Social Security Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Social Security Amendment Bill. Members, when we were last considering this bill, we were on the debate on Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 58—“Amendments to Social Security Act 2018”—and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is, again, that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So, yeah, we resume on Part 1, and I want to acknowledge that this is a complex bill with quite a few insertions into the Social Security Act.

I wanted to pick up on new section 236A, which is being added to the Social Security Act under this bill, under clause 15, particularly around the sanctions for first failure, report job search failure “without good and sufficient reason to meet requirements”. I wanted to ask whether the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) had developed guidelines already to ensure people know how, and to what kind of jobs, to apply. Where has MSD gotten so far with developing these guidelines? So, for example, if you have, let’s say, somebody who never pursued a degree and then is applying for a lot of jobs where, clearly, the person’s qualifications are not matched with the jobs—like, would the person then be deemed to have met the requirements under the job search non-financial sanction?

If so, I’m just keen to get the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s update on how she thinks this could be actually operationalised in a way that meets the intent or the desired intent from the Minister. In some ways, part of the reason why I think section 236A and the broader components of the report job search can end up becoming unworkable is that people can end up applying for jobs that clearly do not match the skills or even, for example, could be applying for jobs that are really, really far away but then they can’t access things like the Transition To Work Grant to allow them to then relocate, etc.

The other question I wanted to ask in this call was in relation to new section 236H, inserted by clause 15B, in relation to upskilling. I noticed that there doesn’t seem to be a definition of “upskilling”, and so I wanted to ask whether she thinks that’s a bit of a gap. I say this because the way that this sanction is laid out—and I note, by the way, that this is one of the sanctions that didn’t end up getting any public scrutiny via submissions because it was introduced later down the line, so the public did not get to submit on it. But I wanted to understand, as well: how will MSD end up defining “upskilling”? If people are just required to attend specific workshops, for example, and comply with and participate in those for a prescribed minimum of hours, how then will MSD ensure that those actually are upskilling people—right? It’s different to just require people to attend seminars for the sake of attending seminars, but whether they’re actually meeting the intent of upskilling. Has MSD developed guidelines to ensure that the prescribed workshops actually meet the intent of upskilling people?

I once again wanted to check why there is no—in relationship to upskilling, but I guess this could apply to other sanctions, but specifically on here, why is there a prescribed minimum amount of hours laid out in the legislation but no maximum amount of hours? Is the Minister concerned that this could be utilised in the wrong way by a Minister or future Governments to then lay out a really unrealistic amount of maximum hours? I note that the status quo in so far as what we’ve seen in the public is that the intent is to have a minimum five hours in one week for four weeks.

I want to take this opportunity as well to speak to some amendments under my name that touch on clause 15, and those are Amendment Papers 279 and 285. I haven’t talked about those two amendments. The first one, 279, would delete new section 236A to remove “money management”; and 285 would delete the new sections 236B, 236C, and 236D to remove “community work experience”. We believe that these two financial sections in particular are the most harmful. I wonder if the Minister would be open to removing the most harmful parts of the legislation.

Otherwise, I’m quite keen for the Minister to address the other questions I laid out. Thank you.

There was a lengthy discussion last time the committee sat around the job search, so I’m not going to repeat things that have been covered. In terms of the upskilling, the guidance will be developed in the next couple of months—the go-live is not until October. In terms of the hours limit, we do still expect that people will be looking for a job.

Just further to that kōrero, I think one of the major worries we have is the impact on whānau. That being the case, we’re putting up amendments to help the Minister for Social Development and Employment in that regard, and so we have just provided a couple of amendments there. But we have to remember that in that March 2025 quarter, job seekers have increased—209,839 people, in terms of receiving a jobseeker benefit. This is an increase of 22,000 people or 11.6 percent compared to the same time last year.

That being the case, we had a look at replacement section 236, inserted by clause 15. After replacement section 236, after paragraph (p), we’re wanting to insert that an assessment is completed within 10 working days on the impact of cancelling the main benefit on a person’s family, because from what we see, there’s no obligation on the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) in terms of follow up.

So, again, the concern is, well, what about the kids? The whole punitive approach puts aside the obligations to the wider whānau, to the kids. So I would like the Minister to consider that that be inserted, that an assessment is done within 10 working days on the impact of cancelling—what that will have in terms of the impact on the whānau.

I also want to add another clause there that MSD considers the welfare of the client to ensure that the client has the support they need to pay for food and rent. I ask the Minister to answer what consideration is given to that wider whānau and the impact that cutting the main benefit has on the kids and wider whānau. The children and partners surely shouldn’t have to go without if the parent is sanctioned and I think that we have to put some thought into that strategy. What happens to the client after being sanctioned? This has been a constant question through this process. Can she explain where they are meant to go?

Also, in relation to my inclusion of subparagraph (d), ensuring there is not enough funds for food and rent, could the Minister clarify how that will be delivered? We could consider the utility for food banks and budget advisers to support the client and whānau. So I’m just asking, in this amendment, as I said, the earlier one, an assessment done within 10 working days on the impact that cancelling the main benefit will have on the family, and then that MSD must consider the welfare of the client and to ensure that the client has the support they need to pay for food and rent—would the Minister consider that?

I’m not going to cover ground again that we’ve already covered in terms of non-financial sanctions as they are and restrictions on sanctions on households with children.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’m not going to take that question, but I think we are getting close. Some of those issues have been well canvassed. We’re looking for new material.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to point out to the Minister for Social Development and Employment that we have four distinct non-financial sanctions. Those have distinct effects on people. They deserve to be evaluated on their merits, and each of them insert different sections to the Social Security Act.

I really take issue with the Minister describing her bill as “simple” when the person who was subbing in for her earlier, when we were last debating, couldn’t even adequately define a relationship as the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) defines it.

Anyway, so moving on to clause 17, which we haven’t touched on. That’s the insertion of section 239 into the Social Security Act, “Reduction or suspension of reduced benefit”. I specifically want to touch on the continuation of sanctions following the regrant of specified benefit.

What I want to seek clarification on—and I also ask this because of the additional section 239(1)(a)(iiia) and then (iiib), report job search and upskilling, which, as I said, didn’t get adequate scrutiny at the Social Services and Community Committee because those were added later, even though a Cabinet paper actually noted that the Minister intended to insert them and then didn’t publicly announce them.

I wanted to ask the Minister whether in this new section she foresees that, if the benefit is cut and then regranted and people were subjected to a non-financial sanction, will the minimum time that they’re required to comply with then reset, or whether—for example, in the report job search, if they had complied for those three weeks, then their benefit was cut then regranted—they would only then have to do their report job search sanction for one more week? Because even though the language in this bill says that, for example, in the new section 239(2)(a) and (b), there’s no clarification of that minimum amount of time. So I wanted to get clarity from the Minister as to how she sees that new section 239 working in practice.

I say this because I think that clarity is kindness. So far, what we do know is that people on the benefit, many of them who are struggling to survive on a daily basis, do not have the time to be going through the Social Security Act to understand, for example, the implications that if their benefit is cut then regranted whether they’ll need to re-comply with that amount of time. So I’m keen to understand this.

I also wanted to understand, then, what this could mean in practice in relation to the new section stated in clause 17 of this bill, for something like community work experience. I ask this because, for example, if you have someone on the benefit who was, say, two weeks into their community work experience non-financial sanction, had their benefit cut then regranted, then is deemed to then have to continue complying with the community work experience, does the Minister believe that it would be easy for that person to then participate once again with that same organisation and whether that would be feasible? If that organisation says, for example, “Yep, this beneficiary was working with us for two weeks. Their benefit got cut so they didn’t have to attend. We actually don’t have capacity to take them any more.”, what would happen then?

This clause 17 just adds a blunt reintroduction of the sanction without adding any new ones to the reality that in practice it’s a lot easier said than done, particularly for the community work experience sanction that involves a third party here—an organisation. Equally, with upskilling, you could argue that that one also has a third party in the case of a, sort of, community organisation as well that MSD may be OK with the beneficiary working with. That’s a question that I think is really important to get clarified.

I also want to ask whether MSD had developed, for example, any communications in plain language around how this would work in practice. What are the portals that people would then be able to access to understand with clarity what this new clause 17 adds and the provisions that it touched on?

I’m yet to take a call on clause 18, by the way—so this is around section 242—but if the Chair allows me, I may just, for the benefit of time, continue with clause 18, unless the Minister’s keen to answer my previous questions. So this one is on adding section 242, “Failures that cannot be counted”. I wanted to ask, particularly with clause 18(1) and then (2), whether MSD had worked since the report of the select committee on any projections on people having their benefits cancelled as a result of the changes to the failure count moved from 12 months to 24 months. If so, has she got any projection around, for example, how this specific clause—I want to get clarity around how she thinks this could help meet her goal of reducing the number of people on the jobseeker benefit by 50,000. Specifically, I’m curious to know: how far does she think clause 18 takes her towards that goal and does MSD have any information that could help elucidate us on this?

Since I’ve got 4½ minutes remaining, I’m going to move to clause 19. So that is around the new section 243AAA. This is the exclusion of sanction for first or second failure, if not failure to accept offer of suitable employment, and timely recompliance occurs. I wanted to ask about this new section that’s being added, particularly the new subclause (a) that reads: “the failure is not a failure to comply with the work-test obligation to accept any offer of suitable employment”. I wanted to ask why not just allow people to re-comply, basically, because I’m worried that this will end up being a bit of a blunt tool.

I also wanted to ask how MSD will define suitable employment under this new section. For example, is MSD thinking of suitable employment under this new section being work that meets caregiving arrangements, proximity to home, if somebody is on the jobseeker medical—like whether, for example, the disability that someone has with their health conditions will be factored around the definition of suitable employment. I think this is particularly salient with the new job search sanction that is being added, because then people under those sanctions will be required to apply for a number of jobs. Do all those jobs have to be considered suitable employment? Because what if somebody under job search applies for a job that is actually not suitable and then they don’t take it? Will they be subjected to the provisions that are added under this new section 243AAA?

Then I’ll move us to—actually, I’ll just let the Minister answer that one before I move to clause 19 and further.

As I said, I’m not going to repeat myself. The intention of this bill is all aimed at supporting more people into work, which is aligned with our target: making sure that job seekers know what their requirements are and that they fulfil them. If they have a non-financial sanction, of course they will need to complete that sanction, and these are non-financial. It’s fairly straightforward.

Thank you, Madam Chair. With respect to the Minister for Social Development and Employment, I don’t feel that she’s adequately answered some of the questions that we’ve had around some of the kaupapa Māori strategies that we’ve talked about over the last few days. Given the disproportionate amount of the Māori population, sadly, who are on benefits and are high in these statistics, I would ask the Minister to consider some of this kōrero with regards to working with Māori; by Māori, for Māori solutions; by Māori, for Māori strategies. I want the Minister to explain how Māori and other culturally appropriate interventions are being accommodated when sanctioning clients.

We all know, particularly with Māori, that when you create an environment conducive to the needs of Māori, their whānau and community will see better outcomes. I’m looking at clause 15, replacement section 236C, just for the Minister’s benefit. Also in relation to replacement section 236D, what other culturally appropriate interventions are being considered to support our Pasifika communities who are sanctioned, and can she explain how this is going to be prioritised so we can ensure they’re not left on the streets with nothing?

So I just want some response here from the Minister with regards to this kaupapa Māori area. I have a couple of amendments there to clause 15, replacement section 236C: “In clause 15, section 236C(2), after subparagraph (c), insert—(d) MSD must provide culturally appropriate interventions (e) When the client is Māori, that a marae based option is provided” or a pan-tribal strategy is put in place. So I think if the Minister could come back to us with regards to that, it would be very helpful, because I don’t think we have traversed the Māori area adequately enough, given the high statistics in terms of Māori, sadly, in this area.

While I’m up, too, I would like to go to my next part, which would be Part 1, clause 36, “New section 280A inserted (Cancellation of young parent payment and incentive payments for continuing failure to comply)”. So my amendment is clause 36, new section 280A, to delete clause 36, because it’s far too punitive—far too punitive—in terms of young families. I want the Minister to consider that. This amendment is about ensuring that a young parent is not punitively sanctioned.

It is important that young people—particularly our young mums—are not left in vulnerable situations. Sometimes, through no fault of their own, they’re put on their own to work things out and it’s so hard looking after their tamariki, their whānau, let alone filling out forms. So I think a better way forward would be just to cancel out clause 36, new section 280A, and delete clause 36 altogether. We know with the young mums, if they’re not supported financially, it leaves them in a vulnerable situation in terms of exploitation from partners. They could be in a domestic violence position situation—not a good position for any young mum to be in. So why does the Government have to be so punitive in this situation? Why can’t there be a more embracing, aroha-type strategy that is employed by this Government. It’s a complex situation here, I understand that, but the section as it is currently written is too simplistic and too blunt of an instrument to adequately address this issue.

So I would ask the Minister to consider this in terms of going forward. I think that my amendments will be very helpful: clause 36, new section 280A, deleting clause 36. And going back to the other amendment that I had in clause 15, replacement section 236(4)(c): “that an assessment is done within 10 working days on the impact of cancelling the main benefit”—what will that have on the whānau and is the punitive approach being adopted by the Government really the right approach at this time? I would ask the Minister to consider that and the amendments in front of her. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Before I take another call, can we talk to Part 1 as a whole. This is not a clause by clause debate. Some of the contributions have become very repetitive. So we’ve got the messaging, but we need questions for the Minister about the detail in the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That is exactly what we’re trying to do—at least here in the Greens. I just want to make it clear to the Minister for Social Development and Employment because I have heard from the Minister that she has answered questions already, but she actually hasn’t really touched on the substance of the sanctions she’s introducing, including some that didn’t get adequate select committee scrutiny. While I note that is not a clause by clause debate, I’m saying the clauses to aid the Minister in knowing what to respond to.

I want to talk about the new section 252A around “MSD must give notice of non-financial sanction”. The Government is hoping to introduce a whole area that sets out how notice of non-financial sections have to communicated. One of the things I don’t know that is present here is the means in which that notice must be given. So, for example, right now, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) can use different ways of communicating with people—literally from correspondence to MyMSD portal, to text, phone calls, etc.—but I’m concerned that, if there isn’t a responsibility for MSD to use specific, or at least try to use specific, avenues to contact people, what I foresee will happen, as it has with the financial sanctions—and I say this from my own experience in the front line—is that we have people who, for example, don’t have access to a phone and have lost access to MyMSD, people who have been chronically homeless, who MSD may have thought that they had communicated that somebody was going to have a non-financial sanction applied, but that person is literally homeless and hasn’t received adequate support to then be on the receiving end of that communication.

The way that the proposed section to the Social Security Act is laid out doesn’t specify what the steps are that MSD needs to take in terms of the means that that is communicated. I don’t believe that’s been something the Minister has answered. I know she talked about the intent of the bill and supporting people to employment, but MSD then also has, in other commentaries, said there’s no correlation with sanctions and employment. So I’m also keen to understand whether MSD’s recent comments that they have said to the public actually aligned with what she just said. But, yeah, I’ve got a question there specifically to new section 252A being added.

I also wanted to ask about clause 28 that amends new section 261 around how a person may re-comply after failing to comply. Again, the reason why I wanted to ask this is that there seems to be a very specific note of the drug-testing obligations here. I wanted to know whether the insertion of it is specifically with the intent of ramping up the use of drug testing within the welfare system. Right now, we have this obligation in place. It’s rarely used. People are rarely sanctioned with it. It’s kind of like a leftover of previous Governments that had intended to use it, and it just became a bit of a scaremongering thing. But, in practice—at least in the front lines—I rarely have seen people who have been subjected to it, and it just seems like it’s stuck in legislation without getting used. Does the Minister intend to ramp up the use of sanctions in relation to drug-testing obligation; if not, what does she think is the use of adding it under the provisions of clause 28? Is it because of, I guess, the requirements on some jobs to go through drug testing, for example? I’m keen to get some clarity on this. This is because in clause 28(2), we do have a specific mention of the “report job search”.

I want to remind the Chair that these were added without proper scrutiny from the Social Services and Community Committee due to the lateness in which the Minister brought them to the committee. So this is the first time we actually have the ability to scrutinise the Minister on those two additional sanctions she decided to introduce late into the process.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I picked up an Amendment Paper that I hadn’t been aware of before. It’s an Amendment Paper on the Table which includes a change to clause 50 and it seems to be about circumstances where someone dies while money management’s imposed. I think this is a new Amendment Paper. I’d like to know whether it is. It looks like it’s a situation where a person dies and then it goes through a number of amendments that talk about what will happen in those circumstances. I would like the Minister for Social Development and Employment to just explain why this Amendment Paper has come up. It looks like, to me, that there has been a consequence thought through and that there are amendments to change things to remedy that.

I’m not suggesting that there’s anything particularly wrong with this amendment—I simply don’t know. But if I could just have it explained to me what the point of these amendments are, why they’ve come up, and have they just come up. Is this what’s happened, that they’ve just been put on the Table? I don’t remember these being on the Table last time. So can I please have an explanation of those amendments?

Members, the time’s come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The committee will resume after the dinner break at 7:30.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Good evening, members. When we suspended for the dinner break, we were on the Social Security Amendment Bill. We were debating Part 1. I want to be very clear that we are hearing some quite repetitive things at this point in time, and I am looking for a bit of record of what’s been asked and I’m looking for completely new questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I did ask some fresh questions just before I went, about an amendment that had been put and that I wanted to know about, but I’d like to add a question that’s absolutely fresh. There’s an amendment on the Table that is about the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) considering the welfare of the clients, and I wanted to know from the Minister for Social Development and Employment whether she would consider an amendment which at least considered the welfare of the child involved. This is about having an assessment, 10 days in, on the impact of cancelling someone’s main benefit, and my understanding is we’re also cancelling the accommodation allowance in those situations.

It’s a pretty serious situation, but we also have an issue that often it’s children in this family that are going to suffer the most. So would she consider an amendment that simply took this amendment and looked at having a 10 - working-day review where there are children involved, and then MSD is having to consider the welfare of the child.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, can I—

HELEN WHITE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just make a comment. I’ve been checking my tracking sheet, and that question did come up on Thursday when I was in the committee of the whole House, and it has subsequently been asked. So we are—

HELEN WHITE: The welfare of a child?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes—yes, it was definitely asked. It has been asked a couple of times, actually, but it definitely did come up on Thursday. So I think we are starting to traverse things, and, you know, when there’s a weekend in between, sometimes we get different people in the Chamber, so—

HELEN WHITE: I certainly haven’t asked that, and I—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, I—

HELEN WHITE: Yes, I appreciate it.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I appreciate you haven’t, but it has been asked.

HELEN WHITE: Yeah, thank you for the advice. The questions I asked before dinner were about an entirely different amendment, which was all about the death of someone and the impact on the benefit. Have we had those questions before?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to check, but if you’ve asked it before dinner, it’s on the sheet.

HELEN WHITE: Yes, it’s on it; it just hasn’t had an answer.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, thank you.

HELEN WHITE: Thank you.

I’m going to call Ricardo Menéndez March just while I’m checking on this, but I am serious about new questions.

Yeah. And I’d just like to alert the Chair as well: I am trying to note the clauses that I am referring to. I know that this is not a clause-by-clause debate, but hopefully by moving through the clauses and having individual questions I can demonstrate to the Chair that we are approaching this with good faith.

I wanted to move us to the provisions around automated decision-making, so these are clauses 52 and 53, and I particularly wanted to ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment around my amendment to delete those clauses. We haven’t really devoted much, if any, time to automated decision-making, but definitely not to my amendment to remove those clauses. Advocates on the ground have highlighted concerns around the expansion of the use of automated decision-making, and particularly when they come to the relation of application of sanctions and the expiry of benefits. We’re really concerned that the application of sanctions should not be administered by computers without human interaction, and that even opening the scope to allow for that to be possible is really, really dangerous, particularly when we know that the Ministry for Social Development’s accuracy rate when it comes to the application of, for example, benefit entitlements is not adequately applied in almost half of the cases.

I’m interested to know whether the Minister would support my amendments to then do some more work around the actual scope, and define the scope of automated decision-making in a much more narrower sense, to ensure that we don’t have these provisions that then enable any future Minister to broaden the scope. And I’m also seeking guarantees from the Minister, because I don’t believe that she has given many public guarantees at all around where she thinks, in her term as Minister, she will broaden or limit the scope of these provisions in clauses 52 and 53 in relation to automated decision-making. Can she make any commitments right now around the areas she’s not willing to go into when it comes to broadening the scope of automated decision-making? And if she can’t make those commitments, I would recommend that she supports my amendment to then do some further work, so that the public has clarity about the intention she has in relation to expanding the scope.

In relation to that, I’m also interested [Interruption]—Madam Chair, Madam Chair—I think I have, like, two minutes—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Ricardo Menéndez March.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Thank you. I’m also interested to know, in relationship to the expansion of automated decision-making in clauses 52 and 53, how she intends to communicate that specific expansion to clients. I’m also interested to know whether MSD is preparing—for example, having provisions that let clients know when a decision has been taken by a human, or when, for example, something has been taken by the way of automated decision-making. How will a recipient of a benefit know when something is triggered as a result of the provisions in clauses 52 and 53, as opposed to a case manager? I think, without having benefit recipients having certainty about whether a decision was made by a person or automated decision-making, I think then it creates even more confusion around, for example, if a beneficiary is to do a “review of decision”—so, for the committee, “review of decision” is a paper you can fill out to challenge a decision made by Work and Income that can lead to a Benefit Review Committee; the Benefit Review Committee can decide on an outcome and that can even be further challenged by the Social Security Appeal Authority.

I guess my question is, if automated decision-making is expanded, and somebody wants to challenge that, what’s the level of accountability, then, in terms of when we have a Benefit Review Committee hearing, when someone is challenging a decision being made by automated decision-making? How does the Minister expect that to work? When we know, for example, as well, that the wait times for Benefit Review Committee hearings, when people are challenging decisions—and this bill is introducing more decisions by MSD by nature of introducing more sanctions—there’s a huge delay to get a hearing. There’s reports from advocates that the balance of those hearings is very skewed towards MSD, and there are also long wait times and lack of resources to then go to the Social Security Appeal Authority. The provisions in clauses 52 and 53 concern me because I do think they will make the Benefit Review Committee hearings far more complex, confusing for benefit recipients, and there will be less clarity around who made the decisions. So any assurances on the scope, how that will be communicated when a decision has been made by automated decision-making, and how people can challenge decisions that are made through automated decision-making, would be greatly appreciated, as this has been an area of concern for many people at the front lines.

The answer has been given multiple times before. The whole concept of non-financial sanctions are only given by a Ministry of Social Development staff member who can take into account the individual circumstances of a person who has breached their obligations. It is why we are introducing non-financial sanctions, and a person, a human, who is at the front line, providing service to beneficiaries will be making that decision.

Helen White, did you have a question about death? I said to you before, I thought it had been traversed and I can’t find it. Just really quickly, what was your question?

Thank you. There was an Amendment Paper on the Table that seemed to be all around where a spouse had died—I suspect—and it went through and it talked about the different treatment of a person in those situations. I was asking for a plain English explanation of what the amendments were.

It’s in the Amendment Paper, so if you just read it in plain English. You didn’t actually have a question before.

Apparently the explanation—the Minister’s just answered: the explanation’s in the Amendment Paper so I think the explanation’s already there.

Point of order. Helen White was on her feet making a speech, and the Minister, quite outside of the Standing Orders, simply stood up and interrupted her. In your comment now, you seem to endorse that behaviour. Now, I accept that you can interrupt a member who you think is wandering off topic, but for the Minister—

Yeah, thank you, Dr Duncan Webb. That is a relevant point, that members—including Ministers—should wait to be called. But I do deem now that the Minister has answered—

Speaking to the point of order. I’m seeking some guidance in relation to that interruption, more importantly around the content of the interruption, because throughout this debate, we have been told by the Minister time and time again that questions have been answered. I would challenge that. And I’m asking how are you, as the presiding officer, taking guidance to ensure that the Minister is not factually incorrect when it comes to her assertions that specific questions have been answered?

Look, it’s not my role to judge what the answer to the Minister’s question is. The Minister has been taking calls, and it is not the job of the presiding officer to enforce that the Minister answers your question in a way that you will be satisfied, either. So what the Minister’s answers are, are the Minister’s answer and that’s as far as our job goes.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to Part 1 of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 263 set out on Amendment Paper 279 be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to Part 1 of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 263 set out on Amendment Paper 285 be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to the Minister’s Amendment Paper 263 set out on Amendment Paper 284 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 263 be agreed to

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 3A is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to delete clause 5 be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 265 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 183A(1)(c) be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 266 be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to clause 10 set out on Amendment Paper 281 be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 283 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 233A be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 236(4) be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 269 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 236A(3) be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 276 be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 264 be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 270 be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 271 be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 272 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 236C(2) be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 268 be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 280 be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 267 be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 278 be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 282 be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 273 be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 274 be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 275 be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 277 be agreed to.