Social Security (Modernisation) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House Part 1 Amendments to substantive provisions CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee on the Social Security (Modernisation) Amendment Bill. We start with Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 3 to 59, “Amendments to substantive provisions”. The question is that Part 1 stand part. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:29): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to kick off with some comments in the committee stage. I think it is a very opportune moment to do some fairly significant myth busting and to set the record straight, in terms of this piece of legislation. There is nothing that changes the principles of the welfare State. There is nothing that changes entitlement, in terms of the welfare system. This is a standard that has been in place since 2022, when a different Government was in office, and has been used since then for automated decision-making, with examples like Inland Revenue child support payments and jobseeker support reapplications. This is the next phase in how we use automated decision-making (ADM) so that very simple, straightforward decisions and business rules can be automated so that the amazing people who are at the front line in the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) can actually use their time and expertise to deliver value to the people that they serve. That is at the guts of this bill. If you’ve been listening to speeches on the other side, you would have thought we were debating a very different piece of legislation. This is very straightforward. As I said, MSD is already using automated decision-making. They are not using it unlawfully as was suggested by a member in an earlier speech. This is really important because it relies on discretionary powers to review certain benefits and request information. When there is a review coming up, the most up-to-date information is requested from those who are receiving benefits, and using ADM in Government decision-making is an area, of course, that is developing with pace, and we want to ensure that there is the legislative authority and safeguards to do this. There is a standard. The standard has been consulted on. The standard is refreshed every three years. There was some suggestion in an earlier speech that this is like Robodebt. It is absolutely not. I will say that again—it is absolutely not Robodebt like Australia. The New Zealand MSD automatic decision-making standard has been developed with some of the lessons of what has happened overseas. That’s why we refreshed the standard every three years, and all existing and future uses are assessed against the standards, which is, as I say, refreshed every three years and consulted on and published in the Gazette. In terms of the regulatory impact statement (RIS), I will preempt some questions about that. Any RIS that has legal advice, it’s not appropriate for that to be published. That is no different from any other RIS in any other piece of legislation. Another absolute myth—the savings are not as a result of losing front-line staff and they are not reducing the case managers. The case managers are absolutely critical front-line staff who support those on welfare, who, actually, if they are not spending time where automated decision-making can make the process more efficient, they can have much higher-quality conversations with the person they’re facing, and that is what we want to see. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (14:32): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I appreciate the Minister for Social Development and Employment being in the Chair, and I just want to signal to the Chair that what I intend to do is I’ll first do some questions on the material from the regulatory impact statements (RIS), and then I will move clause by clause. The intention to go through the RIS, and questions arising from the RIS themselves, is because we don’t have a select committee stage. I’m just going to start off with questions that would have arisen in a select committee that arose from the regulatory impact statement. First of all, can I please ask the Minister, there’s about $55 million that is being saved from supplementary payments that are due to the use of automatic decision-making. Can she confirm where that $55 million is coming from and what kind of assistance she is producing savings as a result of the automatic decision-making? That’s my first question, and if she has a full breakdown, I would massively appreciate it. Now, I also wanted to ask in relationship to the RIS—on page 3 of the RIS, on limitations on consultation, there’s a sentence that says, “The Select Committee process will provide opportunity for wider consultation and input from the public.” Now, we obviously do not have a select committee stage. The RIS alluded to one. Can I ask whether the Minister still intends to seek any form of public consultation as per the RIS’s commentary? Now, moving to page 27 of the RIS, and I know that other members will have questions in relationship to the changes to automated decision-making for the process for medical reviews. But on page 27 of the RIS on paragraph 104, it talks about the options being considered, and option one was to “Amend legislation to allow MSD to use automatic decision [making] to request a subsequent medical certificate.” Now, in the RIS, it asks “Will this option be feasible to implement?”, and the answer was, “As this option is already current practice, no operational changes would need to be made.” Now, my question is, was the RIS identifying that MSD was already using automatic decision-making for something that it did not have the legal powers to do so? Because the RIS actually identifies that no operational changes would need to be made as a result of this law change, which leads me to believe that MSD was already doing something which it didn’t have the ability to do. Would the Minister be able to confirm what exactly paragraph 104 means to her? Because I heard the myth-busting components of her commentary, but the RIS would lead me to believe that part of the reason for this law is that MSD was already doing medical reviews through automated decision-making. Finally, on the RIS—and, actually, just the explanatory note more broadly before we even get there, because, again, this would totally be a question that I would have asked should we have had a select committee stage. The explanatory note talks about how automatic decision-making would be allowed to be used for—and I quote—“any decision, exercise any power, comply with any obligation.” Would the Minister please be able to rule out the use of automatic decision-making for the purposes of decisions that have to do with things like hardship grants, to do with advances, to do with granting benefits to begin with? Because if the explanatory note talks about those powers being granted to make any decision, that’s a huge carte blanche granting of powers to MSD. Now, I would like to know if the Minister would be willing to be really clear what she intends to use those powers for and what she’s willing to rule them out for. Because, again, we’re none the wiser by the RIS on what exactly the Minister’s intents are around the huge expansion of power. Those are my first three sets of questions arising from the RIS. I will get on my clause by clause set of questions. And so, to summarise—paragraph 104 of the RIS, if she would like to provide clarification as to why this was current practice despite it not being lawful. Keen to know the $55 million savings, where they’re coming from and which kind of payments is she producing savings from? And I also want to know whether she intended this to have a select committee stage, as per noted in the RIS regarding public consultation. Thank you very much. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:37): I just wanted to clarify, in terms of this general authorising provision, a lot of the focus is on mandatory reviews. The list of specified benefits to be included is listed in the bill, so I’m not going to repeat those here, and also the medical reviews. The intention of where the savings will come from is there will be people who are receiving benefits that are ineligible for doing so, which is where some of the savings come in from, and people are overpaid, which leads to a debt. We’ve had many conversations in this House about how distressing it is for people to have debts. Probably the best example of that is the end-of-school-year review process, which is basically requiring the Ministry of Social Development to exclude a child from a caregiver’s benefit after the child turns 18, unless the caregiver confirms that the child is still in school or tertiary education, for example. These are not massive changes. They’re very simple changes. We don’t want to see people going into debt. As I say, there are business rules that already exist, very simple ones that say you’re not eligible for that if your child turns 18 and isn’t in school. That’s an example of where some of the savings come from. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (14:39): Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate that the appropriate Minister is here to take our questions. I think that’s really important, particularly given— CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’d just note to the member that all Ministers are appropriate. INGRID LEARY: Sure. Great to see a lead Minister who I know can tell already has been answering the questions quite fulsomely. I, too, would like to go through the regulatory impact statement (RIS) for some initial comments, in terms of how we would like to frame the debate, because we literally have dozens and dozens of questions, but I think it’s important, given that there is no select committee phase, and that people have not been able to have time, really, to look at the regulatory impact statement, which was only uploaded quite late on to the tool, to make some framing questions for the Minister to turn her mind to and to indicate what other speaker’s will be interrogating more fulsomely as we go through step by step. The reason that I do this is that I am really quite intrigued to see a regulatory impact statement that is quite different from many I’ve seen before. It looks like the officials themselves actually don’t like the bill because there are admissions, assumptions, and direct contradictions of the safeguards narrative around clause 36. Now, I’ve already talked to the Treaty principles—the problematic parts of the RIS in paragraph 21 and paragraph 18—around consultation with Māori; in particular, the Treaty principles of active protection and equity may not be satisfied. That is specified in the RIS at paragraph 21. So we will be having questions on that and also disabled people in paragraph 18—saying some disabled people may find it difficult to respond to their review within the required time frames. Those are unusually candid acknowledgements of risk and they’re very difficult for the Minister to dismiss because they come from the officials themselves. I’m just pointing out that we will be asking the Minister very closely around that because it raises very big questions about what the intent of the changes are. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): There is nothing stopping member’s contributions referring to those now. INGRID LEARY: Thank you, Madam Chair, but when we— CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): No need to book them in. INGRID LEARY: No, that’s fine, but we do want to go through clause by clause to be sure that a closure motion doesn’t occur too early. I think it’s in everyone’s best interest that we go through the clauses one by one. The additional questions that I have really that relate to the RIS are—the Minister has referred to the legal advice, and I understand that she’s saying it’s not normal practice to release it, and I understand that. The problem is that the RIS itself assumes that the automated decision-making is accurate and safe. It assumes that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has social licence. It acknowledges that Treaty principles are being difficult to meet, and it acknowledges that some disabled people may struggle to comply with review requirements. So it’s very difficult to understand what the problem is when the problem part of the RIS has been redacted and the Minister is saying it’s on legal advice. But it’s very, very difficult to then understand how those assumptions have been made and whether some of the advice that is being withheld from this committee actually questions those assumptions. So they would be some of my questions. The other ones that we will be looking at will be the number of beneficiaries currently impacted by the process versus how many will be impacted in the future and the modelling around that. We also will be asking a lot of questions about the difficulty of disabled people in particular to be able to comply with review time frames. Why has the automation been given precedence over their welfare? And what evidence demonstrates that extensions adequately protect disabled people? And when we go through clause by clause, there are contradictions in the clauses and then there are broadening powers that are made through regulation that simply, from our view, we cannot see the safeguards that that would be afforded to disabled people. We also want to ask questions around the impacts and the equity impacts on other groups of people such as rural communities, Māori, Pacific, those who identified as priority groups, where clearly they are going to be more difficult for them. And we will be asking about the cost burden on those people as well as the longevity of relationship that they have with their current medical practitioners versus those who might be assigned by MSD. We also will be wanting to know—Madam Chair? Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m reluctant to extend the member’s time because, basically, what you’re doing is indexing the intention for further debate. There is no need to index that and alert the committee to what you are going to talk about. This is your time now to talk about. INGRID LEARY: Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I just want you to understand why I’m saying that: because you are raising multiple issues that then risk being repetitive later and I don’t want you to miss that opportunity later because of repetition. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order. Madam Chair, I think it’s standard convention and practice that the first speaker in the Opposition who opens in committee stages will often set the scene for where we as an Opposition or where that member intends to go, in terms of the line of questioning. That’s not unusual, so I don’t know why the Chair is questioning that. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): This is the second contribution regarding the same topic. So I’m just alerting members to the to the risk they run by raising topics now that could, in fact, lead to repetition later. INGRID LEARY: Thank you, Madam Chair. And for clarity, I have asked a number of questions to the Minister. However, the point is that there are— CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Are you speaking to the point of order? INGRID LEARY: Sorry, no, I was just finishing my contribution, if I may? CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Your contribution had finished. INGRID LEARY: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Ingrid Leary. INGRID LEARY: Thank you. The reason that I am asking these broad questions is because there are a number of implementation questions under each of them and we would be very happy to go through those clause by clause. So as my colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni has said, this is really about framing how we are looking at it, and, if I may, we talked about the RIS, I won’t be referring to that again, but what I can also say is that the bill’s disclosure statement—I will ask the Minister, now, some questions around that, because while it is strong on automation, mandatory reviews, and medical evidence reviews, it is pretty light on the expected cancellations, the compliance burden on disabled people, the health system capacity to provide medical evidence, fiscal consequences of the review regime, and so on. So if the Minister can enlighten us as to how much time was spent on the preparation of the disclosure statement and why it is so heavy on the procedural elements and light on the policy explanations, that would be helpful. And we will be going through it clause by clause. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:47): I don’t intend to traverse any paragraph of the regulatory impact statement (RIS), but I will just say the RIS clearly outlines the population considerations in the document and that really, if I look at Māori for example, they’re disproportionately represented in the welfare system so are disproportionately affected by anything like this, which is purely automated decision-making. I will state again, because I said it in my opening comments, nothing changes in terms of the principles of the welfare system. Nothing changes around settings or policies for things like mandatory reviews. They are mandatory. They are reviews. All this is doing is automating some of the process associated with it. Just as it is, medical reviews are already required and the automating of it will make the process more efficient. I think the members opposite are imagining some myths here that don’t exist. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) (14:48): I’m going to make very quick, sharp contributions in terms of direct questions that I have to the Minister. I have a lot, but I will just concentrate on two or three at a time and am hopeful that the Minister is able to respond in succession so that we can get through the queries that we all have in this committee about this legislation. Acknowledging that automated decision-making has been in place for a while, I guess the concern on this side of the Chamber is the extension of automated decision-making (ADM)—I’m not going to keep saying it; I’ll say ADM—the extension of it and the transparency around how it will be used. There seems to be limited information with respect to what we have on how it will it be applied. And so one of my questions is whether or not Ministry for Social Development clients will have full knowledge and understanding of when ADM is being used with respect to any decisions being made about them and their entitlements, even if those decisions or the ADM has only been used for part of the process. Can the Minister tell us whether or not MSD clients will be informed and whether there will be that transparency, because at the moment we seem to have limited information in front of us with respect to how that will be applied. And the other question I have—so just two questions—is: will ADM decisions be appealable? So if a client wants to appeal a decision that was made through automated decision-making, will they be able to appeal that and take it through the usual review committee process as they would if the decision had been entirely made by a case manager? Ricardo Menéndez March: Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Francisco Menéndez March. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (14:50): Oh, OK— CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Oh, sorry, that was morphed. Ricardo—thank you. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: A different Hispanic name—yeah, all good. Just some follow-up questions from the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s previous contributions and her comment in response to some of my initial questions on the $55 million worth of savings. She talked about those coming from overpayments. Can she confirm what proportion of the $55 million in savings will be from overpayments, or does she have a breakdown of how much will be from overpayments and what will be from, for example, preventing people from accessing other forms of assistance? That would be useful, because the Budget documents don’t really have a breakdown, and so we’re none the wiser on the fiscal implications of this bill. Then can I also just get a confirmation from the Minister that automated decision-making is currently being used for medical reviews and, if so, is that lawful? Again, I go back to the regulatory impact statement (RIS), which says that it’s current practice and no operational changes are needed. Therefore, my question is: if it is current practice but we’re needing to change the law, what went wrong? Again, I go back to the question: are medical reviews happening through automated decision-making right now—yes or no—and, if so, is that within the law? Moving on to clauses 5, 6, and 7—and I’ll primarily focus on clause 7—because we haven’t heard from the lead Minister on the policy issue, can she please outline why there is a need to create additional requirements on what medical certificates should contain? We don’t have a RIS for, for example, the provisions in these clauses. The only regulatory impact statements that we have are to do with automatic decision-making. We actually have no analysis on anything on the clauses relating to the medical documents. I actually don’t know from officials or from the Minister herself what exactly the policy problem is that she’s trying to address by adding additional requirements in the medical documents—and the medical certificates, specifically—that must be presented. I don’t know whether that comes from, for example, an assumption being made in those clauses that perhaps doctors were handing out medical certificates that were allowing people to move on to jobseeker medical, for example, when they shouldn’t have, or exactly what the problem is. I also want to know in relation to clauses 5 to 7 whether the Minister consulted with the Ministry of Health in relation to these changes. Obviously, those requirements will add additional pieces of information for those prescribed health practitioners to put on paper, and I wanted to know who she consulted with in relation to the changes, or whether her ministry consulted with, say, the Ministry of Health or any of the bodies of psychologists, nurse practitioners, or medical doctors on this. Ultimately, there will be an interface where those prescribed health practitioners will need to fill very specific information, and I want to know whether she actually had received any feedback from any of those bodies of health practitioners in relation to clauses 5 to 7. To summarise, I want to know the breakdown of the $55 million. Is it the claim of the Minister that it’s all overpayments, or what’s the breakdown of those? Can she confirm that medical reviews were happening using automated decision-making right now, and, if so, was that lawful? Thirdly, on clauses 5 to 7, I want to know who was consulted, because we don’t have any documents. Was it the Ministry of Health and professional bodies, as well, and what kind of feedback the Minister received? If she or her ministry consulted with any of these bodies, were people in the medical profession welcoming of those changes? Finally, the other body that I wanted to ask about was whether anyone from Whaikaha was actually consulted on this, or any groups of disabled people or any leading organisations around this? I don’t know so far who was actually talked to in order to come up with these additional requirements. I will just want to flag with the Chair that I’d love some answers, and I will then get on to some of the very specific lines in clause 7, in particular. Thank you. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:55): I just want to reiterate that automated decision-making (ADM) has been used since 2022, and there is a standard in place. What happens is that clients are advised already, and will continue to be advised, when ADM has been used to make a decision. There is nothing in this bill that changes the ability of clients to request a decision to be reviewed. There is no change in eligibility there in this bill. In terms of the savings, I just wanted to reiterate that the net operating savings of $158 million over five years mostly arises from people being paid benefits and supplementary assistance that they’re not entitled to, and I think most taxpayers would accept that the welfare system absolutely should be there to support people, but not if they’re not eligible. That is where the savings come from. Basically, if people don’t respond to a request for what is already a requirement, which is a mandatory medical review, then it’s kind of common sense that that payment would stop, and that’s not really going to be a surprise. Going back to the standard, it’s refreshed every three years. Consultation happens with agencies. They’ve been consulted in this, and for every piece of legislation, there is consultation with relevant agencies. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (14:56): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just picking up on what the Minister for Social Development and Employment has said, it’s really interesting her choice of language, because she didn’t talk about people getting help who were in hardship and who needed it. She said that people couldn’t get help if they weren’t entitled to it, and what this legislation is doing is changing that entitlement by requiring them to have additional medical checks when the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) deems it so. I’m really wanting to understand the policy intent. I do have some practical questions about the working of clause 5, because clause 5 prevents a person from receiving jobseeker support on health grounds if they’re considered to be entitled to the supported living payment. The questions that I have are about what “entitled” means in practice where a supported living payment application is still under assessment or being disputed or reviewed. Do they still get it pending the outcome of that, or does it stop, and then would it be retrospectively paid? How does that work? What happens if they are denied jobseeker support before they’ve actually been granted the supported living payment—so do they get any kind any kind of support there? What protections exist to ensure disabled people are not left without income while moving between benefit categories? Has there been any kind of assessment of the provision to see whether it will disproportionately disadvantage people who have got episodic illness or mental health conditions or neurodivergence? We know there are complications around accessing any kind of support, depending on whether someone is classified as having a neurodivergence or a disability, or fluctuating impairments that don’t fit neatly into the MSD categories. I’ve also got some natural justice and human rights questions which I’d like to ask later. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (14:58): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment around clause 5, as well, and to ask specific questions around the standard. The first is, given that the Minister was very clear that this would not lead to a situation like Robodebt in Australia—and just for clarity for the Minister, this isn’t just something that we’ve made up on this side of the House. This is as a result of disabled people who have contacted us, who are anxious that this will lead to what Australia experienced in terms of Robodebt. To allay their fears, then, can the Minister confirm that no aspect of debt collection will be automated as a result of the expansion of automated decision-making (ADM) that she is bringing to this House? That is the first one. The second is about the fact that the Minister mentioned the standard. I have now looked up the standard on the MSD website. I see that it was updated this year, 2026, and that it will only be reviewed every three years. I would like to know from the Minister whether the update of the standard includes provision and safeguards around the expansion of the powers that she has in this legislation that we are debating. I would also like to know why a three-year review period was considered appropriate for a standard that is meant to provide robust safeguards for this, the automation that we’re seeing here. I would also like to know, in terms of communication, her response to questions from the Hon Carmel Sepuloni in terms of how beneficiaries, including disabled people, will be communicated with about this change. She has said, and I see on MSD’s website, that they will be sent, I think, either an email or a letter advising them that that specific decision will be made via automated decision-making (ADM). How does she expect particularly disabled people with cognitive disabilities, intellectually disabled people, to—will there be any addition provision put in place to ensure that it’s not just MSD ticking a box that an email or a letter will be sent but that what is being communicated can actually be understood by the person who will be impacted by these decisions? I’d also like to know, in response to the Minister’s point that nothing really changes in terms of eligibility as a result of what she’s bringing through the House, a little bit more about the breadth of the decision making. The Minister has said that reviews are already mandatory, that medical reviews need to happen for specific benefits—it’s just that where that might have been made by a person, they will now be automated. If I have got that correct, that is what the Minister has said. I see on the standard there is also a requirement for the outcome made by ADM to be similar to what one would expect would be made by a human who was looking at that. Given that that’s part of the standard and that’s a requirement through the standard, I would like the Minister to explain what checks and balances are in place to ensure that the outcomes made through the expansion of ADM will actually be similar to a human who was looking at that. I also want to ask the Minister: given that even when we had a system prior to the expansion of ADM where individuals making these decisions didn’t always get it right—there have been some pretty high-profile cases that have been talked about in the media. There was in fact someone who was an accountant who was on the jobseeker benefit for more than a year and was then told by email or letter that his payments would be cut by 50 percent because he didn’t attend a meeting—a meeting, it ultimately eventuated, that MSD never told him about, and he had no idea that he was meant to be at this meeting. As a result, 50 percent of his benefit was cut. So given that that was already something that people were experiencing when there was human intervention, and given that we know that the expansion of ADM has led to even less discretion on the part of agencies in Australia, what confidence can the Minister give this House that decision making will actually improve, not just stay at the status quo? We have already cut so much of what people are entitled to that this isn’t going to make a difference, but how is this Minister improving the system to ensure that those sorts of mistakes that have dire consequences for people do not get replicated or get worsened as a result of this expansion? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:03): That was around a number of different quarters but let me try and address some of them. I have said before that clients will be advised in communications when automated decision-making (ADM) has been used to make a decision. That is done in letters or emails to clients. There is no change in this bill in the way that the Ministry of Social Development and Employment communicates with clients. That doesn’t change, and the way that decisions can be reviewed doesn’t change. In terms of medical reviews, ADM is already in use and is it used when clients submit a subsequent medical certificate that has no change, which, again, is pretty efficient. So if you have a medical certificate and you then require another medical certificate, if there is no change, then, of course, the benefit is just regranted and carried on. So it is really about efficiency and effectiveness. I know members opposite are trying to make more of this than there is. In terms of the review cycle that the member asked about, as I said, the first standard was introduced after ADM was initiated in 2022, and the time sequence for refreshing that was set at three years, which is how it is done, and each part of that is really considering the safeguards that are in place, and I’m confident that the work that’s been done in the most recent refresh considers not only the way it has been used but future use. Listen, colleagues—we’re going to have to look at this a lot if we want to have better service to our most vulnerable New Zealanders. We’re going to expect that there’s going to be greater use of technology, and we should all be embracing that and encouraging it. If I think about a policy that the previous Parliament introduced—around child support pass-on—if that had not been done with automated decision-making, that would have required an extra 150 staff, which is crazy. So when technology can do these processes, following business rules, and there is a standard it’s following, it is just actually making the work that can be done easier and faster. Businesses are doing this all over the world, and in some ways, we’re just catching up. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (15:06): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to have a look at the issue of medical certificates in clause 7. You may recall that in my speech I raised some concerns around the certificate. The first that I can see as a very practical issue is that the Ministry of Social Development and Employment (MSD) are going to have the right to choose the person providing the medical certificate, and I raised the issue that I saw when I was practising law—the manipulation of that process by choice of provider. I know that that happened in ACC, and there were certain people that were very much preferred, particularly by accredited employers, and people who sent off for an examination of that person, and they were preferred because they declined more applications. So I am concerned to see MSD having that kind of unilateral power. And I’d like the Minister’s comments on the safeguards that she’s put in place to make sure that that isn’t abused and doesn’t become part of a systemic abuse of the system. I’d also like to know who pays for the medical certificate in this process because, again, my concern is that we are dealing with a situation where such things cost money. I’m also concerned that there is a specialty often in these areas. So you often wait for a long time to get the right person to look at an issue, particularly one that is nuanced or grey or requires a specialty. So I want to know what happens in those circumstances where the person has to wait for that information, particularly because when I look at the clause, I can see at the new section 27, which is in clause 7, that the provision at subsection (6) talks about “Until MSD has received, from, or on behalf of, A, a medical certificate that complies with this section, MSD must not grant A jobseeker support”. So it’s a prohibition that takes away any discretion. Now, we’ve had a talk today about the concerns of the Opposition that what is happening here in automation is much less humane. It doesn’t have that discretion, and we were reassured that at the end of everything it was just about making the system work better but that the ultimate issues here would be with individuals. But words like “must” have to be followed. So are we going to end up seeing situations in our constituencies where people have had a delay, they haven’t got that certificate, they simply haven’t got the money to get it, and they’d have to go to a specialist and it takes a while to do so? There is some reason why they have not been able to get that medical certificate. And in the meantime, there is a prohibition on giving them that kind of help, even when an intelligent MSD staff member will be able to see that this is a legitimate need. So I’d like to know what happens there. Again, this is all these discussions about safeguarding, and I do note that the regulatory impact statement talks a lot about the need for safeguards, and I am concerned by those issues in a really practical manner. I urge the Minister to identify what those safeguards look like. Thank you. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:10): I know there’s been a couple of questions raised about the health practitioner—what do we call them?—the prescribed health practitioner. I just want to clarify that that is a decision that is made between the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and the client in terms of who that health practitioner is. And only if a decision can’t be reached together does MSD choose who it is, and if required, MSD funds that assessment. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:11): Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I’ve got some questions on clause 7. But I just want to, for the avoidance of doubt, get something really clear from the Minister for Social Development and Employment because I think we’re talking past each other. On paragraph 57 of the regulatory impact statement, the status quo names that automatic decision-making, and it uses the discretionary review powers to decide whether to commence a review for specified benefit request information from clients suspending council assistance. I wanted to check because that does not currently include a request for a subsequent medical certificate. I go back to my questions—I really, genuinely want to get a straight answer from this: has the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) been using automatic decision-making to request a subsequent medical certificate right now, and, if that has been the case, where are the provisions under the Social Security Act, as written right now, that legally allows for MSD to use automatic decision-making (ADM) to request a subsequent medical certificate? If it turns out that that wasn’t the case, are there any issues with retrospectivity in relation to what is being proposed in this bill? So, again, I just want to ask a straight-up question: does ADM, right now, allow for MSD to request a subsequent medical certificate? I hope I can get a really clear answer now. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:12): The answer is yes, and I’ve already said so. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:12): I just want to clarify that she hasn’t actually been clear on this. She said mandatory reviews. She hasn’t named requesting a subsequent medical certificate; that is different from medical review. But anyway, if the Minister is very confident, I will move on. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): She did say yes, but if you want to expand on that. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Yes. So moving on to clauses 5 and 7, the Minister said, when I asked about consultation, that adequate agencies have been consulted with. Can she please name the agencies because she, I think, is conflating my questions in relation to the changes for the requirements for a medical certificate with the questions on automatic decision-making. What I want to know is were any disabled people’s organisations, Whaikaha, or medical organisations consulted in relation to the provisions in clauses 5 to 7? That has nothing to do with automatic decision-making—nothing. So, putting aside the review of automatic decision-making that happens every three years, which I know the Minister referenced in relation to my question, I want to know: who exactly did she consult? This is something we would have had access to should there have been a select committee period, which is why I don’t think it’s adequate engagement from the Minister to just say, “Adequate industries were consulted.” We would normally get a list of who was consulted. We would even normally get a list of the feedback that was received. I don’t think this is a constructive engagement from the Minister if we just get some sort of like blasé answer like, “Oh, yeah, adequate agencies were consulted.” Can she name them please? Can she name the feedback that she received in relation to the additional requirements for medical certificates? I want to know, as well, whether she received any feedback on additional workforce pressures that having more requirements for medical certificates could create for the health workforce. I want to know what her communication plans are to ensure that prescribed health practitioners are made aware of the new requirements under clauses 5 to 7. Now, I also want to ask about a potential drafting error that I want to give credit to my colleague Mike Davidson for actually finding. I want to confirm with the Minister whether she thinks it’s a drafting error or whether this was written as intended. So in clause 7, at section 28(5)(b)(i) it says, “the nature of the health condition, injury, or disability (which, if P is at least 27 weeks pregnant, must include the date that the PHP diagnoses is the date on which A may give birth to a child);”. Now, there’s a reference to “P” there which talks about a person being 27 weeks pregnant, but then it says that some other person “A” may give birth to a child. These are two different people being named and that very same provision. So can I confirm whether that’s drafted as intended, and, if not, does this not speak to the need to have a select committee stage where drafting errors could be found and addressed? Can I just get a confirmation from the Minister as to whether the bill, as written in that part, is actually accurate? Now, I also want to go to this very same clause. Can I ask the Minister once again, because I haven’t had engagement on this issue, what exactly is the policy problem? Why were medical certificates, as they exist right now and the requirements for medical certificates to have the information as they exist right now, not good enough? Why is there more prescription over what a medical certificate needs to contain? Like, I don’t understand, and the Minister has actually not been transparent and open about the fact that there’s additional requirements for these medical certificates. Like, was the medical profession actually telling her and giving her feedback that, you know, the current requirements were not good enough? Where did the policy problem arise? Like, who actually alerted her that people needed to actually outline far more detail than medical certificates cover, for example; or, for example, more information on what exactly a disabled person needs to get from their prescribed health practitioner in order to be able to access jobseeker medical or the supported living payment? Now, I have one additional question I am going to ask from the Minister on clause 7, and I just want to signal to the Chair that clause 7 is quite long, so I have a lot of questions. But between lines 15 and 20, clause 7, section 28(3) where it says, “The PHP must be agreed for the purpose between P and MSD or, failing agreement, must be nominated by MSD.” Can I ask, does MSD hold a list of prescribed health practitioners that MSD can tap into to then nominate them; if so, how many PHPs are on it? And what is the breakdown between a psychologist, a practitioner, nurse, or a doctor that MSD may have on their database when it comes to the PHP that MSD may be able to nominate, should the person P in this case and MSD fail to find agreement on who this PHP should be? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:17): So just covering off a couple of those. In terms of—and I did say this previously—the policy and the Cabinet that authorises these policy settings, population agencies are consulted and give feedback at that point. In terms of the requirements for the practitioner, as I said in my comments literally just before, that is a choice between MSD and the client. It is only if they then can’t agree that MSD would determine who that should be. One of the things that’s really important and why automated decision-making is really important in terms of improving efficiency and effectiveness, is actually making sure that people are on the right benefit. That means they get the right entitlements. And so often that’s not the case. Particularly with jobseeker health condition and disability, it really does need to be an assessment of somebody’s work capacity. In some cases, it might be inappropriate that they are on the jobseeker health condition and disability; they should be on the supported living payment. That’s where additional requirements and that medical review are really important. Equally, somebody might not have a health condition and disability, they might be a job seeker that would be deemed to be work ready. What we do know is, in terms of case management and some of the programmes that MSD refers people into, more of those are available to those who are job seekers and work-ready. So, yes, there has been feedback about the medical certificate. That’s why there is quite a lot of focus on that. We want to make sure people are receiving the right benefit and that, equally, they are getting the right support. That’s why we are making changes in this section. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) (15:19): Thank you, Mr Chair. The Minister for Social Development has stated that she’s responded to the questions around how a health practitioner will be chosen, and she thinks that her answer is adequate, and that answer is that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) will make the decision. That’s not an adequate answer. What we want to understand from the Minister is: what is the criteria that MSD will be using to determine who is an appropriate health assessor? Also, what is the criteria that will rule someone out from being an appropriate health assessor? This is very important information, because we would all want to ensure that there’s consistency across MSD offices and also transparency on how MSD is determining the appropriateness of any health assessor that will be making decisions about a person’s future and whether or not they can get access to MSD benefits and entitlements. I’m going to say it again, because the Minister seemed to be missing what was being asked of her from other colleagues: what is the criteria that the Minister will ensure MSD have to rule in or out appropriate or inappropriate health practitioners? MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (15:21): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just take a short call. I just have a few questions I want to ask around clause 7, new section 28. I note a number of these clauses are already in the existing Act, but there definitely are some new clauses added. In here, it’s basically describing that the Ministry of Social Development can, at any time, require someone to undergo examination. My question is: how often can that happen in a number of months? Can they do it, like, every month? Does it have to be every three months, four months? It just doesn’t say. I’ve done a number of amendments so we can actually put some clarification around that, because I just don’t think that’s fair that someone could have to be forced to go and have a medical examination, technically every month, by the definition of this bill. Then who pays for that? We are talking some very vulnerable people that don’t have much money, and if they’re being forced to go and have medical examinations, who is actually going to have to pay for that? I don’t think that should fall on to these vulnerable people that have very, very little money. Following down—and this is where it does become a lot newer—it talks about what the medical report must contain. It does say it needs to state “the nature of the health condition, injury, or disability”. I’m very concerned, actually, about someone’s privacy, because some of these health conditions could be very sensitive, very personal, and I just don’t think they should just be freely shared to another agency or organisation. I do have an amendment which is time-stamped 10.30.14, which actually allows the prescribed health practitioner to withhold that information if it’s in the best interests of the customer so therefore it doesn’t actually cause them any distress or harm. I’m just wondering if the Minister is actually concerned about these vulnerable people’s, many of them with sensitive health conditions—whether she’s concerned about their privacy, and whether she’d have a look and accept my amendment. I think it’s really important, when we talk about some vulnerable people who have some very serious and sensitive issues, that, actually, we respect privacy. We should not just be stating someone’s health condition on medical certificates and then mailing them off. They are my questions. It’s around how many times can someone be required to go to a medical examination within a given period of time; who actually pays for that—especially if they’re being forced to go multiple times in a year; and then are we looking at the privacy—is there actually regard for someone’s privacy that has a very sensitive health condition? It would be great if the Minister can answer— CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): What was that amendment number again? MIKE DAVIDSON: The one around the privacy was 29 May 2026, 10.30.14 a.m. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (15:24): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just to add to the questions that my colleagues Carmel Sepuloni and Mike Davidson have asked, and I’ll leave that for the Minister to respond in terms of the criteria for health practitioners—what’s the criteria to rule in or out those decisions—and also whether there’s a ceiling on the number of times such a request or—well, it’s not really a request under the law, is it? It’s that someone can be compelled to go and see a health practitioner. Is there a ceiling in terms of the number of times they can be required to do that? I also want to ask the Minister what the criteria is to determine the appropriateness of the health practitioner. Will it be the GP of the person that they usually see, or will it be a specialist, given the specific health condition or disability that the person is experiencing? Who makes those decisions around appropriateness? Will it be the beneficiary, the person themselves? Will it be the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), and, in that case, what would the criteria be that is used for that and who determines it? Given that this will also have, then, a flow-on effect, potentially, on the health system, if people are required, with no cap on the number of times they can be required, to go and see a health practitioner to get a medical review, what is the Government’s view or what is the Government doing to ensure that there will be capacity within the health system to be able to support this? The reason that is applicable or relevant here is because a benefit can be suspended if someone doesn’t come back with a medical examination within a specified time period, as far as I read this legislation. Given that we already have a backlog within the health system, that it’s not easy for people to get in to see their doctor, how is it then fair to cut their benefits if there is an increase in requirement there and they’re not able to go and see their doctor? The final question that I have, and this, again, if we had gone through a select committee process—and, actually, I would like to ask the Minister why we’re doing this under Budget urgency. What is the urgency with this legislation? This seems to be the other half of legislation that was considered under Budget urgency in 2025. So what is the urgency here? Why couldn’t we go through a select committee process and ensure that people who are potentially impacted by this have a say? I’ve been contacted by someone who has said if the determination around appropriateness of the health practitioner is made by MSD—again, the Minister has said that it’s only in the event that MSD and the beneficiary can’t agree that MSD will make the call. Keen to hear criteria from there. But if the call is not for the person to see their GP, is that not then disconnecting that person—it particularly holds true for disabled people, who see one particular doctor who understands their disability or health conditions. MSD requiring that person to see somebody else seems to be unnecessary, unfair, and pretty punitive on that person. Can the Minister give us an explanation and the criteria that’s been asked for, please. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:28): Just to say again: there are not more requirements for what’s required in the medical certificate. All this is doing is clarifying what the requirements are. How to determine who a health assessor could be—clearly, registered with the Medical Council to ensure appropriate checks and balances. In terms of ensuring client privacy, the Ministry of Social Development has to comply with the requirements in the Privacy Act, and they have done. There are no changes around any of that. In terms of the issue raised by Mr Menéndez March, it is not a drafting error. Section 27 refers to A, an applicant, and P is referred to in section 28, who is a person who may be an applicant already granted a benefit. There is nothing incorrect there. KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) (15:29): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m going to be speaking to clauses 5 to 7, particularly in relation to the regulatory impact statement population group impacts on page 7 and disabled people. Now, earlier, my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March asked the Minister which agencies had been consulted and implored, please, to list those agencies, because we would usually have this information through a select committee process—we would usually have advice—and that is not available to us. The Minister does have advisers here, and I again ask can we please have a list of the agencies that were consulted with, that gave advice, and particularly, as I’m talking about here, for disabled people—Whaikaha and any disabled-led organisations, any disability organisations. Who was consulted? Now, from the Minister’s response, which was “relevant agencies have been consulted”, I am now assuming the Minister has then consulted with Whaikaha, disability-led organisations, and disabled organisations, so my questions are: what advice was sought from those disability organisations, like Whaikaha, like the Disabled Persons Assembly, around the problem definition, which of course we can’t see and which has two parts, because they have been redacted? What advice has been sought around those? And because we haven’t had that select committee process, I would also like to know around any advice they gave around the automated decision-making process in relation to what the Minister answered around the medical reviews—that medical reviews would only be undertaken by automated decision-making (ADM) if there was a change to a medical certificate. So can the Minister please confirm that any change to a medical certificate, whether it is a word—“and”, “or”, “but”—or does it have to be a copy and paste of the exact medical certificate for ADM to say that there has been no change? Or is the Minister referring to a change in diagnosis? What does the Minister mean by “no change”? Just to summarise that, what advice was sought, and—please—where did this advice come from, specifically around disabled people? I’m going to read from the regulatory impact statement (RIS) in that population group impact section on page 7, paragraph 18, where it says, “If not used with appropriate safeguards, the use of ADM can have implications for disabled people including people with health conditions.” What advice was sought from Whaikaha, from those disability-led organisations, around what safeguards are needed to ensure that the implications for disabled people are not going to make things worse for them? For the Minister to participate fully in this committee of the whole House—because we’re not getting a chance to be in a select committee where we would be able to hear from people that actually are impacted by this or from advisers from these different ministries if the select committee requested it. If the Minister could please participate fully in this process so that people watching at home and people who this law is going to affect can have some stability and understanding of how it’s going to play out in their lives. Please tell us which agencies have been consulted with. I am specifically asking around disabled people: what feedback they gave, what advice was sought from them, and, even if the advice wasn’t sought, what they provided. Thank you. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:34): As I have said before, the agencies were consulted. These are Government population agencies that are consulted when you do policy work and draft a Cabinet paper, so Whaikaha were included in that process. As I also said before—which is not directly related in the bill but I think is important to this conversation—the automated decision-making (ADM) is standard. That is of course taking into account additional requirements for safeguarding. It is why that is consulted on and considered and updated every three years to take account for the very populations that the welfare system serves. Members should not be confused about anything in this bill. It does not change any entitlements. It does not change any access to benefits. All it does is clarifying where there is a medical certificate reviewed, how that process works, and also in terms of a benefit review. So it is very simple. There was a question before about what if the medical certificate is not provided. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) communicates with clients when there is a period of time in which that is required. Twenty working days—that can be extended by 40 working days if, for example, a client was having difficulty accessing the agreed medical professional. But I just want to reinforce to the House, ADM is already in place; it’s about making the processes within the MSD more efficient. It is not making any changes to policies, to entitlements, or anything of that matter. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) (15:35): Thank you very much. Mr Chair, I’m going to refer back to the question I asked before because I feel like the answer I got was inadequate. The question was: what criteria would be used for ruling in or ruling out health practitioners who can assess? The Minister’s response has been that they need to be a registered professional and they need to respect privacy and work with the ministry to make sure that the privacy of the client is maintained. Well, you would expect that of any health professional, and so I can’t understand, then, how someone could be ruled in or ruled out. So, I think that the Minister needs to elaborate on her answer. My other question does follow up from something that Ricardo Menéndez March talked about earlier and that is in reference to how far the automated decision-making (ADM) goes here. When we look through the regulatory impact statement (RIS) and the bill, we see that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) wanted this to be in place so that they could preserve existing ADM practices. That meant, basically, to ensure that their existing practices could be legitimised. That speaks to what Ricardo Menéndez March was saying earlier about his concerns that the practices were potentially not legitimate, given that this legislation is seeking to legitimise the existing practices. The question alongside that for me is if MSD were only asking for the legislation to be changed to ensure that their existing practices were legitimate, then why have we got in front of us a broad new statutory authorisation? In terms of the requirement here, it goes above and beyond just confirming and legitimising existing practices. So why have we gone further and what’s the purpose of that? We have to understand what the agenda is of the Government and of the Ministry of Social Development for extending ADM. We understand it already existed. The Minister’s said that over and over again. We do understand that, but it’s the extension of that and the extent to which the Government is going that we are struggling to understand. Ultimately, for us, data protection is integral. The privacy of people’s information and making sure that people are informed about what that information is used for and how that information is used is of the utmost importance for us here. So there were a couple of questions in there. Firstly, I don’t feel that the Minister has gone to the extent that she should do in telling us what the criteria is for ruling in and out health practitioners. Secondly, I’m trying to understand why this legislation has gone above and beyond what MSD had wanted, which was to legitimise existing practices with ADM. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:39): Look, as technology advances, there are more things that ADM can be used for, for greater efficiency and gains in the Ministry of Social Development. As I said, I think the real opportunity here is that front-line staff get the opportunity to have higher-quality conversations with their clients if this kind of routine decision-making is taken care of by automation. The members to my left are trying to dream up something very different from that. I would have thought that they would also be supportive of ensuring that legislation covers the right environment. Again, as I said before, taxpayers would like to know that those who are supported by the welfare system with funding, for people who are eligible for the support, are getting the right benefit. As I’ve said before, in some cases, having a medical review might say, actually, you should be on a supported living payment, not a jobseeker health condition and disability. We do want to best serve the clients that Ministry of Social Development (MSD) serves, and using automation to do that better is a really critical part of it. I feel like I’ve said it 10 times already. If the members opposite haven’t heard it, I’ll keep repeating it. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (15:40): I think we’re really getting to the heart of what we are seeking to ascertain, on this side, from the Minister’s responses. My colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni raised it, because it’s about why the powers go further, but it’s not only that; it is why those broadened powers are being relegated to regulation, which comes up later on and we’ll have a lot of questions about. It really kicks the door wide open to using these automated systems for things that have not been considered currently under the current bill. That is what we are seeking to interrogate. This is not paranoia. This is about legislative drafting—and quite Machiavellian drafting, I would say—that leaves the door open for the Government to be able to change the rules again through secondary legislation. That is the problem. If I go to some of the legal questions—again, we could have had legal advice if there was a select committee—and if we look at the ways that that is occurring, there’s extremely broad drafting. If we look at clause 7 again, in new section 27(6), it overrides multiple existing provisions. It basically overrides sections 20, 25, 301, 302, 307, and 308. That’s exactly the type of drafting that the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC) says shouldn’t be used when we’re talking about safeguards. It should be clearly justified, proportionate, narrowly framed, and subject to safeguards and scrutiny—that’s from chapter 14 of the LDAC guidelines—yet we see exactly the type of drafting here where, instead of harmonising the sections, basically overrides them. Why on earth would that happen unless there was a reason to broaden the powers? Did the Attorney-General or the Parliamentary Counsel Office actually raise concerns about the breadth of the overridden drafting? Could that be what is in the secret legal advice that we have not been able to see? When we look at the drafting, again new section 27(6), which is changed by clause 7, it’s been drafted as an absolute prohibition rather than preserving residual discretion for urgent cases. That is very strong, and there is a question around whether there is unnecessary fettering of discretion when it comes to what the primary purpose of the legislation was in the primary legislation. It removes flexibility even where incapacity is obvious and undisputed, so it creates hardship through this overreach. If we look at other parts of the administrative, evidential, and procedural issues in new sections 27 and 28, they contain uncertainty, they challenge review rights—they leave those uncertain and confused, which is bad lawmaking—and they are internally inconsistent. If we go back to some of the other legal things—we haven’t even asked any questions yet on clause 6—it’s the same kind of scenario. There is an administrative principle about not fettering discretion, and that is where there are human rights at stake. We have not had an New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report, and the New Zealand classic authority on that is CREEDNZ Inc v Governor-General. There is a question about whether clause 6 is, effectively, fettering MSD hardship discretion by making medical certification an absolute precondition to assistance. If that is the case, is that lawful? Has she had legal advice on that? Is that in the hidden legal advice that we haven’t been able to see? Why have we not been able to get answers about that and the problem and the regulatory impact statement (RIS)? That would be very helpful. If the Minister could just indicate what part of these questions the legal advice pertains to, we might get a clue as to the answers of why there are these really Draconian overriding provisions. Finally, I just want to go back to clause 5. My last question’s on clause 5, which I did indicate I would ask. Did the Ministers seek any advice on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities around the application of clause 5, regarding natural justice, the principle of autonomy, and equal access to social protection? Does she plan to do New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report, because somewhere in the RIS there was an assumption that would happen, but it hasn’t happened, so will she put on record, in this House, that it will happen so we can see for ourselves where the inconsistencies are so that at least this Parliament can own those. Are the provisions of clause 5 consistent with principles of natural justice, particularly where there are complex and medically contested medical certification requirements? CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just before I take the next call, members, just note that questions have been asked on clause 6 and just note as well that there has been engagement from the Minister. Yes, perhaps members might not like how those questions have been answered or indeed addressed, but there has been engagement on that, typically between clauses 5 to 7. So I’m just indicating here that I’m looking for new material between those clauses or perhaps looking for people to ask other questions on other parts. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:46): This is just to confirm that there is a positive New Zealand Bill of Rights Act assessment that has been completed. The other thing I would just— Ingrid Leary: Where is it? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It’s online. The other thing I would just say—because there have been a number of comments about it—and so I will say it again is that there is clearly an understanding that, in the use of automated decision-making (ADM), there are risks that come with making decisions in place of a human, which has the potential for bias, discrimination, and inconsistency. That is why the bill strengthens the ADM standard by making it a statutory requirement, and the standard must consider bias, discrimination, legal and policy considerations, fraud considerations, transparency, human oversight, and compliance and assurance. That is exactly what this bill is doing. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:47): Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I will be asking one more question of clause 7. That’s on the lines between 25 and 30 in relations to the comments on pregnancy. This is also in relation to the medical certificates coverage. Now, it says, “However, if the health condition is that A is at least 27 weeks pregnant, and A has no other health condition, injury, or disability,”. At the last line before “Consequence of not providing medical certificate”, it states that, basically, the date of the medical coverage must be when A’s pregnancy ended. Now, I want to ask, for clarification, why it has been worded on the day that the pregnancy ended? If the prescribed health practitioner (PHP) wasn’t able to comment, for example, on whether perhaps he expects that there may be medical complications after birth, then why wouldn’t that PHP be able to, actually, extend that medical coverage to after the birth? There may not be, for example, health conditions that the person may have—that’s basically what this line says—because it’s possible that the only medical coverage is that someone is 27 weeks pregnant. But, perhaps, the PHP expects that there may be complications afterwards. Why wouldn’t the PHP be able to extend that medical coverage later on down the track, or is it, for example, even if there were no medical issues for the person, for the reason that, perhaps, they expect that the baby would have medical complications after birth? I wonder whether there’s a gap here or whether this is covered by the subsequent child policy. I just want to triple check what the intent is of having worded those particular lines between 25 and 30 the way they are. Now, I want to reiterate that we did not have any analysis documents on things other than automatic decision-making, really, so I wanted to just draw your attention to new material on the departmental disclosure statement. The document noted that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner remains concerned about the use of the general authorising provisions that will broaden the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD’s) ability to use ADM. What are the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner, because that’s not noted in the departmental disclosure statement. I’d like to know: if the Privacy Commissioner indicated that there were concerns, can the Minister please relate to the committee what those concerns were from the Privacy Commissioner and to what extent did she seek to address the concerns that were raised? Clearly, the Privacy Commissioner is not satisfied, and so I would like to know exactly what feedback she has received from him on the concerns of the use of ADM. Now, I also wanted to seek clarification. I know that when the previous Chairperson was there, we had a little bit of a back and forth when the Minister answered two sets of questions just with “yes”. This was in relation to the coverage of automated decision-making, and Carmel Sepuloni talked about the existing use. I just want to seek clarification from the Minister that all the current uses of ADM are legal. That’s just the question I’m asking: are all the current uses of ADM legal and covered under the current legislation? Moving on to clause—this is new. I know that my colleagues may have questions on clause 10, but I did want to just move to clause 12 briefly. I wanted to just talk about new section 41 in clause 12, and this goes back to how PHPs may be able to assist some of this stuff. In new section 41 in clause 12, it talks about PHPs being able to, through their coverage, certify whether P is expected to require C’s full-time care and attention but for which P would have to receive institutional care. I just wonder why the threshold was put in requiring full-time attention, or otherwise P would need institutional care. Why is it that the Minister may have not considered, for example, whether, just simply, that the quality of life of P could just be worse off or deteriorating? Why is it that someone would only be allowed as a caregiver to be on the supported living payment (SLP) if someone would be in institutional care if they’re not receiving full-time attention? Some people need full-time attention, and if they don’t get it—they may not necessarily go to institutional care or need institutional care, but their quality of life could be massively affected by it, and I wonder whether that is setting a really high bar for caregivers to access the supported living payment. It goes back to a bit of a broader question around the comments that the Minister raised. She talked about how this isn’t really changing anything, but it was clarifying stuff. I go back to the issue of: well, if it’s just clarifying stuff, what was the policy problem? That leads me to a subsequent question, and this relates to clause 12. The Minister talked about how some people who may be on jobseeker medical should be on the supported living payment—you know, she really wants to make sure that people can go on the SLP. Now, having worked at the front line, it’s extremely rare that case managers are actually actively trying to get someone to the supported living payment from jobseeker medical. Quite often, it’s the opposite. There’s a lot of gatekeeping to actually get someone on the supported living payment from jobseeker medical. Does the Minister have any statistics or data to back up her claims that, for example, people want to actually move someone to the SLP, but they’re unable to do so, and that this clarification will enable them to do so, because I don’t think that we actually have the evidential basis to support that right now, the front line is really trying to move people to SLP when they’re on jobseeker medical. Quite often, it’s the opposite. Further, I’d like some engagement—and, Mr Chair, I take your guidance that perhaps some of the engagement that we’ve received hasn’t been satisfactory. But this is a question that I’ve asked, but I have received no engagement on it, which was around feedback from medical professionals around the burden that the current medical certificate requirements could put on them. For example, I have concerns that if there was no feedback sought from medical professionals, I wonder whether—you know, she’s confident that the ability for MSD to send someone back to a doctor as many times as MSD wants could actually cause pressure on doctors, basically, because why would a doctor be wanting to spend their time assessing a beneficiary over assessing someone who actually needs medical treatment? I assume that the medical professionals would not want to be spending their time actually seeing a beneficiary just to fill out some forms. They would rather be spending their time providing actual healthcare. So did she receive any feedback whatsoever from—and I note the three bodies that are defined in PHPs—psychologists, nurse practitioners, or medical doctors on the pressure on the workforce, and, if not, I’m really keen to know why she wouldn’t have sought that. Finally, does she have, on clause 12, any estimates that were made on how the provisions in clause 12 may change the number of people who enter the supported living payment on the ground of restricted work capacity or total blindness? I’m interested to know whether the Minister, when designing the changes to the medical certificates, had any estimates on how this would affect benefit numbers for people on the supported living payment. Does she have any statistics or a breakdown by population groups on how this is likely to change access to the supported living payment? I guess this would relate to clause 10 itself, as clause 10 actually also talks about the supported living payment. If she does not have any information on this, are there any parts of this bill or these clauses that actually help support her target of having 50,000 less people on the benefit? Does this bill or the clauses in it—and particularly clauses 10 and 12—help in any way or shape? Finally, my last question in this line of questioning, and I want to go back to the use of automated decision-making. Now, the Minister keeps mentioning the current uses of automated decision-making to justify giving carte blanche approval for ADM to be used just more broadly, but something that the Minister hasn’t really engaged with is giving us assurances or a direction or an intent on what else in the future she would plan to use ADM for. Again, the question that I think remains unanswered and has not even been engaged with is why, if there’s only a list of specific uses for ADM that the Government wants to, basically, legalise, you would just open it up. I know the Minister has said, “Technology is great; we should have more technology.”, but can she actually engage in naming some of the potential uses that she would expect that sort of carte blanche, open slather use of ADM to be used for? Finally, does she expect automated decision-making to be used to automate anything within the workforce that could lead to a reduction in full-time equivalents? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:57): I’m repeating myself yet again. This whole Part 1 is about medical certificates and medical reviews. No requirement has changed. This is about the use of automated decision-making (ADM) in applying and using that technology to allow ADM to be used to make greater efficiency. I gave the example. This whole part is all about it. If, for example, somebody gets a medical certificate that is exactly the same as the last one and you use ADM, that then means that it is saving front-line staff’s time so they can use that time for higher-quality conversations. I’m saying, again, that for the whole of Part 1, there is no change. There is no change in the requirements. This is just enabling and authorising so that in law it is clear about what we are using ADM for. Look, I’m sorry if the member hasn’t understood that yet, but for the requirements and the eligibility, nothing is changing. To the comment around the jobseeker benefit and whether this will help: absolutely, because it will help ensure front-line staff can spend their time having meaningful conversations with job seekers, as opposed to comparing a medical certificate to the last one, when you can get technology to do that for you. I want the front-line staff of the Ministry of Social Development having conversations with job seekers about what are the barriers they face in getting a job, and they are the best people to do that, and so if I can save them, through this legislation, the time involved on really simple things, that’s exactly what we’re doing. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (15:59): It’s great that the Minister for Social Development and Employment wants to see front-line staff talking to beneficiaries about moving into work, given that there are more people out of work under this Government’s watch— Hon Carmel Sepuloni: More people on benefit. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: More people on benefit under this Minister’s for Social Development and Employment’s watch. I have a few specific questions and it’s really unfortunate that the Minister for Social Development and Employment keeps saying that there’s nothing to see here—that there are no substantive or material changes—because all they’re doing is expanding the use of automated decision-making (ADM). That is the change that we are here to debate, because what we have seen is that when that expansion happens, it leads to different outcomes for people. That is the very point that we’re trying to get some answers from the Minister about. I want to ask the Minister in the Chair some specific questions in relation to a response earlier, and given that it’s a different Minister, I will outline what that response was. It was specifically to do with the standard that is being used. Now, the concern that has been raised, particularly by disabled people, is the fact that the expansion—the very expansion that we’re debating here—is the same expansion that was seen in Australia where outcomes, then, were harmful to disabled people. So while the Minister keeps saying there’s nothing to see here and gaslighting members on this side of the House, there is something to see. There is a real anxiety around it, and we want to tease that out. Two things to do with that. One was the Minister of Social Development and Employment has said in her response that when it comes to ADM, there was a standard that was set up in 2022 that governs the use of ADM. We all get that; we get that on this side of the House, as well. New information from the royal commission in Australia showed that internal standards alone are insufficient. One of the reasons that the Minister gave us for why the standard is a good thing when it comes to safeguards is that it is meant to not entrench bias and discrimination that you would have otherwise seen or could have otherwise seen if a human had been making those decisions. Unfortunately, the new evidence that we’ve seen from Australia is that the very standard—the internal standard that is also being used here—entrenches bias and discrimination against specific groups of people; here, particularly Māori and disabled people. I want to know what, in the existing standard that has just been refreshed, will stop us from going down that trajectory that we have already seen in a comparable jurisdiction. That is my first question around the standard. The second is also: why an internal standard, given that the best evidence that we have that is new shows us that that is not the gold standard when it comes to robust safeguards? So why is there only an internal standard within the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), and not an independent standard? Now, in terms of clause 12, specifically, which replaces sections 41 and 42 in the main Social Security Act with these new sections, I want to know specifically, given that this is around the supported living payment—particularly when someone is applying for it on the grounds of caring for another person—it seems to be that there is new information here in this new section of the bill, particularly when it comes to 41(3), where the medical certificate must be given by a prescribed health practitioner (PHP). In response to the Minister of Social Development and Employment’s answer that a preferred health practitioner, according to her, is any health practitioner who is registered in New Zealand, in what cases could the beneficiary’s preference then be overruled by MSD? Can the Minister give me an example where that might happen, because it says in the legislation if the beneficiary wants a particular health practitioner and MSD doesn’t agree with that, MSD can overrule the preference of the beneficiary. Can the Minister give me an example where that might reasonably happen, such that MSD picks who the preferred health practitioner is? Now when it comes to 41(3)(b), (i) and (ii), specific clauses around certification: “whether, in the PHP’s opinion, … P requires C’s full-time care”. That is the crux of applying for a supported living payment. Is it new that the health practitioner has to determine whether one person requires the full-time care of another person? This goes back to the question that we’ve asked the Minister previously, that we’ve received no response for: what is the criteria? If the criteria is just that a health practitioner needs to be registered in New Zealand, the bar seems very high here. It seems incredibly high that somebody will not get a supported living payment just if an arbitrary health practitioner decides that the person they care for doesn’t need a level of care that is high enough that it firstly requires someone to provide full-time care, or if that full-time care isn’t provided, that that person goes into institutional care. That bar seems incredibly high in this particular clause. I want to know from the Minister whether this is new; if so, which part of it is new and why is the bar set quite so high, such that the criteria seems to have been tightened quite a bit? Those are my questions, currently, for clause 12. I will leave it there and give the Minister an opportunity to respond. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (16:05): I know that we need to swap people in the chairs—not you, so much, as the Minister—but I am extremely confused about the previous remark from the Minister of Social Development and Employment where she is not engaging on our questions from clauses 5 to 12, claiming that it’s all about automated decision-making. Could the Minister in the chair please outline whether automated decision-making is referenced in any of the clauses we’ve referenced so far, because, I think, otherwise we’re going to speak past each other. As far as I’m aware, the only clause in which automatic electronic systems is specifically referenced is clause 36. I think we’re going to have quite a bit of a problem in this debate if we just get poor engagement on claims that the issues around prescribed health practitioners and medical certificates are solely to do with the use of automated decision-making, when we have a very specific clause that we haven’t actually named or touched on that is to do with that. Now, I want to give one more chance to the Hon Matt Doocey to clarify to us if he is certain that there are no drafting errors in this bill, because that’s something that I particularly wanted to note. Now, something that I also haven’t had engagement on from the Minister that I would like to reiterate—and I genuinely want engagement on the issues that the Privacy Commissioner raised; that has not been addressed yet. The other thing that I wanted to note that I haven’t had engagement with is whether all existing uses of automated decision-making—whether they have been legal like that—have not been addressed and/or touched on. I think this is critical because, as others said, the risk—has a bunch of stuff that is completely covered because of legal privilege, but that makes me feel, based on what is not redacted, that that hasn’t been the case. Now, wanting to move on to issues relating to clause 12: one of the things that we keep trying to debate around, for example, what’s in line 30 to 35 on page 20 in clause 12, relating to the medical report having to have the prescribed health practitioner’s (PHP) on P requiring “C’s full-time care and attention; and … were it not for that care and attention, P would have to receive institutional care;”. One of the reasons and the connection to the fact that we’re concerned that there’s this line across the legislation on the PHP being agreed by Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and P—I’m concerned that there seems to be no language or clarification or engagement from the Minister on what basis MSD can say no to a proposed PHP by P. Because the PHP in the bill—the prescribed health practitioner—has huge power over someone’s ability, in clause 12, to enter the supported living payment for carers, for example. What I’m concerned about is that, say that I need to support someone in full-time care and I’m looking at clause 12 and I’m thinking, “OK, cool. My PHP that I want to propose to MSD is someone that I know very well. It’s someone that I trust. It’s someone that my family member—in this case, C—trusts.” What basis would MSD have to say, “Nope, I don’t agree with you that that’s the PHP that should be actually making this medical certificate.” That’s nowhere in the bill to be found. It actually just gives MSD carte blanche to just say, “You know what? I don’t like this prescribed health practitioner, so I am going to decide for you, because I don’t agree.” There’s literally nowhere in the bill that outlines what reasons a case manager could, for example, say, “Nope, I’m not going to agree with that PHP.” What that means, though, is that, for example, we could see further systemic discrimination of people, and people being prevented from being carers of the family members or loved ones that they want to support. Can the Minister please clarify how they intend to operationalise the grounds in which MSD can say, “Nope, I’m not going to trust this PHP to be the one producing, for example, medical reports that will outline in their opinion whether P requires C’s full-time care.”? I go back to a question, finally, that hasn’t been engaged with, which is: does MSD have a list of PHPs that then they can draw on? If there’s no agreement between MSD and P, does MSD actually have a list of these prescribed health practitioners; if so, how many are there? What is the breakdown between how many of them are psychologists, nurses, or medical professionals? The reason I say this is that if you live in rural area, you may not have many to choose from, and that leaves me wondering then what happens if somebody says “Nope, I don’t like your PHP”? If the Minister would like to engage, I would appreciate it. Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (16:10): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and just to thank those members for their contributions and their questions. We had a question: is the automated decision-making (ADM) expansion the same as Australia? I’ve been advised it is not the same. The standard is reviewed and consulted every three years. The question is: what’s in the ADM standard that would stop something similar to Robodebt? The answer, I’ve been advised, is that the standard has requirements for accuracy, reliability, transparency, and compliance. There was a question of why ADM is not referenced in clauses 8 to 12. I’ve been advised that the changes in clauses 8 to 12 add clarification to the law to allow the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to use ADM in relation to aspects of medical reviews. The changes set out clear requirements for how ADM is used; this is an additional safeguard. There was another question: in what case could a beneficiary’s choice of prescribed health practitioner be overruled? I’ve been advised that MSD has a pool of prescribed health practitioners; some will be local to the client; one of these will likely be selected mutually between the client and MSD; if not, MSD will choose because a decision about eligibility needs to be made. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I note that I’m getting closure motions on the right. I hope those that are making those closure motions have got the bill in front of them and realise that we’re not very far through it. On the other hand, you will have heard the encouragement from the previous Chair to keep moving. We’ll get that balance about right. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (16:12): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to take the first question on clause 11 but, just before I do so, pick up on what the Minister said about the standard. The question really is: why is the standard under this bill not in legislation; why is it left to MSD process? That is the crux of the question, which has not been answered. As far as clause 11 goes, this is again about the supported living payment for carers. This is really a question about why the Government has not followed its own advice about the carers’ strategy—its own strategy—which is the New Zealand Carers’ Strategy and Mahi Aroha Carers’ Strategy Action Plan. The Minister will be well aware and I think have some sympathy for the position that carers of people affected under this bill are some of the hardest-working and most compassionate people that we have, and they, if anything, need more recognition, not less recognition, and the Government’s own strategy says that. The Government’s own strategy says that carers should be people who are treated as recognised, supported, trusted, and assisted to navigate systems more easily. My first question is: how does clause 11, which is requiring that carers expressly be subject to the new medical certificate requirements in section 41—how does that help them navigate repeated medical certification processes while managing intensive caring duties; how does it make that easier? I just can’t understand the conflict there. It also says in the plan that there should be the support for the wellbeing of carers. It talks about having a whānau-centred approach; it talks about carers’ voices being heard. Well, which carers were consulted, Minister? We’ve had questions previously about which disability groups were consulted, but we have not had questions about which specific carer support groups were consulted. There are many, and they are organised and mobilised, because they have such a high level of need. If the Minister could please let us know which, if any, have been consulted. Further questions on clause 11: we’ve had questions about the fiscal savings arising from the tighter evidential requirements for disabled people or people caught by the legislation. What are the fiscal savings specifically related to carers, and has any modelling been done to show what the baseline is of how many carers are falsely or dishonestly collecting a benefit when they should not be? What is that baseline data? Is there modelling? Secondly, what do they anticipate the fiscal savings will be when those carers who are caught by these evidential requirements, if they do not meet the threshold—what are they expecting that fiscal envelope to be? Has the Government consulted with the carers—not just the communities of Māori and Pacific, because we’ve heard that before, but the carers of Māori and Pacific, because they significantly are disproportionately providing more unpaid care for whānau than other groups. Has any consultation been had with those groups? Why has the Government, from a policy perspective, increased the evidential requirements? This is not about automation; this is about creating another hoop for people who are already incredibly busy, already not paid properly for the work they’re doing, and already crying out for support. What is the policy reason, outside of the automation argument, which I don’t believe applies accurately to disabled and other people; that aside, why apply that to carers? The number of carers who would be claiming a benefit fraudulently must be absolutely miniscule. Where is the problem that this particular clause, clause 11, is trying to solve? Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (16:16): Thank you, Mr Chair. There are two questions there I can answer at this point. Why is the standard not in primary legislation? I’ve been advised that is because it is an operational standard. In the legislation, clause 36 sets out the requirements for what the standard must including. Another question: why has the Minister not followed the advice of the Mahi Aroha Carers’ Strategy? I’ve been advised that the bill does not change eligibility settings for the supported living payment for carers. The bill does not change the requirements for the frequency or type of evidence carers provide. I’ve also been advised that Whaikaha and the Ministry of Health were consulted. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (16:17): Kia ora, Mr Chair. I just wanted to ask some questions but also alert the Chair that this is my first call on this bill. I did miss the first 60 minutes or so of the committee of the whole House, so please do feel free to interrupt me if I’m repeating any questions. I know where we’re up to; we’re up to clause 12, Mr Chair—I’m aware of that—just if there are any areas that have been jumped ahead to, please do let me know. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well, that’s probably up to you to get a briefing from some of your colleagues on that. TAMATHA PAUL: Yep, we have. We’ve been working hard, breaking down a really big bill. They have let me know, but just in case—just in case. We do have a lot of questions, because one thing that stands out about this bill is that I’ve never seen a regulatory impact statement with this much redaction in it before, so there will be a lot of questions coming from this side of the House at least. I think one thing that’s been hard to go through the clauses, and maybe the way that I prefaced the question in the way that I did, is because the Minister in the chair before referred a lot to the automated decision-making, which is quite confusing, because we’re only around clause 12, and you don’t actually see the automated decision-making coming in till around clause 36. we’re just trying to get some answers to all of the information before that. Now, I have an electorate office in Wellington Central, so this is bill is really important, because we get a lot of people coming through asking questions about the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). One thing that I have noticed in the electorate office recently is that people engaging with MSD who are met by an automated response or met by artificial intelligence (AI) in order to answer their inquiries are quite frustrated—particularly our seniors, who did not grow up in this world of AI in the same way that we did. I had some further questions. My colleague Ricardo Menéndez March asked some questions around the primary health practitioners (PHPs) and how those will be chosen, and the Minister has given us a brief amount of information about how those PHPs will be selected within a region. I think one thing that makes it difficult is that one thing that we’ve canvassed quite a bit in this term of Parliament when we were dealing with bills such as the Treaty principles bill is the systemic racism or inequities that Māori and Pacific communities face within the health system. What I wanted to understand is what engagement has the Minister done with Māori health professionals in terms of curating that list of approved prescribed health practitioners (PHPs). If you, say, have an older Māori kuia living in rural New Zealand, how will you make sure that she is able to access a Ministry of Social Development certified PHP that also meets her cultural needs and is able to understand her life and her health and her abilities? And what understanding and thinking has actually gone into this bill in terms of those health inequities as well? Because, obviously, this bill requires medical examination by the prescribed list. We want to make sure that the priority populations that are covered in the regulatory impact statement—Māori, Pacific people, elderly, seniors—that their discreet needs within the health system are covered within these prescribed listed PHPs. The other thing I wanted to ask a question about is what about people who need these medical examinations or these medical certificates who have got trauma from the health system as well? So one thing we learnt through the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in State care is there are a number of people out there who suffering ongoing trauma and disabilities that they experienced through the health system when they were examined, and they were abused within the health system. Now, some people might have never heard of that before, but there are, actually, a lot of survivors of sexual violence who actually would prefer, perhaps, to have a medical examination undertaken by, say, somebody of the same gender or of the opposite gender. So what thinking has gone into making sure that the person who undertakes that medical health examination of P in this bill is the right person for that person culturally and in a trauma-informed way as well? The other question that I have is about C. So C talks about—so under clause 12, it says, under replacement section 41(3)(b)(i) “P requires C’s full-time care and attention;”. So it says, “P requires C’s full-time care and attention;”. So, obviously, in this bit, C refers to the full-time carer of P, right? So what I want to understand is can C be multiple people? Sometimes when you have people in your family or even friends that you are looking after, that might not be just one person who is undertaking full-time care of, in this instance, P. So, for example, if there is a family where, say, the mother has got a disability, she might have five children, and all of them partake in full-time care of P. So when this says all of the sections around “(C) who is required to give full-time care and attention at home to another person (P)”, is C a single person or could C be multiple people? Because we need to recognise and acknowledge that sometimes people that are being cared for might be cared for by multiple people. So I will come back to that, because we do have a lot more questions around C and that person in the bill and their role and how that might interact with other recent changes within the law under the Disability Support Services Bill. But, for now, I’ll leave my questions there. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (16:24): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to move on to clause 13. Before I do, I want to be clear about something, so I put this as a question earlier. I have not actually understood, so is it true that people who get these medical certificates by requirement will have to meet the cost of those medical certificates? Has there been any discussion with ACC about its arrangements with such medical examinations and certificates? But I would like to go to clause 13, which is about the winter energy payment. Now, this clause is one that is of concern to me, because the winter energy payment was brought in very much as a universal, very broad brush, “Just let’s give people the money to use for this purpose, but we’re not looking any further.” So I’m concerned about this clause eroding that principle. So could the Minister please tell me about the logic with regard to this clause? For example, was advice sought from public health experts regarding the risks associated with any reduction in the winter energy payment? My understanding is here we’re talking about people who are on benefits who are vulnerable and they’ve been hospitalised. So can the Minister tell me why this was a priority in this situation, given that energy is at an all-time high in its prices at the moment? And that erosion of that universalism that we’ve had, is this, Minister, a change in policy and restriction on winter energy payment, or is something else going on there? Because we’ve heard from the Minister that there is no change other than automation in this situation. Can I be assured that that is all that is happening here, not a restriction in access to the winter energy payment? There’ll be people who are actually quite worried about this out there. I’m going to keep it short, because that’s just what I want to know. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): For those members who have newly arrived, get some consultation from your friends so that I don’t have to make the same speech again. I would expect the member would have a copy of the bill in front of him so we’d know when we might be getting near a closure. The noise that comes from my right is no guarantee of a closure; I can guarantee it. So where we are—Ricardo Menéndez March. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (16:27): Thank you very much, Mr Chair—appreciate it. I wanted to move on to clauses 14 and 15. So this is in relationship to the child disability allowance requirement to provide medical evidence. Now, I want to make it really clear that throughout these clauses, while the Minister says that eligibility for support of living payment, for example, hasn’t changed, there is more prescription in primary legislation over the type of information that needs to be put on those medical certificates. There is no doubt about that. Now, for the purpose of child disability allowance, the Minister in his previous engagement around the prescribed health practitioner (PHP) pool that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has, what we didn’t get engagement on was on a breakdown of, for example, out of the categories that PHPs can be—I’m just going to wait, because I really want an engagement on this. So I can see that the Ministers are talking to each other, so I am just going to wait until they finish talking to each other, because I just know they’re not listening to my question. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The member can start again if he likes. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Thank you, yes—appreciate it. They’re still talking to each other, Mr Chair, so I just don’t know how I know that my questions are going to get listened to or engaged with. So I am just going to—OK, I think the Minister is ready. Thank you very much. So now, on child disability allowance, my question was in relationship to the pool of PHPs. I haven’t had engagement on the breakdown of how many PHPs MSD has in their pool. I particularly would like to know a breakdown of, for example, how many psychologists, nurses, or doctors they have in it. Because, for the child disability allowance, there are some needs that a child may need to be met through material costs that sometimes only very specialist groups can actually assess. For example, we have people who may specialise on assessing kids with foetal alcohol syndrome. For example, we could have specialists who are experts on being able to diagnose neurodivergence and particularly with rising awareness of things like ADHD, for example, people still know that they may want to go to a specific health practitioner to be able to get the right type of diagnosis to have the right criteria being met. Now, for the purposes of child disability—[Interruption] Pardon? Tamatha Paul: Masking. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Yeah. My colleague rightfully talked about how some health practitioners, for example, may be better placed to assess whether a child may be masking, for example, their neurodivergence and to be able to assess whatever needs they may have. I really care about access to the child disability allowance because I have seen firsthand, in my work at the front lines, how access to that child disability allowance can make a huge difference for children. My question is: does the Minister know what breakdown MSD has, within that PHP pool, of people who are specialists in being able, for example, to provide a diagnosis on issues like ADHD or fetal alcohol syndrome? What I am concerned about is that, because of the way MSD can just send someone to a PHP of their choice, perhaps they will be sent to a PHP that is not adequate for them. I know that my colleague Kahurangi Carter, our disability spokesperson, deeply cares about the provisions in clauses 14 to 16 and has been trying to take a call for 30 minutes on this, so I am borrowing some of her question lines on some of this. That’s the final question. The other thing is: can the Minister guarantee us that the so-called clarifications on the medical certificates won’t lead to fewer people being able to access the child disability allowance, per the requirements in clause 15, or does the Minister have any modelling on the changes to access to the disability allowance due to the requirements in clause 15? I will leave my questions there, but I genuinely do want to get engagement on the breakdown of the pool of PHPs that MSD has within their system, because, otherwise, I have no confidence that MSD will be making responsible decisions on who to send children to to have them assessed for their material needs under the child disability allowance. Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) (16:31): Thank you, Mr Chair. As I go through the answers here, my apologies, I’m just not sure who asked which question, but we will respond to the questions. The systemic racism and inequality; how can we ensure that rural communities can access timely and appropriate—I think it may have been from the Green Party. Generally, clients will provide their own medical evidence, and if a referral is required, this will generally be with someone agreed between the client and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). In terms of the clarification about whether a client’s rate of payment is reduced to a hospital rate, MSD may use discretion to stop. There is no change in the current policy, just clarification of what happens after a mandatory review. And “Can C be multiple people?” No, because C must be providing that full-time care so that they can be eligible for a benefit, and there are no changes to this requirement. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (16:33): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to go to clause 18, which is significant, because it, basically, replaces the existing section 103 with an entirely new framework which governs what happens when a dependent child turns 18, and it includes rules for removing children from benefit calculations. It includes suspending entitlements, and it creates limited exceptions for continued education. I think, if we look at families that are impacted by this, and we think about the rate of unemployment, and also the types of training opportunities that may be available to some families, it raises real questions around whether there are unintended consequences that haven’t been thought through with this provision. I’m sure the Minister will accept that dependency doesn’t suddenly end on a child’s 18th birthday, so we are trying to understand why tertiary study is treated differently from secondary school attendance under the structure of the new clause. Has she considered the impact on low-income families who are supporting young adults who are transitioning through education or through work, or maybe through less orthodox types of training courses, special training courses for at-risk kids, and so on, where suddenly there is this cut-off and there is an incentive for some of those kids to actually just be pushed straight out into a lower-paying job because that safety net is no longer there for them, which might make the difference to them going on to become higher skilled, being able to contribute more to society, being able to get a higher level of qualification and contribute more to their families? Those are some of the unintended consequences. I’m wondering if the Minister has thought about those. Where does the assumption come from that 18-year-olds are suddenly financially independent? It seems to be present in other pieces of legislation. Can the Minister explain why 18 is that cut off? Is it an arbitrary number? Is there a rationale around it? Has she assessed the impact it would have on child and youth poverty or housing insecurity? We are seeing more and more young people on our streets at the moment. Young people are facing the highest levels of unemployment that we’ve seen in decades—young Pasifika people in particular, record-high unemployment. This is the very vulnerable group that could get caught out by this, and suddenly there is a drop-dead date when they are no longer eligible. Can the Minister, also, just explain why 31 December has been used, given that many courses don’t suddenly start or stop there? Educational pathways are different. They’re much more fluid than that, but we have one date. Were other dates considered, or is there a way perhaps she could consider amending that to make it correlate to the training pathway, so that there isn’t this anomaly where 31 December is this very blunt, arbitrary date that has been selected? The big question, really, is whether the automated systems could be used to identify children turning 18 and trigger exclusion or suspension processes. Currently, that doesn’t happen. The Minister has said this is just tidying up and it is not creating new powers, but could the automation suddenly capture that cohort, that very vulnerable cohort that are dealing with the very sharp end of the cost of living? Are there any human oversights guaranteed for reductions or cancellations that will affect families impacted by this particular clause—for example, rights of appeal—or if something is just a really crazy anomaly to do with the “31 December” date where it would make no sense to stop the support? Maybe it just means a few months’ extension, but that is going to be the difference between getting that young person into a training institution versus them becoming completely dependent or being forced out to work, or even being kicked out of home by some families, which is a reality for some of our people. On the redesign of section 103, which youth did the Minister speak to? Which young people’s groups of advocates did she consult with to understand the unintended consequences? There is a lot at stake with this. It is a complete redesign, and with some tweaking, perhaps there could be a bit more human input and we could avoid some of those motivations that would see people not reaching their full potential. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (16:38): As I have said throughout my contributions in Part 1 of this bill, it doesn’t change the eligibility, it doesn’t change the policy, so the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) will continue to include 18-year-olds who are financially dependent and still in education in their caregiver’s benefit until the end of the school year or when they become financially independent. Nothing changes around eligibility. All that will happen: MSD currently notifies the beneficiary when their dependent child is turning 18, and they request that they ask if that child is no longer financially dependent or in education. If they don’t contact MSD, they may get the wrong entitlement, which is what this bill is about. It is the process underneath. It doesn’t change the policy. There was a question there about substantial human involvement in the end-of-year school process, so let me go through that. I’m sure that will answer questions that members may have around many of the clauses in Part 1 that cover the end-of-year process. When a client gets in touch to let MSD know their child is still financially dependent on them—i.e., not working full time and in school or tertiary education—when the client receives a discretionary benefit, e.g., an emergency benefit, a staff member will need to review the benefit in order for the payment to continue, and only when the last only child turns 18 and the entitlement relies on a dependent child being included, the payment will generally stop automatically. Human involvement is required to resume the payment if the client provides information to confirm they are still eligible for the payment. As I’ve said, the process for the end of the school year is woven through Part 1. I hope my comments there address the questions that members have, and, again, I reiterate there is no change in eligibility. KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) (16:40): Thank you, Mr Chair. It has almost been an hour that I have been jumping up to take a call, and so I am very glad to be here. We are at around clause 18 of Part 1, which has 59 clauses in it, and so we have got a lot more questions. We’ve already gone over some clauses that I did have questions for that weren’t answered, but what I will do is I will move forward in the hope that we can have a really fulsome kōrero and engagement from the Minister for Social Development and Employment, who has said things like “I’m repeating myself again.” and not actually addressing a lot of the questions that have been asked. So I do implore the Minister to fully participate in these questions, because these are pertaining to things that affect our children, and children should be at the heart of every Government decision. When we look at this effect of having a child turn 18 years old, I would like the Minister to tell us what advice was received from Oranga Tamariki and from the Children’s Commissioner in relation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, around prescribed health practitioners (PHPs) and their appropriateness for children, because, of course, children have a very complex and special set of needs. For example, for someone living in a rural area who may take three or four hours to drive to a PHP, children— Simon Court: Where is that? That’s Auckland to Ruapehu, OK? KAHURANGI CARTER: Thank you, Simon Court. This is actually from when I was accessing the child disability allowance for my child. We lived in Ohakune, which is a four-hour drive from the psychologist who had diagnosed my child, and what happened was our needs were such that they needed to be dealt with in person, and for every assessment, every year, we had to go back and prove that my child still needed access to the child disability allowance. We were going to a trusted doctor who could do that in a way that was mana-enhancing and making sure that my child was being cared for, and so we travelled those long distances. I want to come back to the questions, which are around clauses 14 and 15, and they also pertain to clause 17. Then we will talk about new Subpart 18, around who will pay for an advance medical cost when you need a PHP. That was in a question that was asked by my colleague Mike Davidson and it wasn’t addressed by the Minister. We have amendments on the Table to clause 15, which are things like “If an examination by a PHP is required by MSD, MSD will pay (a) section 80(1) in advance for the actual cost of an exemption by PHPs”. My questions are these. Who is paying for the PHP, especially when we know in the former clauses that this can be asked for at any time? It doesn’t have to be every 52 weeks; it can be at any time, and so who is fronting up for those costs? We are talking about many children who are already living in poverty. What advice was received around medical professionals and their appropriateness for people living in rural areas or people living away from someone who can actually give an appropriate medical diagnosis—not online, because that’s not appropriate for children—and then what advice was sought under the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child? Because Minister Upston is the Minister in the chair right now, I would like to implore her to answer some of the questions that she did not answer, and we would love her not to be repeating herself. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (16:45): I’ve already answered questions about who pays for the assessment. I just do want to confirm in terms of the child disability allowance that the previous member asked about that clients will provide their own evidence from their own health provider. It doesn’t need to be from a prescribed health practitioner if the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is satisfied that the evidence provided determines eligibility. In terms of the question around the Children’s Commissioner, etc., the child disability allowance, obviously, is something that the parents apply for. The end-of-year process for 18-year-olds, as I’ve gone through before—it’s not changing the eligibility. Therefore, there was no requirement to consult the Children’s Commissioner. It is simply the process by which MSD determines whether there is still eligibility for a benefit or not, and that is assessing whether or not that child is independent. As I said, that is scattered through all of Part 1. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Look, I’m aware that this hasn’t been through select committee and there will always be a lot more grace from the Chair. However, be aware that taking a full five-minute call does increase the risk that you’ll be covering a lot of material that probably has already been. At this stage of the bill, what we’re looking for is material that is clarifying issues in what is a relatively substantial bill, but we still need to keep moving forward. So just bear that in mind. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (16:47): Mr Chair, thank you. This question is about clause 18, and it’s a question that you’ll see is utterly genuine because I’ve raised these issues in the speeches, so it’s very important that I put this to the Minister for Social Development and Employment. We had a piece of law change recently which was all about taking our 18-year-olds out of the system so that they were not independently able to get benefits if they didn’t have a job. Now, I appreciate that the Minister has talked about this as simply being the status quo in terms of entitlement, but given that there is now nowhere for that child to get a payment if they have not found a job, and given we have really high youth unemployment, we no longer have the same safety net because of that. So my question for the Minister is: did she consider that issue? Was it something that she took advice on? Is that on purpose—is she actually saying, “Well, if they’re not in training, then we’re going to make it very, very hard for parents in beneficiary families, because if their child’s not in training, they’re going to have the full cost of that child on their hands, and that’s a good thing.”? Is that what’s really going on logically? I wouldn’t agree, but at least I’d know where the Minister stood on it. Did the Minister take advice on that, and is that something that she talked to the Children’s Commissioner about—because what does seem relevant is the issue about where that child is sitting. Also, did anybody give her advice on the implications for beneficiary parents? Now, I gave a really good example of someone I knew who was in a difficult situation. They were looking after a child who had turned 18 and had fallen out of the system. I think that this is a real question for real people out there, and I’d really appreciate an answer on it. Thank you. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (16:49): Speaking about this bill, a child can be included in their caregiver’s benefit if they are financially dependent on their caregiver and are in school or in tertiary education. A child can only be included in their caregiver’s benefit up to the start of the pay period following 31 December of the year that they turn 18, if they meet that criteria. They cannot be included in the caregiver’s benefit for the following year, even if they are ineligible for jobseeker support due to the jobseeker settings for 18- and 19-year-olds. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (16:49): Thank you. I’d like to turn to clauses 23 and 24. Clause 23, it looks technical but if you unpick it, it’s a core organising feature of changing the weighting from discretionary support towards systematised support. And that’s why it is worthy of review. My first question is very simple, and it’s just: does the Minister accept that it is actually what the impact of that clause is, and if she doesn’t, why not? Because we keep hearing her say this is just a kind of technical thing but, in fact, that is what that clause does. And if she says it doesn’t, then why is the mandatory review system being elevated structurally within the architecture of Part 6? Because surely the Minister understands that the guide provisions influence how legislation is interpreted and administered by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) staff. So the signals appear to be around reducing discretion, reducing the ability for there to be human reviews, and increasing automation and algorithms. If that is the case, then surely that is also the signal for the culture of MSD that she is expecting going forward—that is going to lead to those cost savings that we have heard about. If we look at clause 24, what 24 does is, again, it looks technical, but it just begs the question: why does it exist? Because if MSD already has broad powers under section 298 to inquire into claims and beneficiary circumstances, why is the Government creating a new mandatory regime and explicitly preserving both powers? It’s additive. And if you look at clause 24, clause 30, clause 32 and 36 together, every one of those clauses seem to be adding a layer of power to MSD and changing the weighting from a human-judgment philosophy to an automated-mathematical-algorithm philosophy. And that does not stack up with the Minister’s claims that this bill is merely a technical bill that is enabling technical things to happen. There is a significant policy shift if the clauses of 24, 30, 32, and 36 are read together. The question to the Minister is: does she accept that there are already broad powers under section 298; and if she does, then why do we have these additional powers that are being created in this clause? The other questions are around the administrative burden. Has the Minister considered, with all of this, whether duplication will happen because of investigations that are happening at different levels of this compliance architecture that she is initiating. Can beneficiaries, for example, be subject to multiple reviews of the same circumstances under both section 298 and Subpart 3A? And if not, can the Minister rule that out because otherwise there is duplication both for MSD—that’s a taxpayer problem, that’s a legislative problem, it’s a duplication problem, but it’s also incredibly stressful for the beneficiary who is now subject to two layers of interrogation and compliance rather than one. So what is the practical gap in the current legislation that clause 24 is intended to address? It is not clear, from our view, that it is doing anything except giving more power to MSD to be able to make more requirements and more hoops for people to jump through. If that is not the case, and if she accepts that section 298 already has that broad power, then what is the purpose of having these sweeping powers in all of those clauses together? The only conclusion we can come to is that it is around a policy shift. If that is not the case, the Minister needs to tell us really clearly what the grounds for that are; not a sweeping statement saying this is about automation, but something that tells us why those additional powers are needed for compliance, not for changing the regime, which is what they appear to intend to do. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (16:54): So medical reviews is, again, scattered all through Part 1. The review process for beneficiaries receiving a medical benefit is not changing. I’ve said that before. MSD will continue to require beneficiaries applying for a medical benefit to provide a medical certificate or other medical evidence at application. The evidence is used to determine the period of medical coverage. When their medical coverage ends, MSD will require beneficiaries to provide further medical evidence. The bill just makes it a requirement for MSD to ask for the medical evidence and for the beneficiary to provide it. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (16:55): Thank you. I am looking at clause 25, and I can see that that is a section that talks about grants and them being declined if there’s no evidence. I want to ask the Minister whether the intention is to shift from a system where we used to have eligibility, and then we would seek the evidence, to one where we are looking at evidence first and then the grant. Because one of the questions I’ve got in this particular clause is: if there was a delay, so the delay was beyond the actual power of the person involved, would there be any mechanism, now, without that evidence being produced, for them to get the grant? Is that an outcome that has been built into the system, that kind of discretion? It seems to me that that’s not a fantasy; that’s a likelihood we are going to get people where there is that kind of delay beyond a doubt and it’s not going to be their fault. One thing is that it may be very apparent that there’s an issue, and the other is that, in that situation, sometimes, it’s simply someone else who creates the delay. So can I just ask the Minister: is there an actual shift here? Is she willing to acknowledge this shift here from a situation of, actually, we make the judgment and then we gather the evidence, and now we don’t: we gather the evidence and then we make the judgment. Thank you. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (16:57): As I said previously, the review process for those receiving a medical benefit isn’t changing. And what I also said much earlier in the debate is if there is a reason, then an extension is required, and it can be requested and granted. I have covered this ground much earlier in the debate and so I’m hoping I don’t have to— Hon Willow-Jean Prime: It’s a section. We go through the section. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, but the medical reviews are covered all through Part 1. And you’ve asked me a question that I’ve answered before. If there is a valid reason where somebody can’t get the medical review information that they need, they simply contact MSD and say, “Here’s the reason why.”, and they get granted an extension of up to 40 working days. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: It’s the words in the section. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m explaining Part 1, which is medical reviews covered all the way through it. And I’m sorry if you don’t understand that, but I’m trying to make it clear for you. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (16:58): I move, That debate on this question now close. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We’ve still got a little bit more there. But be aware, on my left, that we need to keep moving and be quite specific now. There’s a lot of ground that’s been covered reasonably commonly. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (16:58): Thank you, Mr Chair, and appreciate the guidance. We have been using a new clause per call. It is really difficult if the Minister is answering comprehensively on one part that has got so many clauses and I’d have to say, actually, that, in our view, it’s a case of pretty bad drafting because normally this would be contained in multiple sections. But nevertheless, we’re having to deal with the bill that’s in front of us—that probably was done in a bit of a rush by the looks of it. So my questions are around the amended section 301, that is done by clause 25, and it’s about the supported living payments and how that will actually work from an implementation perspective overseas. The bill’s telling us that they will be reviewed more systematically, but there’s very limited detail on how those reviews will be conducted. And then there’s a, kind of, very weird thing, where suddenly there’s a carve-out for Australia and it just pops out of the middle of nowhere. I have no idea how many people are impacted by that. The new requirement to provide a medical certificate or other medical evidence does not apply if the benefit is or would be payable in Australia. If the Minister can just give us some guidance on what that’s about, how many people will be captured by it, and what is the difference between Australia and other neighbouring jurisdictions. Is that going to, for example, have an impact on particular communities who might affiliate to other countries? Would it have a negative impact or a positive impact on them? Is there some reciprocal agreement or something that Australia has done that has made this a requirement now on our side? That is something we would have been able to see at select committee and ask questions about, but we haven’t had that opportunity. My question is really on clause 25. There’s a lot I could say about it, but I’ll keep my contribution brief. How will the medical evidence from overseas doctors be assessed? We haven’t had clear answers about the hierarchy of considerations of medical practitioners in New Zealand, let alone which of those will be in or out, because those are relegated to regulation, which is interesting and problematic. But what are the standards that the foreign medical practitioners would have to meet? Would it be the medical standards of their own jurisdictions or is it the medical standards of New Zealand jurisdictions? How is the Ministry of Social Development going to actually verify that information? If there’s a time lapse, which there often is—I mean, if anyone’s done immigration and tried to get a police certificate, it can take months and months. This automation system seems to suggest that that person would then not be able to collect that financial support until that medical information has been verified. If that is not the case, can we have it on the Hansard here, because we’re really worried that that will jeopardise people’s ability to be able to get money that they might otherwise be entitled to. How will the automated decision-making actually work for overseas cases? Does the technology distinguish or is it all handled in one go? How will the reviews work when a beneficiary lives in a country with different health systems or documentation practices? They’re very practical implementation questions, that, again, we could have heard in select committee through submissions or asked official advice. We don’t have that opportunity, so could we please have an answer to each of those so we can understand that people are not going to be unfairly disadvantaged. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:02): Thank you, Madam Chair. Eligibility for medical benefits is determined using, as you would expect, medical evidence. If you don’t have the evidence, you can’t grant the benefit, and so that hasn’t changed. The member asked a question around the change, or the specific reference to Australia. We have a reciprocal welfare system. I don’t want anyone listening thinking that you could be on a benefit granted from New Zealand and then go travelling around the world in a whole range of different countries—that’s not the case. In terms of Australia being specifically mentioned, we have a reciprocal arrangement with them, and we still have the expectation that while somebody’s medical condition continues to exist, they are eligible for the benefit. If their circumstances change, they still have a requirement to notify, but we felt it wasn’t practical to dictate the same conditions here in New Zealand for those who receive it in Australia. Hon Members: Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m not about to take a closure motion, but what I am about to say is that I’ve been watching this debate for quite some time and I’ve heard the Minister say on a number of occasions that this is not about the criteria; this is about the process. It is time to clearly move to other questions, because I’ve heard the Minister state on a number of occasions this is about the process, not the criteria, and I have heard a lot of criteria questions. I would expect that those asking questions would be asking questions, and not making five-minute speeches, so that we can move on to new topics. Otherwise I will be tempted to take a closure motion. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (17:04): Point of order, Madam Chairperson. I appreciate your guidance on that, Madam Chair. The issue is that as we go through clause by clause, there are different processes and different criteria that can apply, and when there hasn’t been a select committee stage, it is really important— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I get that, and I’ll say to the member that if I have this correct, the criteria is not changing; the process of what operates inside the system is changing. We could go through all of these, criteria by criteria, but we’re going to get the same answer, which is actually not going to be productive if the criteria hasn’t changed, and so that my decision. I want to move on to other—Willow-Jean Prime. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:05): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do just want to signal that the guts of this is actually, I think, in clauses 30 to 32. However, we are moving clause by clause, and I do take your points that you’ve just made. There has been a contribution on clause 25. I want to make a contribution on clause 26, and, in particular, when you look at clause 26 and you look at the current section 302, it looks like—it’s a bit more significant than it appears. I would like to exchange with the Minister a number of questions around that, because this is the ability of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to make an immediate provisional grant in some circumstances and sort out entitlement issues later. Clause 26 makes that power subject to the new medical evidence requirements, meaning that MSD cannot use provisional grant powers to get around the requirement for a medical certificate or other medical evidence before granting certain benefits. Clause 26 appears to be designed to make the answer a no for the affected medical evidence, and the question I’ve got for the Minister is: can the Minister give us some practical examples of how section 302 will continue to operate for health and disability - related benefits after this amendment, given that the new medical evidence provisions appear to override the provisional grant mechanism? Can the Minister please explain whether section 302 retains any meaningful role for these benefits after the amendment or whether clause 26, effectively, removes provisional grants in the medical evidence context—this goes to process. Can the Minister please tell me how many applicants currently receive assistance through provisional grant mechanisms before all documentation has been completed? Has the Government assessed the average wait time for obtaining the medical evidence required by this bill? What happens when MSD agrees that a person is likely to be eligible, but the medical certificate has not yet been completed? Under the current settings, how often are provisional grants made in circumstances where medical evidence is still outstanding? Has MSD estimated how many additional hardship applications may result because people can no longer access provisional grants while awaiting medical evidence? Will this simply shift applicants from one form of assistance to another form of assistance, into emergency or hardship assistance—and I note that other changes are happening in other places around temporary additional support. What proportion of expected savings from the bill arise from the latter commencement of these payments? Again, it looks like this clause is more significant than it may first appear when reading this, because this requirement or ability to have these provisional payments seems like that’s been quite significantly changed by the new clause 26 that is being put in place. I would appreciate the Minister addressing those. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:08): As I said earlier, this doesn’t change the eligibility. This is about the use of automated decision-making (ADM). ADM is not used in the initial granting of a benefit, and I’ve also said that before. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: I asked about provisional grants. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I have said—this is not covering hardship grants. The section we are talking about— Hon Willow-Jean Prime: This is provisional grants. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We are talking about medical reviews and the initial granting. If you want to hear the answer, I’m happy to give it. If you don’t want to, I’ll sit down. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:09): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I appreciate the call. I just ducked out for a bit and I— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I just hope the member heard my previous conversation on coming into the Chair that we are moving on from going benefit by benefit in terms of the criteria, because we’ve heard the criteria is not changing but the process is changing, and I want to start making some progress through the remainder of the clauses. Thank you. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Thank you. I wonder, I would say to the Minister, whether it makes a difference of—there’s a difference between the criteria to the benefit not changing and the information in the medical certificate changing. That is changing, Those two are different, and so let me just, once again—and I don’t believe that’s been addressed. The information in the medical certificate does change what is required to be in the medical certificate, and that’s different from the benefit eligibility. I want to go back to an earlier issue that hasn’t been engaged with, which is that when the information required in the medical certificate is different, and a bit more extensive, I would even say, we’ve heard from the Minister previously that there is a pool of prescribed health practitioners (PHPs). What I haven’t had engagement on was on the matter of whether those PHPs—there was a breakdown of how many were nurses, psychologists, or medical practitioners, and I particularly wanted to know this because despite the benefit eligibility not changing, because the information in the medical certificate does change, I want to seek assurance that the PHPs in the pool that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has actually have the required competencies to be able to assess people on complex things like fetal alcohol syndrome or, for example, neurodivergence. I know that’s very different from the benefit eligibility but what I am concerned about is that because there are more requirements for information in the medical certificate that then leads to the benefit being assessed, I am concerned we don’t know whether MSD has a broad enough range of PHPs in the pool. So that is one of my questions. The other one that I haven’t had engagement with was around the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner noted in the departmental disclosure statement. So in the departmental disclosure statement, the Privacy Commissioner actually noted that it had concerns over the use of automated decision-making. I have not received engagement from the Minister whatsoever over what were the concerns from the Privacy Commissioner in relation to the use of automated decision-making. A third thing that I haven’t had engagement with throughout this debate that I would love some engagement with was that I hear that benefit eligibility isn’t changing, but what this bill effectively does, particularly in clause 36, is on the carte blanche expansion of the powers of automated decision-making. Can the Minister please outline what future uses of automated decision-making she’s intending to have for MSD? I haven’t had engagement on that because that’s different—that’s clause 36 very specifically, not on the different types of benefits. And clause 36—I’m pretty sure it’s clause 36— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I don’t think the Minister can—the Minister’s actually speaking to what’s in the bill; I don’t think it’s a fair question to ask the Minister about some sort of future—unless it relates specifically to something in the bill. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Yes, because clause 36, what it does is that it expands the ability for MSD to use automated decision-making for any decision—anything—literally just all of it. Like all the administrative programmes, all the specified provisions. Then it talks a bit about the standard. But, I guess, if I see a bill that says, “Hey, automated decision-making can now be used for anything and everything”, but I haven’t heard from the Minister saying what is the intention behind expanding it for any decision; we’re none the wiser. And it’s hard for us to actually make a judgment on the merits of expanding automated decision-making, not for the previous narrow set of decisions that MSD could do but now for absolutely anything. If it’s not going to be intended in the future to be used for something else, then why give MSD the power to use it for absolutely everything? When I’m saying everything, I’m not being dramatic or you know, using a hyperbole; it literally is what clause 36 allows the ministry to do. That’s why I’m curious to know as to whether the Minister has already embarked on any work programme or has started a work programme, because we don’t— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Perhaps we’ll let her answer the question. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:13): So we’ve had a lot of conversation around the authorisation of automated decision-making (ADM), about when it can be used, and one of the really important things is to enable flexibility in the past, which is what I have talked about. That’s why I’ve also talked about the fact that we have an ADM standard, and the ADM standard is what has been consulted on with agencies including the Privacy Commissioner, the Human Rights Commission, etc. So it is really important that in order to give the Ministry of Social Development the ability to use ADM in future, that is the safeguard; through the ADM standard. As I said, I have explained that. Will there be more minor processes that don’t require human intervention that may be used in the past? Yes. And the safeguard is the ADM standard, as I said. It was created under the previous Government, has been refreshed in 2026, will continue to be refreshed in 2029. This is about enabling greater time of the front-line staff to be able to have those conversations that really have an impact with their clients. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (17:15): Thanks, Madam Chair. I’ve come to clause 30, which is amending section 305, which is “(Information for review)”. This is really another belts and braces provision, and I’m curious to understand whether this clause is necessary based on what the Minister has told us, because it seems to entrench a number of information-gathering processes, and this is a process question. So at the moment there is one information-gathering process. Now we have multiple processes and then there is this kind of belts and braces articulation in clause 30, which I’m trying to understand: what is the need for having that? Is that about speed of decision making or is this to really identify clearly that the administrative compliance is the overwhelming principle at stake? So that is clause 30. I also want to go to clause 32 and it is really the guts of the bill because as Ricardo Menéndez March has said, not only does it create this ability to use automation, but a lot of that is put into secondary legislation. And then we have the standard being the Ministry of Social Development standard, not a legislated standard. So there’s nowhere that we can see safeguarding about the reach and use and purpose of the automated systems, and that is the problem that we have on this side of the House. There is also the problem of the absolute response that needs to happen when there isn’t compliance, and so I would like to speak to the tabled amendment from the Hon Dr Duncan Webb to change— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Which number is the amendment? INGRID LEARY: So the amendment is number—hmm—1.43.23. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you. INGRID LEARY: To insert a new subsection into new section 205G inserted by clause 22, which takes away the brightline level of pass or fail around compliance, and say that, “Before suspension, the chief executive must consider partial compliance and whether a lesser response is appropriate.” And it’s really about bringing a bit of humanity back into the legislation. It’s a little bit more nuanced. It strengthens the integrity of the system by recognising effort and intent of people wanting to comply with the system who, for whatever reason, that has been traversed in this House—whether it’s lack of GPs, waiting times, living in the rural sector, not being able to get a doctor’s certificate in time, waiting for something to come overseas—that there is an element that can just soften the impact of that so that we don’t have this kind of algorithmic, I would say, cruel, response that is currently in the legislation. So that would be a new subsection in 205G to soften that provision. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:18): We have a bit of an ironic thing happening here because members want greater clarity and then when there is greater clarity with the information review, they don’t want it in there. So I’m not sure that I can actually answer that. We’ll go back to a member’s former question about the number of prescribed health practitioners (PHPs) in the pool—134 PHPs and medical appeals board, 65 specifically PHPs, 69 as medical appeals board, six are nurses or practice nurses and PHP, and 15 are nurses. As I said before, there is also the opportunity for the Ministry of Social Development and clients to work together to determine who should be doing that medical review; this is only if they can’t decide. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a question from Ricardo Menéndez March, but this has become very repetitive and it does worry me when I hear, after several hours of debate, that this is the clause that’s the guts of the bill—not from the member that’s currently on their feet. So I’m going to give one more chance. But it’s getting very repetitive and the Minister has repeated a lot of answers. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (17:20): Point of order, Madam Chair. The question about the Ministry of Social Development connection to general practitioners or health practitioners has been asked multiple times, but this is the first time that the Minister has told us that there is a group— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s not the first time I’ve heard the answer— INGRID LEARY: No, of the number of practitioners and that they are already identified. This is brand-new material, and I think it’s incredibly important— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, it’s not brand-new material. I heard it before I came to the Chamber. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:20): Thank you very much. Out of the breakdown that we’ve just been given, does she have a further breakdown of any of them, particularly for assessment of children, who have expertise, as I said, on fetal alcohol syndrome or neurodivergence? Now, a new point that hasn’t been raised—and, again, I go back to the fact that this is exactly the kind of stuff that we could have assessed in the select committee—is: are there any costings associated with any IT upgrades that may be required for the expansion of the use of automated decision-making (ADM)? Has she forecast what the IT costs will be? I’m aware that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), obviously, is embarking on a broader piece of work to update their systems, but what is the overall cost of that in relation to any costing associated with the overall bill in relation to IT upgrades, particularly in clause 36? As I mentioned, that’s the one that actually talks about the broadening of the use of automated decision-making, so I’m interested to know if there are costings associated with it. The other thing that I just want to reiterate and haven’t had engagement from the Minister on was on the feedback from the Privacy Commissioner and the departmental disclosure statement. I think this is particularly important because, in clause 36, there’s a part between lines 15 and 25 where uses of the automated decision-making need to be approved in consultation with the Privacy Commissioner, but we still don’t know what concerns the Privacy Commissioner holds. I guess, in order for us to have confidence that the Privacy Commissioner will just not go back each time that new regulations are made around that to say, “I kind of hate them.”, I want to know if the Privacy Commissioner endorsed this, or what the severity of the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner were on this. Other members have touched on, for example, privacy implications of the medical information etc., and I am none the wiser on this issue. Again, overseas—and I know Robodebt was used as an example—more recently, in Europe, we have seen a whole Cabinet resign over automated decision-making in a welfare system. There’s huge risk associated with this that have literally brought Cabinets in other countries down because of policy failures very similar to this. I’m curious to know what the feedback was from the Privacy Commissioner and the IT costs associated with the potential expansion of this to just basically use it for anything and every decision. Finally, can the Minister guarantee us that there will not be any changes to existing fulltime-equivalent (FTE) positions within the ministry as a result of these uses? I know that she, in the early part of the debate, touched on how she wanted the staff to be having more conversations on employment, but will this mean that every staff member that will no longer be used to manually process something that will now be overtaken by automated decision-making will be transitioned into having conversations on employment? Or will ADM be, potentially, used to see a reduction in the FTE within MSD? Just a clarification on that would be useful. Thank you. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:23): In my very first comment in this Chamber, I made it very clear that the savings were not savings related to a reduction in fulltime-equivalent position. It was the very first opening comment that I made, so it is frustrating to have to say that again. IT changes have been forecast and costed. In terms of the privacy around medical reviews, there are already extensive rules around how they occur. Nothing in that area is changing with automated decision-making (ADM)—nothing is changing with the use of ADM. Ricardo Menéndez March: Well, why is the Privacy Commissioner concerned? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: You’re talking about two different things. You were talking about privacy breaches and interactions with people getting medical certificates. There is no change. There is no change in that. It would really worry me if the member is scaremongering and using this opportunity in the Chamber to do that. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (17:24): I move, That debate on this question now close. A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close. Ayes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Motion agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment deleting clause 4 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 5 deleting new section 22A be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 22A(1), replacing “cannot be granted” with “must be granted” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 22A(2), inserting new paragraph (d) where the applicant has explicitly elected to apply for, or consented to an assessment for, a supported living payment be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 22A(2), inserting new paragraph (d) where the applicant is currently receiving supported living payment, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment deleting clause 6 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(1), replacing “must” with “may”, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 7, new sections 27 and 28, replacing “health condition, injury or disability” with “injury” in each case, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendments not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(1), replacing paragraph (a), “include any medical certificate consistent with this section”, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27, inserting new subsection (1A), is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation. The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(2), replacing “must” with “may”, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(2), replacing paragraph (a), creating an exception where the beneficiary has provided a medical certificate in the last 10 years, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(2), replacing paragraph (a), creating an exception where the beneficiary has provided a medical certificate in the last 5 years, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(2), replacing paragraph (a), creating an exception where the beneficiary has provided a medical certificate in the last 12 months, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(2), replacing paragraph (a), creating an exception where the beneficiary has provided a medical certificate in the last 6 months, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27, inserting a new subsection after subsection (2) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(3), replacing “must” with “may” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(3), replacing paragraph (a) to include “registered occupational therapists” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(3), replacing paragraph (a) to include “registered social workers” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(3), replacing paragraph (a) to include “physiotherapists” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27, deleting paragraph (c) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendments to clause 7, new section 27, deleting subsection (3)(c)(iii) and subsection (4) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendments not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27, deleting subsection (4) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(4)(a), inserting “or 12 months, whichever is longer” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(4)(a), inserting “12 months from” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(4), replacing paragraph (b) to include “an exception if the health condition, injury, or disability is permanent” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(4), replacing paragraph (b) to include “an exception if the applicant’s privacy rights would be breached” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(4), replacing paragraph (b) to include “an exception if it would cause distress or harm to the applicant” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(4), replacing paragraph (b) to include “an exception if there are reasonable grounds based on professional medical opinion for not specifying the review period” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27, replacing subsection (5) to apply where the applicant is at least four weeks pregnant be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27, replacing subsection (5) to apply where the applicant is at least eight weeks pregnant be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27, replacing subsection (5) to apply where the applicant is at least 12 weeks pregnant be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27, replacing subsection (5) to apply where the applicant is at least 16 weeks pregnant be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27, replacing subsection (5) to apply where the applicant is at least 20 weeks pregnant be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27, replacing subsection (5) to apply where the applicant is at least 24 weeks pregnant be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new sections 27(5) and (5)(b)(i), replacing “27 weeks” with “13 weeks” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27, deleting subsection (6) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27, deleting subsections (6) and (7), be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27, replacing subsection (6) with new subsection (6), be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27, replacing subsection (6) with new subsections (6) and (6A), be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(6), replacing “must not” with “must”, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(7), deleting “20”, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(7), deleting “25” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(7), deleting “301”, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(7), deleting “302”, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(7), deleting “307”, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(7), deleting “308”, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(7), deleting “310R” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 27(7), replacing “310R, and 310S” with “and 310R” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just, ask at this point, for the Green Party member doing the voting, as I did to another member the other day, I just ask when the Labour Party stands up to do their vote, I’m happy for you to stand up because you’ve got a number of votes and I’m happy for you to stay standing for the other votes in order to just—just because there’s so many votes, it all takes time. So, yeah, if you could stand a bit sooner and stay on your feet, that would be really helpful. Thank you. The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 28(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by a PHP within the last 12 months” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you. Much more efficient. The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 28(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by a PHP within the last 6 months” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, I’m just going to wait for the Clerks to just do a quick swap over. The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 28(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by a PHP within the last 4 months” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 28(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by a PHP within the last 3 months” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 28(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by a PHP within the last 8 weeks” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 28, deleting subsection (3) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 28(3), deleting “or, failing agreement, must be nominated by MSD” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 28(3), replacing “must be nominated by MSD” with “must be nominated by P” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 28, inserting new subsection (3A) be agreed to. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 28(4), replacing “the PHP must prepare and must send” with “the PHP must prepare and send” is out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words. The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 28(4), inserting “and P” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 28(4), inserting “electronically and by post” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 28(4), inserting “electronically” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 28(4), inserting “by post” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 28(4), inserting “as described in subsection (5)” is out of order as being of no legislative effect. The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 28(5)(b)(i), inserting “12 months from” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 28(5), inserting new paragraph (c) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 28, deleting subsections (5)(b)(iii) and (6) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 28(6), replacing paragraph (b) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation. The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 28, deleting subsections (5)(b)(iii) and (6) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 28(7)(b)(ii), inserting “24 months from” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 33(5), to replace “does not” with “may” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to delete clause 9 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 9 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment. The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 36A(1), replacing “must” with “may” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 36A(2), replacing “must” with “may” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 36A, amending paragraph (a) and deleting paragraph (b) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 36A(4), replacing “must” with “may” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 36A, deleting subsection (8) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 36A(8), deleting “34” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 36A(8), deleting “301” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 36A(8), deleting “302” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 36A(8), deleting “307” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 36A(8), deleting “308” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 36A(8), deleting “310R” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 36A(8), replacing “310R, and 310S” with “and 310R” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Good evening. The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 36A, inserting new subsection (9) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 37(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by a PHP within the last 12 months” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 37(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by a PHP within the last 6 months” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 37(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by a PHP within the last 4 months” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 37(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by a PHP within the last 3 months” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 37(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by a PHP within the last 8 weeks” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 37(3), replacing “must be nominated by MSD” with “must be nominated by P” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 37, inserting new subsection (3A) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 37(4), replacing “The PHP must prepare and must send” with “The PHP must prepare and send” is out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words. The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 37(4), inserting “electronically and by post” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 37(4), inserting “electronically” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 37(4), inserting “by post” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 37(4), inserting “as described in subsection (5)” is out of order as being of no legislative effect. The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 37(5), inserting new paragraph (c) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 10, new section 37, inserting new subsection (7) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to delete clause 11 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 41(1), replacing paragraph (a) to read “include any medical certificate consistent with this section” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 41(1), replacing paragraph (a) to include a reference to providing a medical certificate in the last 10 years be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 41(1), replacing paragraph (a) to include a reference to providing a medical certificate in the last five years be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 41(1), replacing paragraph (a) to include a reference to providing a medical certificate in the last three years be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 41(1), replacing paragraph (a) to include a reference to providing a medical certificate in the last 12 months be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 41(1), replacing paragraph (a) to include a reference to providing a medical certificate in the last six months be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 41(3), replacing paragraph (a) to include “registered occupational therapists” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 41(3), replacing paragraph (a) to include “registered social workers” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 41(3), replacing paragraph (a) to include “registered physiotherapists” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 41, to delete subsection (5) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 41, replacing subsection (5) with new subsection (5) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 41, replacing subsection (5) with new subsections (5) and (5A) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 42(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by a PHP within the last 12 months” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 42(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by a PHP within the last 6 months” be agreed. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (19:00): Point of order, Mr Chair. I just wanted to inquire. There doesn’t appear to be a Minister in the chair, and usually, during the committee stage, it’s a requirement for there to be a Minister in the chair. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Simon Watts will sit in the chair. There we go; continue. You’ll get to hear my voice up close now! The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 42(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by a PHP within the last 4 months” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 42(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by a PHP within the last 3 months” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 42(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by a PHP within the last 8 weeks” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 42(2), replacing paragraph (a) creating an exception when a beneficiary has provided a medical certificate in the last 10 years be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 42(2), replacing paragraph (a) creating an exception when a beneficiary has provided a medical certificate in the last three years be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 12, clause 42(2), replacing paragraph (a) creating an exception when a beneficiary has a provided a medical certificate in the last 12 months be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 42(2), replacing paragraph (a) creating an exception when a beneficiary has provided a medical certificate in the last six months be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 42(2), replacing paragraph (a) creating an exception when a beneficiary has provided a medical certificate in the last three months be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 42(2), replacing paragraph (a) creating an exception when a beneficiary has provided a medical certificate in the last month be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 42(3), replacing “must be nominated by MSD” with “must be nominated by P” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, Kahurangi Carter has tabled 10 amendments to clause 12, new section 42, replacing subsection (3) providing for the PHP to be nominated by various persons or bodies. I intend to test the will of the committee by selecting a representative sample. The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 42, replacing subsection (3) providing for the PHP to be nominated by the Disability Rights Commissioner be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 42, replacing subsection (3), providing for the PHP to be nominated by Whaikaha - Ministry for Disabled People be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 42, replacing subsection (3) providing for the PHP to be nominated by an independent panel of medical experts be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 42, replacing subsection (3) providing for the PHP to be nominated by a District Court judge be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the will of the committee having been tested, Kahurangi Carter’s remaining six tabled amendments to clause 12, new section 42, replacing subsection (3) are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 42, inserting new subsection (3A) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 42(4), replacing “The PHP must prepare, and must send” with “The PHP must prepare and send” is out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words. The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 42(4), inserting “electronically and by post” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 42(4), inserting “electronically” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 42(4), inserting “by post” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 12, new section 42(4), inserting “as described in subsection (5)” is out of order as being of no legislative effect. The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment deleting clause 13 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment deleting clause 14 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 80(1), replacing paragraph (a) to read “include any medical certificate consistent with this section” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 80(1), replacing paragraph (a) to include a reference to providing a medical certificate in the last 10 years be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 80(1), replacing paragraph (a) to include a reference to providing a medical certificate in the last five years be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 80(1), replacing paragraph (a) to include a reference to providing a medical certificate in the last three years be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 80(1), replacing paragraph (a) to include a reference to providing a medical certificate in the last 12 months be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 80(1), replacing paragraph (a) to include a reference to providing a medical certificate in the last six months be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 80(2), inserting paragraph (d) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 80, replacing subsection (4) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 80, deleting subsection (5) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 80, replacing subsection (5) creating an exception if it would eliminate C’s only source of income be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 80, replacing subsection (5) with (5) and (5A) requiring MSD to provisionally grant the benefit if delay would leave C without a primary source of income be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 80, replacing subsection (5) with (5) and (5A) requiring MSD to provisionally grant the benefit if delay would C’s family income by more than 50 percent be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 80, replacing subsection (5) with (5) and (5A) requiring MSD to provisionally grant the benefit if delay would C’s family income by more than 25 percent be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 81(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by PHP within the last 12 months” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 81(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by PHP within the last 6 months” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 81(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by PHP within the last 4 months” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 81(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by PHP within the last 3 months” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 81(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by PHP within the last 8 weeks” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 81(3), replacing “must be nominated by MSD” with “must be nominated by the person who applied for or who is receiving the allowance for C” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 81, inserting new subsection (3A) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 81(4), replacing the “The PHP must prepare, and must send” with “The PHP must prepare and send” is out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words. The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 81(4), inserting “electronically and by post” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 81(4), inserting “electronically” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 81(4), inserting “by post” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 15, new section 81(4), inserting “as described in subsection (5)” is out of order as being of no legislative effect. The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 17, new section 87(1), replacing paragraph (a) to read “include any medical certificate consistent with this section” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 17, new section 87(1), replacing paragraph (a) to include a reference to providing a medical certificate in the last 10 years be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 17, new section 87(1), replacing paragraph (a) to include a reference to providing a medical certificate in the last five years be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 17, new section 87(1), replacing paragraph (a) to include a reference to providing a medical certificate in the last three years be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 17, new section 87(1), replacing paragraph (a) to include a reference to providing a medical certificate in the last 12 months be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 17, new section 87(1), replacing paragraph (a) to include a reference to providing a medical certificate in the last six months be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 17, new section 87A, deleting subsection (4) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 17, new section 88(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by a PHP within the last 12 months” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 17, new section 88(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by a PHP within the last 6 months” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 17, new section 88(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by a PHP within the last 4 months” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 17, new section 88(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by a PHP within the last 3 months” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 17, new section 88(2), inserting “unless P has undergone an examination by a PHP within the last 8 weeks” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 17, new section 88(3), replacing “must be nominated by MSD” with “must be nominated by the person who applied for, or who is receiving, the allowance for P”, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 17, new section 88, inserting new subsection (3A) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 17, new section 88(4), replacing “The PHP must prepare, and must send” with “The PHP must prepare and send”, is out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words. The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 17, new section 88(4), inserting “electronically and by post”, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 17, new section 88(4), inserting “electronically” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 17, new section 88(4), inserting “by post” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 17, new section 88(4), inserting “as described in subsection (5)”, is out of order as being of no legislative effect. The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment deleting clause 20 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 205E, replacing “20 working days” with “60 working days”, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 205E, inserting new subsection (7) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 205F, inserting new subsection (6) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 205F, inserting new subsection (6) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 205F, replacing subsection (1) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 205G(4), inserting new paragraph (f) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 205G, inserting new subsection (8) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment deleting clause 22(3) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation. The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 22, new section 205F, inserting new subsection (2A) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 22 inserting new section 205JA be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 22 inserting new section 205JB be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to clause 31 inserting new section 310AAA be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 32, new section 310A(2), inserting new paragraph (ga) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 32, new section 310B, inserting new subsection (3) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 32 inserting new section 310DA be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 32, new section 310F(1), be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 32, new section 310H, inserting new subsection (3A) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 32, new section 310I, inserting new paragraph (c) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation. The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 32 inserting new section 310IA be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 32 inserting new section 310IB be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 32, new section 310K, inserting new subsection (5) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 32, new section 310L, amending subsection (7) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 32, new section 310L, inserting new subsection (9) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 32, new section 310N, inserting new subsection (4A) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 32, new section 310O, inserting new subsection (6) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): There was a lot of talking going on to my left while there was a vote going on. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Yeah, sorry about that. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you. We won’t have it again. The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment— Hon Matt Doocey: That’s right. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I did not need a comment to my right, because I had to tell somebody off over there before for exactly the same thing. The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 32, new section 310Q, inserting new subsection (11) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 32, new section 310R, inserting new subsection (3) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 32, new section 310S, inserting new subsection (3) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s amendment to clause 32, deleting subclause (4), is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to clause 36, new section 363A, replacing subsection (1) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 36, new section 363A, replacing new subsection (2), is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 36, new section 363A, inserting new subsection (6B) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 36, new section 363A, inserting new subsection (6B) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to clause 36, new section 363A inserting new subsection (6B) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 36, new section 363A, inserting new subsection (6C) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to clause 36, new section 363A, inserting new subsection (6C) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to clause 36, new section 363A, inserting new subsection (6D) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to clause 36, new section 363A, inserting new subsection (6E) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to clause 36, new section 363A, inserting new subsection (7) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 36, inserting new section 363AA, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 36, inserting new section 363AB, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment inserting a new section after section 363A is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation. The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 59, new regulation 176B, to insert new subclause (4) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 59, new regulation 176C, to insert new subclause (1A) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 59, new regulation 176D(1), to delete paragraph (a) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendments to clause 59, new regulation 176D(1), to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendments not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 59, new regulation 176D(1), to delete paragraph (d) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 59, new regulation 176D(1), to delete paragraph (e) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 59, new regulation 176D(1), to delete paragraph (f) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 59, new regulation 176D(1), to delete paragraph (g) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment to clause 59, new regulation 176D(1), to delete paragraph (h) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 59, new regulation 176D, to insert new subclause (7) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 59, new regulation 176E, to insert new subclause (3) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation. The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 59, new regulation 176F, to insert new paragraph (e) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 59, new regulation 176G, to insert new paragraph (g) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 59, new regulation 176H, to insert new paragraph (c) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation. The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 59, replacing new regulation 176I, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to. Ayes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Part 1 agreed to.