Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill. Members, we now come to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 8, “Amendments to Social Security Act 2018”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

I’ve got a number of questions. Some are quite broad, some are very specific to the clause. But I’m going to start with a broader question for the Minister that is relevant given the debate and the number of times that child poverty reduction and child poverty in general has been brought into the debate with respect to the implications that this particular bill may have on child poverty.

Given we don’t have much time to scrutinise it, the actual supplementary analysis report, Indexing Main Benefits to Inflation, is really important to refer to when discussing the bill. The areas that I’m particularly concerned about are the paragraphs of 30, 31, 32, that talk about the preliminary modelling and the likely impacts that this change, from indexing benefits to wage growth to inflation, will have on child poverty in this country. It makes really clear that in the forecast period, we could be looking at an estimated increase of 7,000 children under the AHC50 poverty measure, and an estimated increase of 7,000 children under the BHC50 poverty measure. The fact that we have a bill where the advice is telling us that this will increase child poverty in New Zealand is of course of concern to us on this side of the House, and I think it should be of concern to the Minister as well.

What I want to know from the Minister is whether or not there are any legal ramifications for this bill in light of the legislation on child poverty reduction and the targets that have been set, given that the advice clearly states that, actually, this bill is going to increase child poverty in Aotearoa. Now, we all signed up here to the child poverty reduction legislation, and therefore I would think that any Government has a commitment to ensure their policies across Government are constructive with respect to reducing child poverty. If we were to receive advice on a bill that said it will actually increase child poverty, then I’m worried that, actually, it is running counter to other legislation that we have already put in place. So I’d like to know from the Minister whether or not there are legal ramifications for this bill, given the implications for child poverty reduction targets.

Also, I have some questions for the Minister around how the determination is being made for the inflation measure and also wage growth measure. There is a paragraph in this particular supplementary analysis report that says we should have got the official figures that will determine how this is going to be set, because we don’t know what the difference is going to be at this stage between the general adjustment on 1 April. In this report, it says, “we [will not] know for certain until Statistics New Zealand releases the official figures on 24 January 2024 for CPI”—we know what those are—“and 7 February 2024 for net average wage.” What is net average wage, how has that been determined, and what can we expect in terms of the difference between the Consumers Price Index and wage growth so that we can actually see for ourselves how much worse or better off, potentially, in this first year beneficiaries might be?

I’ve got lots more questions, particularly about the long-term impacts of this legislation on child poverty and the disproportionate impact that it has on groups, but I’d like to start with that first one being around the legal ramifications for knowingly making a change through legislation that will take us backwards and increase child poverty in this country. Then, secondly, I need to understand how the Minister has determined net average wage. We can’t find anything from 7 February 2024 when we were looking for that number online from Statistics New Zealand, so where is that and what is that?

Madam Chair, I was just hoping that the Minister might get up and answer those two questions from my colleague. My contribution is actually to extend out the second set of those questions, which is a very specific set of questions around the calculation and the methodology. So just to work our way through that, obviously the change that’s being made—proposed by the Government, which clearly, on this side of the House, we do not support—is to return to the adjustment via the Consumers Price Index (CPI). So just so we’ve got everything really clear on the table, my first question is: is that CPI as calculated by Statistics New Zealand? I know that there is a clause, potentially, here in the bill for that to be changed to another measure as indicated by the Government Statistician if CPI were not to exist. But I want to be really clear that it is CPI as defined by Statistics New Zealand, and to be really clear on what date CPI is being used for each year.

Because what has traditionally happened is we’ve tended to use perhaps a December annual number or the December quarter number. This is extremely important because it does dictate where those on the lowest incomes in New Zealand are going to find themselves when this change goes through. The Minister has, in the House, stood up and told us that they will be better off this year. We know they won’t be better off in the future—in fact, they’ll be demonstrably far worse off in the future—but we can’t make those calculations accurately unless we have an understanding (a) that it is CPI, (b) what period of time that is for, and then we move to the ability to make an accurate comparison.

Now, building on what my colleague Carmel Sepuloni said, my understanding is that the figure that was being used with the change that our previous Government made was a figure on, net of tax and ACC earner levies, the average ordinary time weekly earnings. That was the figure. Now, the issue that my colleague Carmel Sepuloni has raised is in the supplementary analysis report (SAR), it mentions that we would find out on 7 February what the net average wage increase was.

So my questions for the Minister here are: can she please clarify for the House that what I have said is correct—that the calculation that has been used for the last few years by the previous Government is this one of, net of tax and ACC earner levy, the average ordinary time weekly earnings? If that’s true, what is that figure now, in turn? So we can make that direct comparison between the CPI and what we have previously used. Then, if it’s not, what is being used here?

I do suspect—and I’m not particularly having a go at the Minister about this particular issue because it’s actually quite complicated—what’s in the SAR might not be exactly right. Because what it does is it uses the term “net average wage growth” as the comparator with what CPI is. I don’t actually think that’s the calculation that we’ve been using up to now because it misses out this question of being net of tax and the ACC earner levy.

This is important. I know it sounds like a matter of detail, but that’s what the committee of the whole House stage is for: to be able to identify this. Because we have a table on page 4 of the supplementary—well, it’s actually called the “regulatory impact statement” but it’s actually a supplementary analysis report, which would purport that in the year to April 2024, CPI was projected to be 5.13 percent. It actually didn’t turn out to be that; it turned out to be 4.7 and then a net average wage growth figure of 4.74 percent. Now, if that had been the case, we’re right at the margins of the difference. Then, of course, we see the projections for the later years where inflation comes down. Bear in mind that’s a goal of the Government—to bring inflation down—and so therefore wage growth significantly outstrips CPI in those later years.

But, you know, that’s the political argument which we’ve been hearing in the first two readings. I now want us to get into the technical side of this so that all New Zealanders are absolutely clear about the comparison here and the position that will leave people in. So I note for the Minister she may need to get some advice on this, but it is a very important matter and I would appreciate her answers to those questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I want to address the member the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s question first, around the impact on child poverty. Obviously, it’s been a subject of earlier readings in this debate, and I want to be very clear about the fact that our Government is absolutely committed to continuing reductions in child poverty. When you look at individual advice on a piece of legislation, it is just that; it doesn’t take into account the broader commitments that we have already made and that we will deliver on in this coalition Government around child poverty. So if you look at our work around the cost of living crisis, that will have a direct impact; addressing issues around housing will have a direct impact. Actually, the thing that will have the biggest impact is reducing the number of children growing up in benefit-dependent homes, because 60 percent of them currently grow up in benefit-dependent homes.

I wanted to just confirm for the member that in terms of our Government’s focus on child poverty, while the statements are related to very narrowly just this piece of legislation, our Government is committed to reducing child poverty, and the other measures that we are working on—which include things like income tax relief and the tax credits for working households—will have an impact on child poverty.

This is a very narrow bill, and the change isn’t a significant one in terms of how this practice has been delivered in the past. So I do want to just indicate, in answer to the Hon Grant Robertson, that in terms of the way the calculation is worked for the Consumers Price Index (CPI) and wages, there is no change—there is no change from how Governments previously have calculated it. The time frames, as per previous Governments: CPI is taken from 31 December of the year previous, and at 7 February the date of the wage rate was 5.3 percent, and that’s publicly on record.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just wanted to pick up on the previous comments in relationship to the impact of child poverty in relation to this bill, because I hear the Minister comment that there’s other commitments, but can we just get clarification about the impacts of this bill?

Will this bill worsen child poverty? I think that’s a pretty simple question, right? I know that I can’t demand a yes/no answer, but I would like an answer in relationship directly to the impacts of this bill. Further to that, I was wondering whether a child impact assessment had been done in relation to this bill, and, if so, can she provide us with details of what that had produced? Because that is an important tool that we have, to actually assess the impacts of policy and legislation on children. So wanted to get a sense whether there had been one made as part of that and what it resulted in. If not, I guess I’m just concerned as to why that would have not happened, considering that there’s already been acknowledgements of the impact of children because of this policy.

The other thing that I wanted to pick up is that during the first and second reading speeches from the Minister, she talked about how this bill—and part of the intent of this bill—was to get people into employment. I just want to get the Minister to help us draw the causation around that, because the lower benefit increases—is there any evidence that she got around how lower benefit increases would lead to better employment outcomes? Because, so far, I haven’t seen any evidence around this presented by the Minister, and I wanted to get a sense around those that come in.

To the Chair, I’m mindful that we didn’t have a select committee process and this is why some of those questions are being asked right now, which we would have had the chance to unpack from officials or the Minister herself during the select committee process—and from beneficiaries themselves. So, to recap so far, it’s whether this bill will worsen child poverty; whether a child impact assessment had been done; any research about lower benefit increases leading to better employment outcomes.

The other thing that I wanted to understand is whether she had done any analysis around, for example, whether lower benefit increases would lead to a higher demand on advances and hardship grants, and what are the costs that would create. So we know that hardship grants are really high at the moment. The need for them is at record levels, and one of the ways that we can mitigate the pressure on front-line staff would be by increasing baseline benefits so that people don’t fall behind that need those hardship grants. But if we’re increasing benefits in the long term at a lower rate, does she expect there to be additional costs being incurred in the Ministry of Social Development in the delivery of hardship grants? Because then it seems to me like the cost savings that she’s making with benefit increases could be passed on to the delivery of advances and hardship grants. Those have flow-on impacts as well, both in terms of the debt that those beneficiaries incur and also the weekly repayment that they have to make to those agencies.

If she hadn’t done that projection and assessment around the impact on hardship grants and advances, how can she be confident that the cost savings she’s projected and hoping to make will be accurate? Because that’s, I guess, another consideration in terms of what’s been presented here and then how the system is in reality. Because it may be narrow in terms of the number of words in the piece of this legislation, but the flow-on effects—and we know that because the welfare system is so complex that the flow-on effects of even making small changes to the to benefit levels are huge. So that’s why I’m asking about advances and hardship grants. Keen to get answers to those questions—I know that they’re quite broad-ranging—and if those questions are not addressed, I’ll just try to get them addressed later down in the debate. Thank you.

I don’t intend to repeat answers to questions that I’ve already delivered in the House, so I’ll move on to the questions around employment.

So one of the things that the member may well be aware of is, you know, there has primarily been a gap between those receiving welfare payments and those who are on, for example, a minimum wage. When that gap is too narrow, the incentives for people to move off welfare into work reduce. Previously it’s been the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, for example, that provide that advice. So the first issue is there is absolutely a link between benefit rates and incentives for people to move off welfare and into work, which is why when we talk about one of the intentions of the bill—about putting the welfare system on to a more sustainable footing—that is absolutely it.

So what we do know, and I note members on our side of the House have referred to welfare numbers. To be blunt, I’m shocked and horrified at the recent Taylor Fry report that indicated some of the average lengths expected for people currently on welfare. That is a direct result of welfare dependency, and I’m not willing to tolerate that. A young person under the age of 20 who comes on to welfare is expected to spend, on average, 24 years. So members opposite may have a different view about our side’s motivation to support people into jobs, but I’m really clear about it. That is a part of this legislation—it is a minor one.

To come to the member’s second question around hardship grants, it’s really important for those watching this debate to understand our Government’s focus on the cost of living. We don’t expect that will be something that is solved in five years or 10 years. That is a matter of urgency. So in terms of dealing with the cost of living crisis—and, yes, hardship grants have been going up—we have to deal with the cost of living crisis, and that will have a direct impact on hardship grants, as will supporting people into employment.

My colleague Rima Nakhle earlier referred to a gentleman that we met in Takanini. For him, working two hours a day is potentially sustainable for him. So when we are talking about people being in employment, it is also recognising that not everyone will be able to be in work full time. So I don’t want any member in this House misrepresenting the perspectives of the coalition Government in terms of this. So that answers those two questions. Again, Madam Chair, I don’t anticipate repeating answers to things I’ve already answered.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following on those answers. So she talked a bit about—I think I heard correctly—the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment advice in relationship to that gap between benefits and the minimum wage. Can the Minister provide further details? Again, we could have probably gotten those papers at a select committee stage to evaluate them in detail. But can the Minister provide more details about that individual piece of advice, actually, for example, being based on research around the gap between benefits and minimum wage contributing to employment outcomes and whether widening that gap actually contributes to better employment outcomes and whether that advice was also formed out of the experiences of people receiving income support, as well, who could provide lived experience feedback around whether that gap actually contributes to—and I guess I draw a line around not just employment but good employment, right? Because we know that there’s such a thing, and the Ministry of Social Development has provided research around how people, if they don’t enter employment that is well matched, can go back on to a benefit, and so we can end up with this, like, feedback loop of people going into employment and back on to a benefit, because there’s not good enough work at matching people into adequate and good employment as well. So I’m just wanting to seek clarification, because my question was around research, less so advice. And while I recognise officials do their best in providing advice, I do draw a line around when research is being used, as opposed to just, I guess, ideological assumptions around whether that gap actually contributes to employment outcomes.

One of my questions that wasn’t addressed altogether was around whether a child impact assessment had been done. Again, I’m really, really curious to see whether those tools are being utilised, because it is a critical tool that is used in relationship to how children will be impacted by pieces of policy and legislation. And if there was a child impact assessment being done, I’m keen to get a sense of what that told us. And if not, I’m really concerned about why that wouldn’t be used as a tool, because it’s not—yes, it’s the child poverty impacts that have been talked about that, but there’s also other impacts that it could have on children, right? I mean, we know children living in poverty and increased poverty also have high risk of experiencing poor health outcomes, for example, and that is captured in other elements, like a child impact assessment, rather than just simply child poverty figures and kind of just treating them as stats.

The other thing that she mentioned that I’m keen to unpack and have addressed is she spoke about the average length that people spend on a benefit. I know she, kind of, keeps citing this report around some of those outcomes that people on the benefit experience. One of those was low incomes. But I guess my question is: well, isn’t it the case then that people experience poor outcomes and lower incomes because those have been set by Governments, including by setting lower increases to benefits? So I guess my question is: isn’t she contributing to the poor outcomes in that report that she’s talking about by setting lower increases to benefits? Because there seems to be a contradiction between the report she keeps citing and, then, what she’s doing, which is contributing to lower incomes, because this bill, as far as I’m aware and in relationship to what Part 1 does in terms of the indexation, doesn’t address employment outcomes at all, explicitly, or there’s no research here that would back this up. So that’s why I’m really keen to unpack the recent report that she keeps citing.

Then going back to the question I had around the costs of hardship grants and advances, this was more about fiscal implications, right? And why I’m fixating on this is because several members of the Government, including the Minister, have talked about that balanced approach in our finances, but, again, when we have cost savings because of lower increases to benefits, those costs can be passed on elsewhere. And if she cannot outline what those projected additional costs will be, then what is the purpose of this exercise? I think it’s kind of not good enough to just say, “Well, look, we’ll deal with it later, and we’ll address it in other parts.” But we’re talking about the impacts that this specific piece of legislation will have and other flow-on effects, such as hardship grants and advances. And I don’t feel like that has been addressed altogether.

I asked a question earlier about the rate of average wage growth, which was then followed up by the Hon Grant Robertson. And the way I heard it—and forgive me if I’m wrong, Minister—was that it will be set at, or it is, 5.3 percent versus the Consumers Price Index (CPI), which is 4.7 percent. If the general adjustment is, therefore, going to take place with those numbers in mind, I just want to make the point, then, that the supplementary analysis report modelling is not right, because it has been done at a time where, actually, there was potentially going to be a window where, this year, the CPI would marginally outstrip wage growth. But given the numbers that the Minister has said, it sounds like that is not the case. What concerns me about that is then that means the negative impact on beneficiaries kicks in immediately as opposed to from next year. So I need to hear from the Minister and get some clarity about whether that is the case. Now, if that is the case and the general adjustments are going to be based on the CPI figure of 4.7, which falls below average wage growth as I heard it, then that must mean there will be much larger fiscal savings in the forecast period. In the supplementary analysis report, it stated it to be $670 million. I want to know what the updated fiscal savings are going to be, given the figures around average wage growth and CPI, because, effectively, if there are increases in fiscal savings, then that means there is less money that would have potentially gone to those on benefit. And I’m also concerned that means there may be an increase in the number of children, compared to what is in the supplementary analysis report, who will experience poverty because of this change.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To answer the member from the Greens, Ricardo Menéndez March, no child assessment was done on this legislation. In terms of answering the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s question, there’s been no different process followed than previously. So in terms of the annual general adjustment, it will follow the same process as it has previously. And the supplementary papers were prepared earlier, and we are now having legislation that we committed to in the election where we would change the annual increases to benefits based on CPI. That is what we are delivering today. It is quite straightforward, and it is a commitment that we—

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order, Madam Chair. I wasn’t asking about a change in process; I was asking about the figures that we have now been presented within the House that we didn’t previously have. We didn’t know the comparison between CPI and wage growth.

Which is what happens usually when the annual general adjustment (AGA) is set, because as the member will know as a previous Minister in terms of the time frames, the AGA work is prepared well in advance of 7 February when those wage figures come out. So fiscal savings or not, the point that I just made to the member was to be very clear about the fact that we made a commitment ahead of the general election that all increases to benefit would be indexed to CPI. That is exactly what we’re doing. It is exactly what’s been done for 31 of the last 35 years. It’s not that difficult to understand what we’re doing. I accept that members might disagree, but we are delivering on an election commitment.

Oh, it’s me? It was me. Thank you very much. I was just making sure I heard the right name. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Look, there was a speech given by my colleague on the Māori Affairs Committee from the Government bench, Minister, that I think I want to pick up on, because I actually authentically believe that there are people on the Government benches, particularly in the new crop, that do understand the importance of upholding dignity and questioning the fact that this legislation proposes to reduce increases across the broad benefit groups that will disproportionately impact on women, Māori, children, disabled people, Pacific people, and so on.

Then I have a look at this—what’s this thing called, the supplementary analysis paper?—and it’s clear that there has not been any current review, evaluation, or research to inform this bill, Minister. So I know that’s what it says in the paper, but I do ask directly, on certain groups: has there been discussion with the incredible work of organisations like Child Poverty Action Group, with any of the former Welfare Expert Advisory Group members?

I feel that you have openly, just in a previous answer, declared that this is simply a general election commitment. Is the Minister, then, saying that this is simply ideology with no basis in evidence or research or evaluation from especially those groups who will be most impacted in a negative way by this bill?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry, I just had to get up quickly because I didn’t see anyone. I was worried we were going to pass Part 1.

But just picking up on the comment around no child impact assessment being done, the Minister never really touched on why. So I’m keen to actually get an understanding on why there was a feeling that there was no need to have a child impact assessment being done, or more analysis or robust analysis, on the impact of lower increases to benefits on children.

Because while we just have the figures around whether this could or wouldn’t increase child poverty, as I mentioned earlier, there’s other impacts just beyond the material, like in terms of health, housing outcomes, etc. How can she be confident that those outcomes won’t be worsened? I know that she talked about employment outcomes, but this is not what the bill is actually doing, right? What this bill is doing is simply reducing increases to benefits. So I’m keen to get a sense of why she didn’t feel it was needed to do more robust analysis on the impact this policy would have on children beyond just a simple figure on child poverty levels, and actually just other outcomes such as health, housing, etc.

I’d really like to get a comment on the passing costs and whether she had done any analysis and, if so, what that is and how she’s going to ensure that people are not just receiving more hardship grants.

Then the other thing that I wanted to get an evaluation for was has she done any thinking of the fact that the way we provide hardship assistance hasn’t been reviewed in quite some time, and if this bill was to lead to a direct increase over time of the need for hardship assistance, whether she thinks that this bill has flow-on effects on, for example, the need to review how hardship assistance is provided to ensure that, for example, we don’t put undue pressure on front-line staff because people have to continuously show exceptional circumstances because the hardship assistance hasn’t been reviewed in quite some time?

So, again, just seeking that in-depth—beyond the surface level conversation we’re having—analysis on the impacts and the ramifications of this bill, because I do dispute the comments from this Minister, as I’ve said, that it is a simple bill. The flow-on effects on any changes to baseline benefits are deep, and it touches on a lot of other supplementary assistance.

The other thing that I wanted to address is: she talked about the gap between wages and benefits, and I know that I talked about and tried to unpack any evidence around and research in relationship to whether she thinks keeping that gap as wide as it is is contributing to employment outcomes. But the other thing that I wanted to unpack from her is whether she thinks that the gap which she will make worse in terms of wages and benefits could contribute to the ethnic and gender pay gap. Because, actually, when that gap is wider, all that we’re doing is actually contributing to wage scarring, and therefore that gap contributes to people then, because of the severe poverty they enter when they lose employment—and we have to remember that people on the benefit are also people who have lost employment, who were previously in work—and if they have such a steep jump between wages and benefits, that poverty that is created as a result of that puts people in a situation where they may feel compelled to take employment that would have paid less than they previously were in, out of sheer survival. That in and of itself, because of the profile of people who are currently on the benefit, can contribute, actually, to the wage gap and ethnic gap.

So I’m interested to know if there was any analysis being done about whether the widening gap between wages and benefits would have an impact on the ethnic and gender wage gap, as well as the issue of wage scarring altogether.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Madam Chair?

The Hon Carmel Sepuloni. Can I just say I’m looking for new material in this debate.

The reason I have to keep asking this question is because it has not been answered. I asked, specifically, now that we have the numbers around what wage growth is going to be versus Consumers Price Index (CPI), how that changes the modelling in the supplementary analysis report indexing to main benefits. It is important because the Minister in charge of this bill, Hon Louise Upston, has said publicly that in the first year they will be better off, and in the long term she has acknowledged that they would get less than what they would do when benefits are indexed to actual wages. So it’s important that she clarifies.

Now, I understand that these figures sometimes come out late and she may not have received them until recently. And it could be that the officials have not had time to update the modelling. It could be that the officials have not had time to revisit what the long-term fiscal savings are going to be for the Government, and then the inverse of that is, of course, how much beneficiaries are going to miss out on. It could be that they haven’t had a chance to update the modelling with respect to child poverty impacts. If that’s the case, then that is what the Minister should tell us here in the House, and we would expect to get that at some point when the ministry have had time to update their figures. But the Minister can’t just answer the question in a way where she’s not actually responding to what I’m asking. I’m asking, now that we have the actual comparative figures of CPI and average wage growth—now that we have those, those are going to determine what the general adjustments are—so what does that do to the modelling in terms of the cost savings for the Government and the implications for child poverty? I think the question is really clear. I’m going to give the Minister a little bit of time to think about that. Maybe the officials want to slip some advice to the Minister.

The other thing is I asked earlier around whether or not there were any ramifications—legal ramifications—on the Government passing a bill that clearly states, “We will have increases in child poverty.”, given we have legislation that enshrines child poverty reduction targets in this House. And I didn’t get a response to that question right at the beginning. I have other questions to ask, but I need to get appropriate responses to the questions that I’m asking, otherwise I’m going to have to keep asking them. And I think that they are fair and reasonable questions. This is our only opportunity to interrogate this bill during committee of the whole House stage, and we want to do justice to the general public by doing that properly.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the debate on this question now close. All those in favour please say Aye, to the contrary No—[Interruption] The votes are taken in silence, please.

Point of order, Madam Chair. Thank you. I just want you to reflect on—several questions hadn’t been addressed. Several members haven’t had the chance to ask a question, and there was that acknowledgment that because of urgency, we didn’t have a select committee process. I’m really, really concerned about the undermining of our democratic processes by nature of cutting this debate short when people actually are asking still substantive questions. And I believe that we’re not being repetitive in the nature of questions that we’re asking. We’re asking for those questions to be addressed and we’re asking about the broad-ranging impact.

Understood, thank you. Continuing to ask the same questions and not getting an answer is not a matter for the Chair. I have been very careful to make sure that the people who have amendments on this debate have had ample time to address them. And I have also kept a very close watch, prior to coming in and while I’ve been here, on the topics that have been addressed. Repeating the questions expecting a different answer is not something I can—

Speaking to the point of order?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this a different point of order?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: So, for example, there were questions—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is it a different—

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: It is. Because I would like to challenge the Chair on the fact that, for example, there were questions around wage scarring, the gender wage gap. Those are not repetitive. So, like, if we’re not going to be allowed to continue having a debate on a bill that impacts thousands and thousands of people, I would like to find a way to recall the Speaker to get this result.

Point of order. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate that you identified that there was potentially the same question being asked again and again, and there’s a debate obviously whether or not that had been answered or not; we believe that it wasn’t answered. But I’d just like to point out that as associate spokesperson for social development for Labour, I did not have the opportunity to speak on this bill. You took a number of calls in terms of the committee stage of this bill, the committee stage which we’re in now, not the first or the second reading—[Interruption] As the committee stage—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We’ll hear a point of order in silence, please.

At the committee stage, I, as the associate spokesperson, did not have the opportunity to speak to this bill. So the Government—you are passing this through urgency, you are bypassing any democratic process through having members of the public being able to submit at select committee, and you’re denying the associate spokesperson for the Opposition the opportunity to speak at the committee stage. I believe that is wrong, and I believe that’s something the Speaker should be alerted to.

💬 Hon Members: Point of order?

Excuse me, I’m going to call these points of order to a close and take some advice on this. However, I would like to say that I did make clear that I was looking for new material and did not get that. So that is why this debate was closed, and I’m just going to take some advice, please.

I am going to continue and put the questions regarding the amendments.

Point of order, Madam Chair. I’ve heard points that have been raised by members. We had a number of speakers and only one was permitted to take any calls. I noticed that Mr Menéndez March has suggested a recall of the Speaker. On behalf of the Opposition, that is what we would like to do. We would like to recall the Speaker. We are moving the recall of the Speaker to raise this concern.

Point of order. We would also like to have reflected that we haven’t had a chance to speak at all. And we would also like to recall the Speaker. As the smallest party, we do make sure that we have something to say at every part of the stage. This is an important, critical bill that has been rushed through and our communities need to know that we’re doing all that we can to make sure their voices are heard.

The question is, That the Speaker be recalled. All those in favour, please say Aye, to the contrary No.

💬 Hon Members: Party vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): My advice is that when there is a question that the Speaker be recalled, that is not a party vote. We can vote, but the convention is that the Speaker be recalled. So we will put that in motion, thank you.

House resumed.

Speaker Recalled