Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I begin this Estimates debate by speaking briefly to the report that my committee has delivered to the House.

Vote Social Development is the largest vote in Budget 2026; it makes up 24 percent of total funding allocated in the Budget. The vote funds many social services, including income support, student loans, emergency housing, and disability support. In 2026-27, the appropriation sought for Vote Social Development totalled $48.37 billion. The appropriations in this vote come under six ministerial portfolios—the Ministry of Social Development administers the vote.

The Minister for Social Development and Employment is responsible for 94 percent of the vote, with appropriations totalling $45.56 billion, including benefits or related expenses. Five other Ministers all have responsibilities for appropriations in the vote: the Minister of Revenue, $2.36 billion; the Minister of Housing, $297.4 million; the Minister for Veterans, $132.43 million; the Minister for Youth, $16.62 million; and the Minister for Seniors, $6.28 million.

Vote Social Development funds the provision of income support and the administration of associated systems and processes. The category benefits or related expenses include appropriations totalling $42.9 billion, or 88.7 percent of the vote. These appropriations are demand driven. The Minister for Social Development and Employment is responsible for all but two of these appropriations.

The select committee also discussed the proportion of the total benefits or related expenses in Vote Social Development as proposed for New Zealand superannuation payments. We note that forecast amounts are set to increase, and the committee considered that work needs to be done to ensure financial sustainability as demand continues to increase for superannuation. As a total of benefits or related expenses in the 2026-27 appropriations, 62 percent were for New Zealand superannuation.

There’s a lot more in our report, and I’d recommend people read it. I look forward to the forthcoming debate.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to follow the hard-working chair of the Social Services and Community Committee with a few comments and a very clear, straightforward message to the committee of the whole House. Our Government’s approach to social support is simple at its heart: New Zealanders who genuinely need assistance from the Government should get it; New Zealanders who can work should work. Being in work is better for the country and better for the person than sitting on a benefit. We need to ensure that the social support system, including benefits and housing payments, are fair both for those receiving assistance and for taxpayers paying for it. The system should neither incentivise people to be supported by the State nor disincentivise people from seeking work or living independently. I’m happy to answer questions.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you, Mr Chair.

I just want to start by asking the Minister for Social Development and Employment some questions around job seekers, and I want to ask if the Minister can confirm that the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update shows jobseeker numbers will be above 200,000 in 2030?

Further to that, has there been a single Budget Economic and Fiscal Update or Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, since she came into office, that has revised numbers down for 2030?

I can confirm that the jobseeker forecasts were always anticipated to get higher when we came into office with the dire economic position that we inherited.

Further to that, then, have her officials verbally or in writing told her that her target of 50,000 fewer job seekers is unachievable?

No, Mr Chair; I’ve always said it’s ambitious.

Picking up on the line from the Minister, who said New Zealanders who can work should work, does the Minister have any evidence to substantiate that there is a job available for every single beneficiary in this country?

That’s never been the assertion. Our Government is very clear that it is important for New Zealanders who can work to be available to work, to be preparing for work, and taking work when it is available.

What is the Government’s goal, then, of stripping benefits from 18- and 19-year-olds when she has just basically conceded that there’s not a single job available for every beneficiary out there?

Well, don’t put words in my mouth. What I would like to say is that from Budget 2026, Treasury’s forecasts say 220,000 jobs will be created. That is the Government’s hard work in terms of growing the economy. We want to ensure that 18- and 19-year-olds, instead of being stuck on welfare for another 20 years of their life, are connected with the opportunities that this great country provides.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Ricardo Menéndez March, and if you wouldn’t mind just giving me, each time you stand up—the technicians need time to catch up with you, which is why we call your name.

I’m saving as much as time as possible! Thank you. Can the Minister confirm that every single person on jobseeker health condition and disability—who may be facing cancer, skin conditions, congenital disorders, or psychiatric and psychological conditions—is fit to go into study or training?

We are very clear that we want 18- and 19-year-olds in employment, training, or in work and, if they’re not able to do so, then their families should be the first line of support.

Thank you. To the previous comment from the Minister, who said that I was putting words in her mouth: can she confirm, then, that there is a single job available for every 18- and 19-year-old who she’s about to cut the benefits for?

I reject that assertion.

Can she confirm that there are now 9,000 more 18- to 24-year-olds on jobseeker support compared to when she came into office?

Does the Minister accept that taking jobseeker support away from 18- and 19-year-olds who can’t safely rely on their parents may reduce the benefit count, but it doesn’t put those rangatahi into work, education, training, or even a home? Off the back of that, what specific appropriation in Vote Social Development will guarantee that every rangatahi refused jobseeker support under the new parental assistance test has safe accommodation and enough income to meet their basic needs?

We have a parental assistance test for that very reason: to protect those who either don’t have a family connection or whose family’s income is low.

How does the Minister’s parental income test distinguish between income recorded on paper and a home that is safe, available, and willing to support that rangatahi?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Given that the Minister couldn’t or wouldn’t answer my previous question about confirming whether there are 9,000 more 18- to 24-year-olds on jobseeker benefit since she came into office, can she confirm that there are now 10,000 more Māori on jobseeker compared to when she took office?

I should just put on record that one of the challenges with these debates and why I’m not going to be able to answer every question is that we are time limited in the National Party. From here on, I will wait for a significant number of questions that I will try and group together so I can provide answers, otherwise I won’t have sufficient time available.

Therefore, I would like to know: are there 10,000 more Māori on jobseeker compared to when she took office, 9,000 more 18- to 24-year-olds since she took office, and 10,000 more women?

No.

On the parental income test, does she deem a family earning a total combined income of $68,000—say, a family of four—actually able to afford their basic essentials? Why did she set the parental income test so low, to the point that it makes it impossible for a family to survive on, say, a total combined income of $68,000 a year? Will she commit to ensuring that no family experiences hardship as a result of the settings that she has set for the parental income test and the fact that she will be cutting benefits from 18- to 19-year-olds with health conditions?

Will the Minister guarantee that no rangatahi or young person will become homeless, remain in an unsafe home, or be forced to return to an abusive household because the Ministry of Social Development has determined that the parents should support them? Further to that, will the Minister support a statutory duty requiring agencies to prevent rangatahi homelessness before it occurs, including coordinated assessment, referral, and housing support—the very approach proposed in my youth homelessness prevention bill?

Many members have referred to our policy for Budget 2026, which is tightening jobseeker support for 18- and 19-year-olds. I think it is important for us to put on record the policy intent behind this. What we do know is that in terms of the forecasts, 18- and 19-year-olds—actually, anyone who goes on to jobseeker benefit under the age of 25 is forecast, on average, to spend another 20 years of their life on welfare. Our side of the House doesn’t think that that should be as good as it gets for 18- and 19-year-olds, which is why we have put this policy in place.

Does she think it’s better to answer questions than instead just give a speech that does not address any of our questions?

Oh, thank you. After excluding 18- and 19-year-olds, are there any other groups that she can arbitrarily exclude to reach her target of 50,000 less jobseekers?

I’d like to now ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment questions around sanctions and hardship. In June 2025, Māori comprised 39 percent of working-age benefit recipients but received 55 percent of sanctions. What Māori equity assessment has the Minister required before funding a strong sanctions regime?

I’ll ask another question. How many Māori adults and tamariki are forecast to lose income through sanctions in 2026-2027, and what amount has been appropriated to meet the resulting demand for food grants, housing assistance, and community support?

One more: does the Minister consider a policy equitable when Māori receive a majority of sanctions, and, if so, what evidence supports that conclusion?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got several questions. The first one takes up the point that the Minister for Social Development and Employment has made about people who are on benefits at an early age ending up with a lifetime on benefits. I wondered whether the Minister would like to tell us whether, in fact, what we’re looking at there is correlation or causation, because there must be many other factors that need to be looked at in terms of what support or non-support we put around people at that age. What we have, from what I could see—and I was on the Social Services and Community Committee—is a situation where there isn’t a great connection under the new policy with support for this very group. They’re not in a situation where there are going to be those kinds of support. So I’d like to know about that.

I’d also like the Minister to answer the question about the issue around domestic and sexual abuse, because this age group, when they are suddenly unable to be put on benefits, etc., they often end up on the street, and I’d like to know what kind of wraparound support she’s putting in place to make sure that that is not an outcome of what she is doing today.

I want to address the question around Māori on the jobseeker benefit and other benefits. Yes, they are disproportionately affected. That is also why, in terms of the percentage of programmes that we have Māori participating in, they are also significantly higher: case management, 42.5 percent; Flexi-wage 33, Mana in Mahi 31; He Poutama Rangatahi 75. That is also why I would say our $93 million investment in sole parents—a large proportion are Māori. We want to support sole parents into work; that’s why we’re investing in it.

I have just a few questions on different topics. How much money has she saved up to date on her cuts to accommodation supplements for people who have boarders?

I’m also interested to know, with the savings that she’s producing through the use of automated decision-making and the use of mandatory reviews: would she be able to confirm that no supported living payment or other main benefits have been wrongfully cut because of mandatory review policies?

Budget 2026 actually increases the accommodation supplement. The maximum rates of accommodation supplement for all areas get an increase of between $10 and $30 per week.

Point of order, Mr Chairperson. Sorry, but if I ask about one specific policy and she talks about a completely different one, how are we supposed to have an actual exchange or debate, where she’s literally speaking of a completely different policy? She knows which policy I’m talking about, but she’s choosing to instead just mention something completely unrelated. We will not have a—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well, the good thing about this question/answer: you’re always in a position to answer the question again, and continue to ask it.

Is the Minister aware that she just quoted an entirely different policy, and I was simply asking: how much money has she saved through the cuts to the accommodation supplement for people who have boarders? That is completely unrelated to the increase in accommodation supplement for a completely different group.

I understood that this Estimates was about Budget 2026. In Budget 2026, we have increased the accommodation supplement by $10 to $30 per week.

All right. Does she think it is fair to cut the accommodation supplement for low-income homeowners while she herself is claiming $50,000-plus in subsidies that she is receiving directly from taxpayers?

Were the winter energy payment cuts budgeted for in this Budget, and, if so, how much? Further to that, how long did the average pensioner or veteran who lost their winter energy payment have to go without money to pay for their energy bill?

There were no cuts to winter energy payments in Budget 2026. The member is traversing an issue that has come into play because of modernisation legislation. I have apologised to those superannuitants who had their winter energy payment reduced when they should not. Within less than three days of me being aware of it, all of those payments had been returned.

Will she answer my question and confirm whether any main benefits were wrongfully cut through the use of mandatory reviews?

Mr Chair, thank you. Following the debacle with winter energy payments, does the Minister accept that one of my colleagues—Ingrid Leary—raised this very issue during the committee stage and that she failed to take it into account; it was a mistake to put this particular piece of legislation through under urgency; and, in fact, this Parliament has let the public down by using a process where she did not answer, address, or take seriously those issues which were raised in an urgent situation and could have well not been raised at all?

Why is she not answering my question as to whether main benefits were wrongfully cut through the use of mandatory reviews, and why will she not answer my question as to whether it is fair to cut the accommodation supplement to produce savings from low-income homeowners while Ministers are able to take tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer subsidies each year for accommodation that they already own?

When were staff at the Ministry of Social Development first alerted to winter energy payments being wrongfully cut—and then being rectified in this financial year and, therefore, out of this Budget? I have some questions which are now overdue, and I want to know what was the total number of people receiving superannuation and any other forms of support that were cut. Have any winter energy payments been mistakenly cancelled for people who were entitled to them and were receiving them, and, if so, how many of those occurred?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to return to the issue of automated decision-making because there was a regulatory impact statement that went on the Table during the committee of the whole House stage which had large parts of it blocked out. One of those parts that was blocked out was about what the problem was that the Minister fixed in that piece of legislation, and what I’d like to know is whether the Minister is prepared to tell us what the problem was.

It was actually blocked out because it was seen as legally privileged. My concern was that automated decision-making may well have been going on without that kind of legal licence and I wondered whether that was the risk, but that was only guessing. I could only guess, because the problem that we were apparently fixing in urgency was blocked out. Can the Minister tell me—and she’s perfectly entitled to do so—what the problem was that we were fixing when we brought in an automated system when, in fact, there are risks associated with that, and recorded overseas, which are quite significant?

After that process, I had people contact me who were experts in this area who were particularly concerned with that sort of use of automation in our social welfare system, and I’d like that answer for them. Thank you.

I accept that there is significant interest in the issues that occurred with the winter energy payment.

In terms of the detailed questions that the member asked about time frames and quantity, a review is under way with the Ministry of Social Development, and so I will provide answers to all of that when I have it. I think that that is a better option than me putting some information on the table that with greater investigation might be deemed to not be accurate. I do want to reassure the House that automated decision making was not the problem with the winter energy payment. As I’ve explained in the House—

Helen White: It has nothing to do with the winter energy payment.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Uh, yes, it was.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, it wasn’t. As I’ve said in the House—

Ricardo Menéndez March: The reviews are triggered through ADM.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, if—[sits down]

I appreciate that the Minister is undertaking a review. However, she says that all of the payments have been made, so surely they have that information, and therefore, my questions, that are now overdue, could be answered. Further to that, I also ask the Minister: have any disability allowance recipients had their winter energy payment stopped without a request to do so, and how many did that occur for?

Can the Minister confirm that the winter energy payments were cut through the process of confirming your circumstances, which in and of itself is triggered by the mandatory review policy, which is also triggered through the use of automated decision making?

I’m happy to answer the question if members would like it; if they interrupt, then I’ll just sit down again. In terms of the winter energy payment, there is no eligibility requirement for superannuitants around the winter energy payment, unlike others. The issue only relates to superannuitants, where there is no requirement—no means or asset testing, no other requirements around eligibility for the winter energy payment. The issue was a policy oversight. The oversight was then reflected in the legislation; the legislation was then put forward into the automated decision making, the IT solution, which was where the mistake occurred right at the start, as a policy error. It was not an automated decision making error; it was a policy error.

I also have questions around the previous member from Labour—automated decision making. Budget 2026 provides $9.28 million operating, and $2.64 million capital for automated decision making. How much of the $11.92 million allocated to automated decision making will be spent independently testing for bias against Māori? Were Māori data sovereignty experts, iwi, or Māori benefit advocates involved in designing the Ministry for Social Development automated decision making standard? If so, who were they? Will the Minister guarantee that an automated system will never impose a sanction, suspend income, decline hardship assistance, or create a debt without meaningful human review? Why does the Vote fund the expansion of automated decision making, but contain no specific published performance measure for Māori equity? This is the last one to the Minister: who is accountable when an automated decision is technically consistent with a rule, but fails to understand the reality of a whānau Māori?

The automated decision making standard was introduced in 2022, and the Social Security (Modernisation) Amendment Act strengthened it, to take into consideration issues like the member has just raised. so that the statutory requirement now is that it must consider bias and discrimination, legal and policy considerations, fraud considerations, transparency, human oversight, and compliance and assurance.

If the Minister is refusing to outline the policy problem that this bill was trying to address, why did she need to push it through urgency?

I have asked the question a number of times, including in committee stage, about what was going on with the automated decision making legislation, in terms of its urgency and its policy problem. It’s a seriously Orwellian issue, when I look at a piece of legislation, and I look at the regulatory impact statement (RIS), and it says, “What is the problem that we are trying to fix?” And then it is all blanked out. I do not think that that is democracy. I would like to know what the problem was that the Minister was fixing under urgency. It is a perfectly plain thing for me to try and understand. There have obviously been issues with that piece of legislation, and it’s a serious issue of policy, and I would like the Minister to tell me what it was that was the problem we were trying to fix. It’s not brain surgery. I’d like an answer.

I have questions to the Minister about kaupapa Māori delivery, and Te Tiriti, especially around the $48.38 million sought through Vote Social Development. How much is contracted directly to Māori providers, and what percentage is that of the Vote? What binding Māori equity targets apply to this Vote? How does the Minister define success for Māori: fewer benefit recipients, or greater mana motuhake, secure housing, adequate income, and sustained employment? Why does the Vote not require the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to report systematically on whether each major appropriation is reducing inequities between Māori and non-Māori? And the last one on this section: will the Minister commit to co-designing MSD services and employment programmes with Māori, including devolving resources and decision making to Māori organisations with established relationships of trust?

Is it correct that her cuts to the accommodation supplement for low-income homeowners will be primarily borne by families with children? Why is she choosing to cut the accommodation supplement for thousands of low-income families?

I wonder if I could ask the Minister about the winter energy payment situation, and I know that she has said that it has been remediated. I understand the issue arose through policy perhaps not finding its way into the legislation that was passed under Budget urgency. Could she explain how it is that the payments were made without the legislative fix, seeing as it was a legislative error that led to the failure of the payments. How is it that the Government can make those payments, which weren’t authorised by the Budget, without amending the legislation?

I have been advised by the whips that my time allocation is nearly at its end, but I know that there is a lot of interest in that. In terms of the issue, it is the review that was required. It was a review of circumstances. It was not authorisation—authorising or not the winter energy payment. There is no legal requirement in terms of reimbursing people that had payments taken away that they shouldn’t have.

I acknowledge that the Minister has very little time, so hopefully this will only require a yes or no answer. Where there any main benefits wrongfully cut through the use of the “Confirming your Circumstances” policies triggered by mandatory reviews?

No.

Further to the question from my colleague: it’s not required to make reimbursement, but was reimbursement made, for the winter energy payments?

Hon Louise Upston: I’ve already said that.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: They were?

Hon Louise Upston: Yeah.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: They weren’t required by a law change to be able to make those reimbursements. I did ask the question about whether anybody with the disability allowance had their winter energy payments removed. In addition to that, is superannuitants who might also be receiving further disability allowances being impacted in that way.

They’re two completely separate issues. Where the issue has occurred is with superannuitants where there was no requirement around winter energy payment and their eligibility. As I’ve said, there will be a review; there will be more information available. I’m limited in my time now, so I’m not going to answer any further questions on that.

Would the review be able to include the process that we went through in this House with regard to that matter, where we raised that issue and through the net that is supposed to work—the safety net that is that committee process—we were supposed to be able to get answers, and yet those answers didn’t come. Would we be able to go that far to look at what we got wrong? Because after all, we have New Zealanders who really needed to stay warm this winter who were put at risk, and who knows what the consequences were for some of them because we didn’t pick up the alarm bell when it went off in this House. Is that possible? That really would require a yes or no answer. The Minister, I think, does have time to do that.

If she’s not going to, I would like to return to the issue of the change in the safety net that we provide to our younger people who are unemployed. I do understand that the Minister hasn’t got much time left, so I’m going to say what I need to say about that, given that the Labour Party still has quite a lot of time.

What I want to say is that we have a situation where, in the Social Services and Community Committee—which I lead for Labour—we have seen an absolute increase in unemployment in that particular group; but we also have a group which are now, as I understand it, put in a position where, if they are to receive any kind of support, it is because they are going to be in training, and that training is not without cost. In fact, that’s the nature of what we’re doing to training beyond school now. Everything has a charge attached, and so this group are in a situation where, if they’re going to receive any kind of financial support, it’s going to be going into training.

Now, there’s training and there’s training. Some of that training is great. I’d love to see people in it, but they have to be in the mindset and in the physical capacity to do that training. What, in fact, they’re being encouraged to do, from what I can see, is pick up a loan and do training when they’re actually not necessarily ready for it. What they’re ready for is a job. They want a job, and, actually, the best training in the world, I think, is that early work where you get in and you get a job and you get started.

My understanding of this policy is that it actually hurts that group—that group that just needs to get working. Because this Government has tanked this economy, there just isn’t the work for that group. Our stats tell us that people in that age group are the ones who always fall into that situation of being the least likely to get work. We know that because the stats are through the roof. We talk and celebrate these rates of unemployment, which might hover around 5 or 6 percent, but the rates for that group are through the roof. We are talking 20 to 25 percent, and they get worse if you’re Māori.

Those particular groups are the ones who are not able to find work, and their only pathway now into it is, actually, through going and getting into some sort of training, which they might not be ready for, and all it’s doing is racking up debt. I always think it’s kind of weird that we encourage young people to get a whole lot of debt when they’ve never paid back a penny. They have no idea how hard it is to pay that debt back, and that’s what they end up doing. We encourage, as a society, that group to go into some sort of training that they’re not ready for just so they can receive support. We do it, and we basically say that it’s their problem if they can’t get a job, when, in fact, there are no jobs for that group.

Now, I meet other groups impacted like this. When unemployment hits our economy, I meet other groups. It’s not just youth; it’s also often migrant groups who can’t get the work because they don’t have the contacts, and I see some things that work. One of the things I saw that worked this time in the Social Services and Community Committee was the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs, a fantastic organisation getting people employment. But when I asked them, “How do people approach you and get jobs?”, guess what! You have to be in the know. You have to actually know it exists to get into that situation. Again, the same kids, the ones that are disconnected, the ones that haven’t got the family contacts, the ones that are poor, they’re the ones who are being impacted here, and the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s answer to this is, “We’ll put it all back on the parents.” Well, guess what! The parents don’t have any money, either. Actually, the rates that we’re cutting off are too low for that group. They are low rates. I would challenge the Minister to try and live off that kind of money. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I’d just say that, obviously, the Minister for Social Development and Employment is at something of a disadvantage where her colleagues before her have, let’s say, misappropriated her time. It doesn’t really represent an opportunity for free shots. What it does represent is to make sure there is some context to any long or shorter statements you may make that do relate to the current spending plans. A wise speaker would reasonably often refer back to that.

Mindful that the Minister for Social Development and Employment has little time remaining, and so do we, so these are yes or no questions if she would like to give succinct answers. Was there a policy problem that the modernisation bill was trying to address—yes or no? And will she commit to 18- to 19-year-olds with health conditions, injuries, or disabilities that their health conditions, injuries, and disabilities will not get worse once their benefit gets cut?

Mr Chair, I do just have a few questions around seniors in hardship given we’ve been talking about the cuts to superannuitants’ winter energy payments. What in this Budget is there to address hardship that seniors are increasingly enduring? What advice did she get about increasing poverty among seniors and how this Budget could respond to it?

Last week, we had the release of the first ever Older Person’s Poverty Monitor 2026 report, which showed that 25,000 older people are living without the essentials. Almost 12 percent, or 102,000 older people, are living in income poverty after housing costs; 25,000 people are experiencing material hardship, living without the essentials needed for a decent living standard; over 50,000 older people rely on support for housing costs through the accommodation supplement; and 76,000 special needs grants were provided to those aged over 65 years in the 2025 calendar year so that they could meet their basic needs.

My question to the Minister for Social Development and Employment is: what, in this Budget, is there to address the hardship that seniors are increasingly enduring?

In Budget 2026, for the first time ever, Food Secure Communities has baseline funding of $8 million, and as I said before, the accommodation supplement has increased between $10 and $30 a week.

Does she think that there is adequate funding in this year’s Budget for food security when we have findings from 35 food rescues across the country that are worried about closing in the next six months due to the rising costs and lack of funding? Also, the Salvation Army says that demand is up 50 percent and that this hasn’t improved since COVID, so why did she not secure funding for food banks beyond that of June next year? Also, the sector has been calling for a strategic approach to food security; is there any funding in Budget 2026 for this, and, if not, why not?

As I said, first time ever baseline funding of $8 million for Food Secure Communities—first time ever.

Thank you. Just going back to an earlier question: can the Minister for Social Development and Employment confirm that there were no incidents where the mandatory review policy meant that someone on a supported living payment or another main benefit sent information but case managers were not able to get to it in time and it resulted in someone’s benefit being suspended? Can she confirm that there were no incidents in which a main benefit was cancelled due to case managers not being able to get to the paperwork that the beneficiary sent as part of the mandatory review policy, resulting in the suspension of main benefits?

I can confirm that there were delays in processing. The reason for this is that the expectation was that more of the change in circumstances would have been completed online rather than paper based.

Did any of those delays result in the suspension of main benefits?

They were delays. They’re not policy changes.

But did it result in any of them being cut?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Again, members, and including the Minister for Social Development and Employment, just so your initial statements are caught, just give me the opportunity to introduce you to the committee.

Did those delays in processing result in any benefits being cut?

Oh, look at the Minister for Social Development and Employment pretending like she has no time left to be able to answer that really important question. Did those delays result in any benefits being cut?

Possibly, and, for the last time, I have no more time. I’m not speaking, all right? I don’t want to upset anyone. We’ve tried to improve this process, and the Labour Party didn’t agree.

Point of order. Just seeking your guidance: is there any way in which we can seek leave to give the Minister for Social Development and Employment a bit more time? I seek leave to grant the Minister for Social Development and Employment a minute.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just hold on. I’ll just take some advice on this from my very learned Clerk.

This is not going off anyone’s time, you’ll be pleased to know. All right, the situation is that, actually, the Minister is not allocated time; the National Party are allocated time. I understand there are 37 minutes left for the National Party at this stage. It’s up to the National Party whips how that time is allocated, however, members can continue to make statements or ask questions. At this stage, the Minister is in the chair until 4 o’clock.

When the Minister says “possibly” to main benefits being cut as a result of managerial policy, can she confirm she has made any attempt at actually checking whether that was the case or not, considering this issue has been in the news quite a bit over the past few weeks?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: There’s time, the whips just aren’t giving it.

We have an allocation; I’m not going to take time off following Ministers where there are Energy, Resources, Health, and Housing.

Point of order. I seek leave to grant 15 seconds of my time to the Minister so she can answer with yes or no answers, in case she needs to give brief answers.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): If you were going to do that, you would actually need to have a time number on that.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Fifteen seconds to give yes or no answers to simple questions.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought for the Green Party to allocate 15 seconds of their time in this debate to the National Party Minister. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Hon Louise Upston: Doesn’t mean I’m going to use it.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: When she said “possibly” to my question in relation to main benefits being suspended as a result of processing delays, has she made any efforts or sought advice from officials to clarify this?

I said there’s a review under way. I appreciate there is lots of interest in this. There is a review under way—I have said that. If members have questions, please put them into written parliamentary questions; I can give you full answers. I can’t do that here.

Does the review include the cancellation of main benefits?

Further to that, does the review include the cancellation of main benefits, or is it only of superannuitants when she said earlier that this only applies to those receiving superannuation?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): It appears that this allocation has come to an end. The Minister is not answering. There appear to be no further questions or comments. The Minister of Health is the next Minister.

Committee of the whole House—Estimates Debate

Health

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, the Minister’s time in the chair has come to an end, as you see. We now have the Minister of Health. The Minister is available to speak on that portfolio from 4 p.m. until 5 p.m. I do note that the chairperson of the Health Committee is not here, however, one would expect that he will be here very shortly, in which case, he can speak to his portfolio—unless another member here was going to speak to that? There appears not to be. We’ll now go to questions in relation to that.