The Government will be asking serious questions about its use of extended sitting and urgency after a bill was discharged this morning when no minister decided to speak on it.
The Regulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill was due to have its first reading in
The bill was in the name of Social Development Minister Louise Upston, who was not in the chamber at the time. Another minister could have taken the call. Melissa Lee, who appeared to be the duty minister in the chamber, could have spoken on the bill but did not.
Upston told the Herald the call for the bill “came earlier than expected” and she was in a Cabinet committee at the time.
Labour’s assistant whip Arena Williams made a point of order, saying that there was “no minister here” and calling on Pugh to “ring the bells” for the House to adjourn. However, Williams corrected herself, noting that there was a minister in the House, however for whatever reason they had decided not to speak.
“The minister responsible for this bill is not here to give the reading so I suggest it would be worth the House’s time to set the bill aside and go to the next item on the agenda,” Williams said.
National’s Tim van de Molen objected, saying that there was “clearly” a minister available to take the call and that it was “inaccurate” to say there was no minister.
He offered an excuse for Lee’s tardiness in taking the call, saying she was attempting to ease into the legislation.
“The House would appreciate the anticipation that was being built by the minister as she sought to ease into this important piece of legislation by taking this upcoming call,” he said.
Upston told the Herald arrangements for another minister to deliver the first reading speech “were not made in time”.
Labour’s Deputy Leader Carmel Sepuloni said “clearly the other side of the House is not organised”.
“There is no minister in the house to take the call for the first speech of the first reading,” Sepuloni said.
Pugh sought the advice of the Clerk. She eventually ruled that “as the minister was not here [in the chamber] to take the call” that the bill should be discharged.
Van de Molen objected, noting a minister, Melissa Lee, was in the House and that any minister, not just the minister in charge of the bill, could take the call.
Pugh said she would ordinarily agree with Van de Molen, however Lee had not sought the call.
Upston said the “bill will be taken back to the Business Committee and we will seek to have it reintroduced when time allows”.
“This is a tidy-up bill introduced by the previous Government that addresses minor technical errors from its rewrite of the Social Security Act 2018, to ensure consistency between legislation, policy and practice. It also repeals the Family Benefits (Home Ownership) Act 1964, which is redundant legislation after the Family Benefit was abolished in 1991,” she said.
“Reintroducing this bill at a later date will not have any meaningful impact on the social security system or the delivery of welfare benefits.”
This is far from the first time a Government’s whipping operation has collapsed in extended sitting. Last year, National sought to have Parliament adjourned when the Labour Government’s duty minister appeared not to have the right speech for what they were debating.
Thomas Coughlan is Deputy Political Editor and covers politics from Parliament. He has worked for the Herald since 2021 and has worked in the press gallery since 2018.