather than government spending. It gives a ray of hope, that New Zealanders can achieve their potential in a place where your efforts make a difference.

In that there is hope that our pioneering spirit rises again. The country that we and our ancestors came to these islands to build will deliver its promise of opportunity to each New Zealander.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Budget 2025 saves to invest in what matters

Source:

“ACT has ensured Budget 2025 saves money to invest in essential services and support economic growth,” says ACT Leader David Seymour.

“ACT would support leaner spending still, but our influence has ensured this Budget grows government at less than half the rate of inflation. When the government’s share of spending reduces, there is more left for everyone else, and future generations aren’t irresponsibly saddled with debt.

“Above all, this is a Budget that understands wage growth doesn’t come from the bureaucracy or court cases – it comes from economic growth.

“The Regulatory Standards Bill is part of the Budget package. It will make government justify regulating the use and exchange of your property, or be called out. It means Kiwis spend less time on paperwork and are freed up to innovate, hire, and generate real wealth.

“A 20 percent capital expensing policy will let businesses immediately deduct 20 percent of the cost of new equipment, machinery, or tech in the year of purchase. This puts more cash back in the hands of firms and farms right away – to invest in growth, upgrade tech, and boost productivity. Whatever you’re trying to do, this policy will reduce the tax drag on investing to increase productivity and wages. Treasury forecasts that, by the time the youngest Kiwis today enter the workforce, wages will be 1.5 per cent higher thanks to this policy alone.

“Meanwhile, billions in savings have come from Brooke van Velden’s reforms to ensure pay equity claims are fair and evidence-based. There are not only fiscal savings from the pay equity changes, there is a proud declaration that we don’t get wealthier arguing with ourselves, we get wealthier from investment, innovation, and genuine hard work.

“Brooke van Velden’s work, along with smaller savings throughout the Budget, has made investment in basic services possible. A significant uplift in Defence capability, better attendance services, after-hours healthcare, faster courts, stronger youth justice facilities, and a shift from three-month to twelve-month prescriptions, have all been made possible.

“Of course there are many other savings. The reduction in RNZ funding should focus the organisation on high-quality news, the way its competitors are forced to do in challenging times for the industry.

“In cutting waste and prioritising spending to enable growth, Budget 2025 does not go as far as ACT would like – but it does go further than it would without ACT.”

ACT welcomes authorisation for inquiry into social media harm, urges caution on blanket ban

Source:

“ACT welcomes Parliament’s decision to authorise a Select Committee inquiry into the harms of social media on young people, as we proposed,” says ACT MP Dr Parmjeet Parmar.

Dr Parmar sits on Parliament’s Education and Workforce Committee, and last week wrote to the Committee Chair with ACT’s proposal for an inquiry.

“We now have an opportunity to develop well-informed, evidence-based actions to safeguard youth, while also considering parental responsibility. By setting clear terms of reference and inviting input from parents, educators, mental health experts, and tech specialists, the Committee can explore workable solutions that empower families and communities.

“ACT remains concerned about the narrower proposal to ban social media for those under 16. Such a ban risks being technically unworkable, as young people could easily bypass restrictions, potentially driving them to unregulated, darker corners of the internet with fewer safeguards. It also sidelines parents, undermining personal responsibility, and could limit access to valuable online opportunities.

“Any inquiry should examine lessons from other countries enforcement attempts, such as Australia with its planned ban. Online safety is important, but so is workability, privacy, and avoiding unintended consequences.”

Note to editors:

The proposed inquiry is broader than the Education and Workforce Committee’s subject area outlined in Standing Orders so required authorisation from the House in order to proceed. Today, that authorisation was granted to inquire into the harm young New Zealanders encounter online, and the roles that government, business, and society should play in addressing those harms.