Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill

We come first to the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill, but before we begin, I would like to inform the committee that, at the end of the debate on Part 1 of this bill, an amendment lodged by Arena Williams was not properly dealt with. No question was put on it nor was the amendment ruled out of order at the time. The amendment in question proposes to replace every instance of the word “mandatory” with “automated decision-making system” in new Subpart 3A of Part 6, as inserted by clause 4. I am ruling now that the amendment is out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.

Members, when we were last considering this bill, we were debating Part 2. Once again, the question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Before we continue, I thought I would just make some remarks on Part 2. For those who were following this debate last time we talked about it, this is a page—it’s a page of the bill, this part—and it creates a regulation-making power. So I thought it would be useful to the committee to state that the regulations will be able to be made for two purposes.

The first regulation-making power will allow specified benefits to be added or removed from the list, that will be subject to mandatory reviews. As I noted during the debate on the last part, this power has been carefully created to ensure that primary legislation includes a list of payments that cannot be added to the list via regulation. This means that there are some payments which cannot be subject to mandatory reviews, which, of course, maintains parliamentary sovereignty.

The second regulation-making power will allow for exceptions to the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD) requirement to review specified benefits to be outlined in legislation. As I, again, outlined during the debate on the last part, the kinds of circumstances that are intended to be included are when a client’s in hospital for more than 13 weeks or the client’s in a residential disability care or rest home care, or the client resides in or is present in and cannot reasonably leave an area in respect of which a state of local or national emergency is in force, or if there’s a major system outage that prevents MSD from meeting the review requirements.

This part also provides transitional requirements for arrangements. These outline how clients will be moved on to the new regime of reviews. Clients will generally have their first review 52 weeks after their specified benefit commenced. If they have more than one specified benefit, their first review date will be based on their main benefit’s commencement date or the payment that commenced first, if the client does not receive a main benefit.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to ask about new section 438A and I’d like to ask about subsection (1)(a) of that where you’ve described the right to make regulations and you’ve also gone on in (b) to talk about the prescribed circumstances for an exception. So I want to know, first of all, why the Minister for Social Development and Employment decided not to actually elaborate on the nature of those designations. Why are they so open-ended in this situation? If we’d been to a select committee, it would be very likely that we would have more detail, but I’d like the Minister to explain why that has happened.

I’d also like to ask about the second part of that, the prescribing circumstances, because although the Minister has talked about some of those circumstances, the list is quite eclectic. It doesn’t have a principle attached to it, and so I am concerned. We heard from the Hon Damien O’Connor in the last committee hearing on this, and he talked about how the impact on older people was quite significant, that it was an issue that would probably affect their mental health because it would be so stressful. You will recall he talked about a driver’s licence situation where many of our constituents actually get really distressed by that need to go and sit their driver’s licence, and now people with an accommodation supplement who are elderly are going to have to come in.

So I would like to know from the Minister, rather than her just shaking her head, whether it would be within the scope of this circumstance that the Ministry of Social Development take into account what’s going on for the person in that situation. So either we look at it and see that there is a very low benefit to these things when you’re over 65 and that it’s causing distress as a general class, or maybe it’s the individual themselves where it’s tipping the balance. We often got people on sickness benefits, but I also am interested in the issue about the distress caused to people where there’s very little history of not disclosing information. It might be possible in the regulation to tidy this up, and I’d like to know whether that is possible.

I’d also like to know, in terms of designating the kinds of benefits that we’re talking about here, what happens if the name of the benefit changes. That happens from time to time. The Government says it’s a “helping hand” benefit, for example—they’re very fond of that phrase—and they’ll say it’s a helping hand benefit. Does that suddenly get added to the list or is it something—

Stuart Smith: You think the regulation powers might be handy if the name changes.

HELEN WHITE: Well, this is the job of the Minister to answer the question for the public, who haven’t got that information.

Can the Minister talk about the scope of that regulation in terms of a change like that? Are we going to see—because there will be a lot of people out there who are fearful that this is the creep and that we’ve got a list at the moment of what might be in, but it’s not actually tied down in this way and that by regulation there can be a change. So if there is a new benefit, will that decision be made? And if the name of the benefit now, something similar replaces it with a new name, does the regulation apply in this situation? These are genuine questions. We’ve got a whole lot of New Zealand that are very upset about the fact that they are going to have to pay $100 a week when they’re in a low-income situation because they’ve got a boarder. So it’s very important that they know whether they will be in or out.

So I would like to know—

Tom Rutherford: That’s not this bill.

HELEN WHITE: —and I’m asking the questions on behalf of them, which is what my job is, Mr Smith—my job is to ask those questions. So I would like an answer for the New Zealand public who are worrying tonight that they are going to have to pay $100 a week that they didn’t have to pay before. Where is that scope? Is this it or is it actually going to creep wider than this? Is there going to be like-for-like replacement, or is in fact that list going to grow? And why the Minister has not—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just further to what my colleague Helen White was saying: it’s the stigmatising, in terms of our people at the coalface, that is really, really making us angry on this side, and the punitive nature of this whole bill. That’s why we’re trying to help you, Mr Smith, with our different amendments that we’re putting up. We’re trying to help the Minister for Social Development and Employment, and that’s why I’ve got a suggestion, in terms of “New Part 11 inserted into Schedule 1”, and I’m talking about Part 2, of course. What we’re looking at doing is to help the Minister maybe delete the whole clause, delete new clause 105. This new clause 105 means a benefit can be reviewed after 52 weeks.

My amendment says that we just delete it altogether, but the problem is even if the benefit had been granted long before the bill comes into force—that’s the problem, there’s no give; there’s no concession in terms of our people. They may have been on going through the process. They may be at 32 weeks, 42 weeks, and they’ve already gone through this process, and then all of a sudden they have to be reviewed at 52 weeks. The point is that beneficiaries have to prepare for a review at very, very short notice, and the stress and the pressures on beneficiaries, as we have been constantly saying, are far, far too much, incredibly unfair. So that’s why the amendment has been put up, that we should just delete this clause and actually get the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) back to their core priorities, and that’s getting people into work. That’s where the Government have got no plan—got no plan in terms of getting people back into work.

David MacLeod: Ha, ha! That’s what this is about, Willie.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Check the unemployment rates out there, Mr MacLeod, and you will see your Māori unemployment rates have gone up considerably. That is because there is no plan. Targeted programmes have been abandoned—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Back to the bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, it’s part of my amendment actually, Madam Chair—you might want to read it. This whole clause, I should say, is more about compliance rather than creating meaningful pathways into employment. That’s why I’m saying to the Minister with my amendment that she should consider deleting it altogether. I recommend that she considers deleting the clause so that MSD can concentrate on their core duties of getting people into work, not booting people out into homelessness or on to the side because they don’t have the manpower to actually deal with all the compliance. Rather than burdening people with compliance, can we look at the clause being totally deleted? That amendment is in front of the Minister right now.

I want to bring the committee back to the fact that this is just about regulation-making powers. I’ve specified the two purposes. So this is about making it straightforward. I know members have talked about a whole range of other things that are completely irrelevant to this bill. As I said, in the regulation-making power, this part also includes the transitional arrangements, so clients will have their first review 52 weeks after their specified benefit commenced. I’m not sure what the member was talking about in terms of only having a couple of weeks’ notice.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to pick up on the new Part 11 inserted into Schedule 1. These are the provisions related to the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Act 2025. I’m looking at new clause 105(2)(c). This is where it reads, “the date on which MSD last contacted the beneficiary to confirm whether the information MSD holds regarding the beneficiary’s circumstances is correct.”

Now, I wanted to focus on that last part of the sentence. I had a few questions in relation to how it’s worded because right now the wording is really open, so it just talks about beneficiary circumstances. What I wanted to ask is what set of circumstances the Minister for Social Development and Employment hopes that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) checks in relation to that clause 105. For example, will relationship status be part of what MSD checks in terms of whether the beneficiary’s circumstances are correct? I’m seeing the officials nod—I can’t tell if it’s a confirmation, but I’m looking forward to the Minister answering that. The reason why I ask this is because this piece of legislation was introduced off the back of the changes to how the accommodation supplement is calculated for people who have boarders. In fact, I mean, the rhetoric has been talked about in relation to the implementation of that other bill, but for example, we know that a lot of fraud investigations happen and a large majority of them are in relation to people’s relationship status.

I did want to ask if the Minister would name the set of circumstances that MSD will check in this new clause 105 to see as part of the Schedule, and if relationship is part of that, what else would she see MSD touching. I ask this as well because I take us back to the savings that the Government is making as part of this bill. We know that there’s around $238 million in savings when it comes to benefit or related expenses. I want to know if the Minister has a distributional analysis of where that is coming from, like, for example, which benefits are being targeted as a result of that and which groups are disproportionately likely to be targeted and where these savings are coming from. This relates to the Schedule because, for example, if a beneficiary’s relationship status is part of what is being assessed, we could see solo parents, particularly, being disproportionately affected as a result of this. We know that a lot of solo parents end up being deemed to be in a relationship in the nature of marriage when they’re just starting to reconnect and starting to date people, for example. They may not be in a relationship in the nature of marriage, but MSD considers them to be so. That’s a very common experience in the front line.

I am concerned that the language in clause 105 is left so open when it comes to beneficiary circumstances because it doesn’t give clarity to the person on the benefit as to what MSD has scope for in terms of asking. If I’m a person on the benefit now subjected to the provisions in this bill, I’ll have basically—like, it kind of gives MSD carte blanche in terms of the kind of circumstances they can ask about. To recap, I’m keen to ask: does MSD already have a set of circumstances that they will check up against? If so, what are those? Is relationship status included in that? Then I’m also keen to see if the Minister would provide a breakdown on the types of benefits and groups that will most likely be represented in that $238 million worth of savings in the benefits or related expenses as savings.

Finally, my last question relates to whether, if a beneficiary is deemed to have been overpaid as part of these mandatory reviews, MSD will continue applying debt to the person on the benefit because they’ve been deemed to have been overpaid. Now, if that is the case, does she believe that the provisions in the Schedule in terms of the timings could lead to a reduction in people’s weekly incomes in the long run because of them having that income subtracted from their main benefit on a weekly basis? I just want to clarify that if these mandatory reviews happen and MSD realises they’ve been overpaying people—whether a debt will be automatically established and what repayment levels is MSD expected to set as part of that. But I’m particularly hoping to see a list of the circumstances that MSD will check against in new clause 105, inserted by the Schedule. Thank you very much.

I did go through this in Part 1—the circumstances—it’s all about eligibility and about rate. And just a reminder to the committee that when somebody signs on to a benefit, they commit to identifying and notifying the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) when there is a change of circumstance. So there is already a requirement that they notify MSD of a change of circumstances—anything that affects their eligibility. In this case, in terms of mandatory review, it might be that we find that somebody isn’t receiving all of what they are entitled to, so as a result of their annual review, their payments might go up. But as I say, I’m not going to go into things that are in Part 1. I’ve been clear about that in Part 1. This is a very simple regulation-making power alone.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just preface my comments with a reminder that we have not had the opportunity to go through a select committee process. We’ve only just started on Part 2, and there are some things around Part 2 that are quite problematic, including what I would like to discuss, which is at new section 438A, the regulations, (1)(b), “prescribing circumstances for the exception under … 310E(1) [for] the requirement for [the] MSD to undertake a mandatory review”.

The first question really is around the kind of language that is used which does not give any wiggle room for beneficiaries or for their circumstances—this is all about letting the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) off the requirement. When I look over at what is covered in new section 310B(1), that is “within 52 weeks [upon] the date [in] which the benefit commences;”, and so on. I’m wondering what happens in the transitional arrangements, if there is something where the regulations would speak to that, or are the transitional arrangements all included in the subsequent section? Which could be problematic because we’ve got 52 weeks specified, and in transitional arrangements there may not be 52 weeks. I’m pretty sure my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan is going to be speaking further about that.

The second question I have is in relation to section 310E(1)(b)(i). It says: “definition of disruption, replace ‘that section’ with ‘that section and [then that]’.” Now, this is an example of how clunky this legislation is. It says under new section 310E(1)(b)(i): “there is a disruption to an automated electronic system used for mandatory reviews by MSD of specified benefits; or”. Subclause (2) is not included and I’m wondering why that is not included when there is an “or” already in subclause (1)—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry to interrupt the member. Can you please refer us to the page number you’ve got?

INGRID LEARY: Page six of the bill. So section 310E(1)(b)—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Which is Part 1.

INGRID LEARY: Sorry, in the Schedule under Part 2—

Hon Member: You were referring back to it, though.

INGRID LEARY: I’m referring back to it. In Schedule 2, it is amending section 310E(1)(b)(i), which we have not discussed, in relation to the wording that is being used. And the question that I have is around whether that disruption is technical; is it to do with power cuts; what happens if there is a staffing disruption? But also if I look at the writing, it says (b)(i) “or”—it doesn’t go on to specify prescribed circumstances that apply to the beneficiary. Why not?

And then if we go down to prescribed circumstances, this is incredibly clunky. It says “circumstances in which MSD is not required under this section to undertake a mandatory review that MSD would, but for this section, be required to [undertake]”. I’m kind of keen to know how well the Minister for Social Development and Employment knows the legislation to be able to explain to us why that has not been included when all of those two sections are supposed to be together.

Madam Chair, this is definitely in Part 2. This is around the Schedule 2 amendment, and so it would be good to understand what she thinks that is supposed to capture and why there is only kind of half of the section that all belongs together and all has previously, suddenly is decimated for the purpose of this Schedule; and why have they not just included it in its totality, which would have made more sense?

Thank you, Madam Chair. There are just two points that I want to make related to Part 2, before I get to a couple of questions for the Minister for Social Development and Employment.

One is what this person calls a “voluntary submission” that was sent in just yesterday, and given that we don’t have a select committee process considering this bill as it was being considered under urgency, I did just want to point to a few points that this person makes. This person is disabled and is potentially impacted by this bill. One point that he or she makes—the name is withheld because they’re worried about repercussions if their name is actually out in the public domain—is a concern for new section 438A, inserted by clause 6. I take the point that the Minister makes, that this part is just about regulations; however, the crux of the bill is actually in regulations, which is, firstly, odd for a piece of legislation, given that so much detail wouldn’t be in the body of the primary legislation, but is going to be in regulations. I draw the attention of the committee to 438A(1)(b), which is the “prescribing circumstances for the exception”. I know that we have traversed potential exceptions that might be included in this bill, when we debated Part 1 of the bill; however, the fact that there’s such a lack of detail as to what the exceptions will be is a cause for concern, and it is a cause for concern for this person who has written to me, as well.

They outline, also, the 20-working-day review deadline as absolutely unfair, and they say, “The bill requires clients to initiate a review decision within 20 working days. This time frame is inaccessible to many disabled people living with chronic pain, fatigue, executive dysfunction, trauma, neurological deficit, hospitalisation, or cognitive overload. It fails to account for illness-related time distortion, the difficulty of accessing GPs or support workers, and the need for rest during flareups.” I won’t read the detail of all of the other points that are made by this person, but the unclear review criteria—and I just point to the point that Ricardo Menéndez March made, as well—and the lack of clarity around the detail that goes into this bill is causing a huge amount of concern, particularly for those in disability communities. I would just like to register that with the Minister, who is, of course, also the Minister for Disability Issues.

The question that I have is in the Schedule. I request some clarity from the Minister, because, in reading this, it seems to me that there is retrospectivity in this. Clause 105, in Part 11 inserted into Schedule 1 of the Act, by the Schedule of the bill, and, really, clause 106 as well, both go to outline the fact that the first statutory review date for specified benefit granted and commences before the commencement date. So my reading of the two clauses here seems to be that if a benefit is granted before the date of commencement of this piece of legislation, the mandatory review will then have to take place 52 weeks from when that benefit was granted. So, presumably, if someone is granted a specified benefit now, and the bill comes into effect, in, I think it’s—what?—March 2026, from memory, does that mean that the 52 weeks’ mandatory review period kicks in from now? I’d like to ask the Minister how that’s fair and what the consideration was that went into including retrospectivity into this bill. I think that all 105, 106, and 107 basically apply to that, and I would, as I’ve said, like some clarity from the Minister.

I’m just going to alert members that there is very little new material coming through. There’s quite a lot of repetition and referring to the same clauses in the same part. So I’m looking for new material, please.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I do think it’s important to remind the Government members that we did not have a select committee session to unpack this bill adequately and it is important to note that in the regulations—well, basically, what’s found in the Schedule does actually have a lot of complexities, no matter what the Minister for Social Development and Employment may say that this is a simple bill; it’s a massive expansion of automated decision-making. But one of the things that the Minister just said in answer to my question is she said that all circumstances that would normally be reviewed are a part of that. That makes me believe that relationship status therefore is considered.

What I wanted to ask the Minister, particularly around this, in relation to the answer she gave me, is whether she has accounted for any unintended costs that may arise as a result of the way that the Schedule is worded when it comes to additional pressures that the fraud investigation unit may face as a result of this? So I ask this because, for example, there was some analysis done by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) in the bill that this is helping implement—this is the accommodation supplement one—around how there were, basically, additional costs that would likely be brought too by the nature of more people needing hardship assistance, etc. I’m really concerned that because we only have the regulatory impact statement (RIS) and we don’t have an analysis by MSD, we haven’t gotten clarification as to whether there’s any unintended potential costs arising to how the Schedule is worded.

I’m particularly interested in the fraud investigation unit as to how it relates to the provisions in the regulations, because I can see that if, for example, MSD believes that someone’s circumstances have changed—or are incorrect, sorry—and the beneficiary says they haven’t, and MSD disputes that, an investigation could likely be started. I think this is important because often the people they are investigating are solo parents—this is to do with their relationship status, as I’ve pointed out earlier. But the Minister hasn’t addressed the fact of potential unintended costs that may arise as a result of this, specifically the language and the really broad way that this is written.

The other question I had is—again, because she has just been giving us broad statements and not actually engaged with our questions in depth—I just want to clarify whether, for example, changes in circumstances could be automated and decision making could now be given to the decision to evaluate or to, for example, confirm that the information that MSD holds in relationship to someone’s disability is correct. I think that would be a really problematic thing for automated decision-making to be used for, because already disabled people are facing quite a lot of medicalisation in our welfare system. Because she’s kind of just said, “Look, any circumstances that could affect benefit eligibility are to be considered.” because of the way that the Schedule is written. Am I to take this as someone’s disability and health conditions being part of what automated decision-making could ascertain as to whether MSD holds that correct information? I think that’s really concerning. So some clarity around both the relationship status and people’s disabilities and medical conditions would be really valuable.

And if the Minister genuinely intends for automated decision-making to cover literally everything that could affect someone’s benefit eligibility, as she just outlined in her previous answer, that tells me that the use of automated decision-making is going to be extremely broad. How will MSD, for example, ascertain—as per the language in new Part 11 inserted into Schedule 1, section 105(2)(c)—“confirm whether the information MSD holds regarding the beneficiary’s circumstances is correct.”? How will MSD actually, for example, test that in relation to someone’s health? Because we haven’t seen the algorithm. We haven’t seen the variables that come within the algorithm or the datasets that MSD is using. It’s really hard for us to ascertain how automated decision-making will operate and the information that those people will be able to access.

Finally, will clients be able to access the algorithm, if it changes, that is used to trigger these mandatory reviews? Because clients could access, for example, the files that MSD holds. Often you can request that. But if somebody is subjected to a mandatory review, will a person on the benefit be able to access the data that was used by automated decision-making to make these assessments? That’s not something that—this will, basically, I believe, be covered in the Schedule, but it’s not really covered in the RIS. And because we didn’t have robust analysis from MSD, due to the use of urgency and the lack of select committee, I am really concerned that there’s no clarity about how a client will be able to ascertain that if they’re challenged around the circumstances, how will then a client be able to—[Time expired]

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 6 amending new section 438A to insert new subsection (3) requiring the Governor-General to consider hardship when making specified regulations be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ nine tabled amendments to clause 6 inserting paragraphs (c) into new section 438A where those paragraphs begin with the words “giving effect to”, “to review”, “to disregard”, “considering the views of”, and “disallowing any provision of” are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 amending new section 438A by replacing every instance of the word “benefit” with words beginning with “essential support in the form of the social safety net” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 amending new section 438A by replacing “Governor-General may, by Order in Council” with “Minister in consultation with community advocates” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 amending new section 438A by replacing the heading with words starting with “Broad and unusual regulation-making powers” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 amending new section 438A by deleting all of the words after “the following purposes:” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 amending new section 438A to replace every instance of the word “exception” with “compassionate consideration” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 amending new section 438A to delete every instance of the word “mandatory” is out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 amending new section 438A to replace paragraph (b) with a paragraph regarding a process for fair and just treatment be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 amending new section 438A by inserting paragraph (c) regarding prescribing mandatory considerations of compassion and fairness be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 amending new section 438A by inserting paragraph (c) regarding prescribing circumstances for the exception of beneficiaries be agreed to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 6 amending new section 438A to insert subsection (1A) requiring any regulations to be reviewed no later than four years 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 6 amending new section 438A to insert subsection (1A) providing that any new benefits or kinds of benefits may not be included in any regulations made under that section be agreed to.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 6 amending new section 438A to insert subsection (1A) providing that any regulation shall not introduce new benefits is out of order as being the same in substance as the previous amendment.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 amending new section 438A(1)(a) by inserting the words “where that designation is fair and reasonable to beneficiaries” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 amending new section 438A(1)(b) by replacing “circumstances” with “all of the compassionate considerations that should be given careful weighting by a natural person not AI” be agreed to.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 6 deleting new section 438A(1)(a) is out of order as being contrary to the principles and objects of the bill.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 inserting new section 438A(3), stating that “Nothing in the regulation-making power is intended to confer retrospective or retroactive effect or power.” be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 inserting new section 428A(3) stating that regulations made under the section must not be retrospective or retroactive, or made if there is a chance of retrospectivity, is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 inserting new section 428A(3) stating that regulations made under this section must not contravene any rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or the rights of any child be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 inserting new section 438A(3) providing for regulations to be fair and reasonable, not retrospective, and not matters of policy be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 inserting new section 438A(3) providing for regulations to not contravene the rights of disabled people, children, or vulnerable people be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 inserting new section 438A(3) providing for regulations to not be retrospective and to be independently reviewed every five years be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 inserting new section 438A(3) providing for regulations to not be unfair to beneficiaries or unjust overall be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 inserting new section 438A(3) providing for regulations to not have the effect of materially worsening child poverty indicators or contravening the rights of any child be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 inserting new section 438A(3) providing for regulations to not result in material hardship or a person losing an entitlement they previously had be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 inserting new section 438A(3) providing for regulations to give effect to human rights and Te Tiriti o Waitangi be agreed to.

We now come to the questions on the Schedule. The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Schedule amending new clause 104 of Schedule 1 to replace the words “the date on which the amendment Act comes into force” with “a date determined by Order in Council” be agreed to.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to the Schedule amending new clause 104 of Schedule 1 to replace the commencement date with “2 March 2028” is out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.

Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to the Schedule amending new clause 104 of Schedule 1 to replace “the date on which” with “the date after which” is out of order as not providing sufficient certainty.

The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule deleting clause 105 of Schedule 1 be agreed to

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Schedule amending clause 105(1) to replace “before” with “the day of” 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 the Schedule amending clause 105(1)(b) to insert “or will commence within two weeks” be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule amending clause 105(2) of Schedule 1 to insert the words “or a longer period if necessary to reduce undue hardship” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Schedule amending clause 105(2) of Schedule 1 to replace “no later than” with “no earlier than” be agreed to.

The question is that Benjamin Doyle’s tabled amendment to the Schedule amending clause 105(2) of Schedule 1 to replace “must” with “could” be agreed to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Schedule amending clause 105(2)(a) to replace “the day on which” with “the day after which” is out of order as not providing sufficient certainty.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to the Schedule amending clause 105(2)(c) to include the words “and received a response from the beneficiary” be agreed to.

The Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule amending clause 105(2) to insert paragraphs (d) and (e) is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule amending clause 106(2) of Schedule 1 to insert the words “or a longer period if necessary to reduce undue hardship” be agreed to.

The Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule inserting new clause 108 into Schedule 1 relating to exemptions to mandatory reviews is out of order as more properly associated with another part, consideration of which has been completed.