Oral Questions

I’d like to correct an answer from yesterday in response to questions from Chris Bishop. I said that my officials have not recommended a process for Auckland light rail that would have allowed all—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I presume the member is seeking leave?

I beg your pardon. I’m seeking leave to make a correction.

💬 SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. Can I just recommend to members that they don’t do it at lunchtime—Mr Twyford.

I’d like to correct an answer from yesterday in response to questions from Chris Bishop. I said that my officials have not recommended a process for Auckland light rail that would have allowed all market participants the opportunity to bid for the delivery of the project. One of the options presented to Cabinet would have allowed that, but it’s not in the public interest to release any further details until the commercial process has concluded.

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. to the Prime Minister: Does she agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters that New Zealand has been in lockdown for “far too long” and needs to be at level 1 now with a trans-Tasman bubble already operating, as reported by the NZ Herald; if so, what steps will she take to advance that?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: I—

💬 Hon Member: This’ll be good.

Beg your pardon?

💬 Hon Member: I said, “This’ll be good.”

Well, it always has been. That’s not going to change. In fact, we’re only going to get better and better, unlike certain people in this House. Now, back to answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. I first would like to congratulate the member for her elevation to the deputy leadership of the National Party. Now, I do agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, as I said on Tuesday, that there were “different opinions, particularly expressed by the likes of members of New Zealand First, around the pace of moving into level 1.” The coalition has always been in lock step on the direction of travel ever since COVID-19 hit our shores, but it’s fair to say that the Deputy Prime Minister is very keen to see us move to alert level 1 and establish a trans-Tasman bubble, as of yesterday. The Deputy Prime Minister’s comments reflect the views of many people on both sides of the Tasman in our ability to have serious debates and differ but have a consensus at the end of it.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that the country should be in level 1 right now?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, I think I made it very clear to Jane Patterson of RNZ on Tuesday, and other journalists who cared to have regard to what I’ve said, she said, when she set the parameters out there, “at the latest,” and gave that date, which means it could be before that date. And then she said also that there’s going to be a review two weeks after the announcement. That means that the Prime Minister and others envisage the possibility of it being—

💬 Hon Member: Nonsense.

—sooner rather than later. No, nonsense is your specialty. I’m dealing with facts and words, because words matter.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that the country should be in level 1 right now?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, I think she made it very, very clear she doesn’t agree with the Deputy Prime Minister. But it coming as soon as possible is the Prime Minister’s aspiration, as it is for the rest of the Cabinet and the coalition. That’s why she put these two dates out there which suggest, first, a review, and the outside date being the latest, which suggests it could be much sooner, if the evidence suggests it should be so.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Has she had a detailed discussion with the Deputy Prime Minister about his view of the lockdown going on far too long?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, it should come as no surprise that we’ve had very comprehensive discussions, not just with the Deputy Prime Minister but with every member of Cabinet, because we all have views to suggest and put forward, we all have people around the country who all have alternative views, and discussion and proper debate is what this coalition Government is becoming famous for.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she have any concerns about the confidentiality of Cabinet when her Deputy Prime Minister is revealing Cabinet discussions in public?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, now, there’s the rub, isn’t it? If that was true, then I, as the Prime Minister, would be responsible for the same thing that was alleged by someone who knows nothing about the constitutional nature of this country, will never be in the Cabinet, and doesn’t know what the manual is all about. To think that that member is repeating it astonishes me, because the Prime Minister in answering the question first disclosed this information herself to Jane Patterson of RNZ on Tuesday, 24 hours before the Deputy Prime Minister said anything.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports around issues to do with the confidentiality of discussions in this building this week?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, indeed, I have, and, to be true, even though it’s not in the bailiwick of the coalition which I seek to lead, it deeply shocked me that politicians could behave that way where they would use inside information to destroy, internally, the very party they belong to and where those that have been so heinously treated by demotion have decided to fight from the back benches against those who are unwantonly and wrongly—and probably in vain—promoted.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Has the foreign Minister advocated to her or to the Cabinet to proceed faster around the trans-Tasman bubble?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, take a wild guess.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Has the foreign Minister advocated a date by which time he would like to see the trans-Tasman bubble established?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, in one word: yesterday.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: What are the issues that are holding up the delivery of a trans-Tasman bubble?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, the reality is, and everyone has got their reasons for having their view, but it is the concern to ensure that the stellar record of defeating COVID-19 has, perhaps, a few more days of an unblemished record before people would be more comfortable with change. And that is a fair sentiment; whether we all agree with it is a different matter.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she agree with economist Brad Olsen that 80 percent of the total job losses in New Zealand would come from small businesses, most of which will never be widely reported, and does she think that staying in level 2 longer will make this situation far worse?

💬 SPEAKER: I’m going to ask the deputy leader of the National Party to relate that question to the primary question.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she believe that staying in level 2 longer will lead to significant job losses in New Zealand?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, of course I agree with that, because that’s what anyone who knows what the remote elements of the economy are about would know that. The reality is, the longer we go in, the more difficult it is for us to recover, but, that said, there are medical caveats and conditions and provisos which the decision makers seek to ensure is, first and foremost, in their minds. But that’s nothing new. We don’t need a group of economists to tell us what this means. What we need, of course, is the right ideology, or the lack of blind ideology, to take us as fast as possible out of it. And the member from Epsom can keep on laughing, because that’s all he’s going to do.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: What reports has she seen on the number of businesses that are likely to close as the Government waits weeks to move to level 1?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, be honest, there have been all sorts of comments and statements and predictions, but, in terms of analytical reports, I believe, none.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Will she and the Cabinet be weighing the risk to businesses of a further outbreak of COVID-19 when they make decisions about the further relaxation of current restrictions?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, I think you can take that as read.

Question No. 2—Health

2. to the Minister of Health: Is the development of a safe and effective vaccine for COVID-19, and the use of that vaccine, a crucial tool that will contribute, or is likely to contribute, to preventing the risk of the outbreak or spread of COVID-19?

Yes, and that’s why I was pleased on Tuesday to join the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to announce the Government’s COVID-19 vaccine strategy and the investment of $37 million to support the development of a vaccine.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Does section 11(1)(a) of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 give him as Minister of Health the authority to make orders that “require persons to take any specified actions, or comply with any specified measures, that contribute or are likely to contribute to preventing the risk of the outbreak or spread of COVID-19,”?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government—and, indeed, previous Governments—have never compelled any individual to get vaccinated against their wishes. That is not about to change. We will not force people to get immunised against their will. That said, we know vaccination works, and when there is a COVID-19 vaccine we will do all we can to ensure New Zealanders get immunised. I would note that there are eight measures listed in the Act that people could be required to undertake to reduce the risk of COVID-19, including staying in a specified place, staying physically distant from people, and reporting for medical examination or testing. Vaccination is not one of the measures listed.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Has he seen any reports of other coercive public policy measures being proposed relating to vaccinations, which would see a parent losing their benefit or Working for Families entitlement if they did not vaccinate their children, commonly referred to as a “no jab, no pay” policy?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have seen that advocated. I don’t agree with Mr Luxon on that point. I would note also that there is provision to refuse medical treatment under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Question No. 3—Education

3. to the Minister of Education: What action is the Government taking to invest in training and education for people who have lost their jobs or who want to move into a different sector where prospects are better?

As we emerge from this health crisis, Budget 2020 has made major investments in jobs and training as we get New Zealand working again. Our trades and apprenticeships training package will provide opportunities for New Zealanders of all ages to receive trades and vocational training. It sits alongside expanding the Ministry of Social Development’s employment services and further rolling out the successful He Poutama Rangatahi programme to tackle youth unemployment, and we’ll be continuing to add to it as part of our work to rebuild the economy.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What will the trades and apprenticeships training package do to provide affordable training options for people who have been affected by the economic impacts of COVID-19?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Firstly, we’ll be providing funding for tens of thousands of additional places in tertiary education over the next couple of years to meet increased demand from learners, who are expected to experience the effects of the economic downturn. Secondly, we’ll be making targeted vocational training programmes free for all ages, not just for school leavers, over the next two years, and this will help some of the people who have lost their jobs to retrain, and also allow new employees in some of the essential services to train on the job. The targeted training and apprenticeships fund will include programmes that are linked to industry skill needs—for example, in building and construction, agriculture, manufacturing, and also in other vocational courses like community health, counselling, and care work, and the funding will be available from 1 July this year.

💬 Marja Lubeck: How will the trades and apprenticeships training package help to keep apprentices earning and learning?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We’ll be providing some financial support for employers to retain and keep training their apprentices. We’re also going to be putting additional funding into group training schemes so that they can continue to employ apprentices whose host employers, who are primarily small construction businesses, are unable to support them and provide on-the-job opportunities. These initiatives will be critical for continuity, because the last thing we want to see is apprentices and trainees having been let go when we are really going to need them in the future.

💬 Marja Lubeck: What else will the Government be doing through the trades and apprenticeships training package?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Heaps, but I’ll give a couple of quick examples. We’re building on the volume of trades academy places in secondary schools over the next couple of years to provide further opportunities for young New Zealanders, we’re funding the establishment of industry-led workforce development councils so that industry can strategically plan for the skill needs of their industries as they recover from COVID-19, and we’re establishing and putting further work into our online careers system so that learners and workers, throughout their lifetime, can plan and manage their careers. This will help all New Zealanders understand their transferrable skills, and it will be particularly valuable for those who can’t easily show a clear work history.

Question time interrupted.

COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE (SAFEGUARD FROM FORCED VACCINATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction—Leave Declined

I apologise. I should have done this at the end of question No. 2. I seek leave to table and introduce a member’s bill in my name: the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Safeguard from Forced Vaccinations) Amendment Bill.

Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

Question time resumed.