A piece of government legislation was shelved because no minister was available to speak on it in the House.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!The Regulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill was scheduled for its first reading in Parliament on Wednesday morning. This bill, introduced by Social Development Minister Louise Upston, was meant to address minor technical errors in the Social Security Act 2018 and repeal outdated legislation.
However, Upston was absent from the House when the bill was called. Labour’s assistant whip, Arena Williams, suggested that Parliament move on to the next item on the agenda, and this motion was accepted.
Labour’s deputy leader, Carmel Sepuloni, criticized the government’s disorganization, pointing out the absence of any minister to introduce the bill. National’s Tim van de Molen argued that it was inaccurate to say there was no minister present, noting that Melissa Lee was in the House after introducing her own legislation. Nevertheless, Lee did not speak on the bill.
Assistant Speaker Maureen Pugh, after consulting with the Clerk, recommended discharging the bill. The day before, Leader of the House Chris Bishop had moved for extended hours to read the bill and others, but this plan fell through due to the minister’s absence.
Upston later admitted her mistake, explaining that she did not anticipate the rapid progression of the House and failed to ensure her speech was ready. She accepted full responsibility, stating, “I stuffed up. The House was progressing faster than I anticipated, and I didn’t make sure a hard copy of the speech was in the House in time.”
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon commented that the situation was “not great” but emphasized that the bill was not immediately impactful and would be reintroduced later in the year.
Deputy shadow Leader of the House Duncan Webb described the incident as an “absolute shambles” and called the government’s handling of the situation unprofessional, humorously suggesting that Upston’s pay be docked for the day.
The bill’s primary purpose was to ensure consistency between legislation, policy, and practice and to repeal the outdated Family Benefits (Home Ownership) Act 1964. Despite the hiccup, Upston assured that the bill would be brought back for consideration later in the year.