Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does her Government have a strategy for ensuring appropriate standards are in place to detect, track, and trace new cases of COVID-19 so that New Zealand’s border can be progressively opened ahead of the development of an effective vaccine; if so, what is it?

I’d like to answer this question in two parts. Firstly, as a Government, we have worked hard to scale up our contact tracing significantly. This has included providing $55 million to support public health units and contact tracing; extended capacity to make 10,000 calls per day; and ensuring public health units are using a national contact tracing system, with the final one now coming on board. However, the suggestion that this should be done as a tool to reopen our borders is wrong. Contact tracing is a tool to keep people safe; border controls are too. At a time when cases are surging globally and the World Health Organization says, “the hard reality is this is not even close to being over”, to suggest that we should simply reopen the borders and rely on contact tracing, no matter how good it is, is, frankly, dangerous.

💬 Todd Muller: Does she agree with Kirk Hope of Business New Zealand that working toward some opening of the border needs to be an urgent priority?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My assumption would be, from the many conversations I’ve had with Kirk Hope, that he would support doing that in a way that is safe. At the moment, when we have 10 million cases reported globally, when we have the potential for South Asia and Africa not even having peaked yet, states in the United States now surging, the suggestion that right now is the time to open the borders and rely on contact tracing is, as I say, frankly, dangerous. When it comes to my conversations with Mr Hope, I’ve found them to be constructive. The view I’ve heard from business is: don’t put in jeopardy our freedom domestically—the fact our domestic economy is open—by opening up too early and too soon.

💬 Todd Muller: Is she confident New Zealand can open its border to international travellers, without a vaccine?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: A vaccine is not the only thing that will make a difference in the globe’s fight against COVID-19. Other things that will be game-changers will be, for instance, successful treatment; whether or not we see a change in the way this pandemic is spreading, although we haven’t seen it to date; yes, as the member says, a vaccine; but also rapid and accurate testing technology has the potential to change the dynamic globally. Right now, though, the reality is, many countries who have the economic freedoms we do currently are using their borders as a line of defence. That will continue to be the case while we see this pandemic surging.

💬 Todd Muller: What specific conditions would need to be met by other countries for the New Zealand border to be opened to their travellers?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Some of the discussions we’ve had and continue to have actively, and in just the past weeks and days, with Australia are around preconditions to ensure that we preserve each other’s status, because there are, obviously, states in Australia that are in a very similar position to ours. So it is around things like whether or not there is community transmission and how long states have been free of that, whether or not there is adequate contact tracing, testing capacity, and things that indicate a similar system and regime to ours that can give us confidence that if an area is declaring itself free of community transmission that that is the case. We have, however, put in some acknowledgment that many of our Pacific Island neighbours, including Realm countries, are reliant on us for testing, so that may mean there is a slight delay in their testing time frames.

💬 Todd Muller: If there is no community transmission in some states in Australia, does that meet her comfort in terms of opening up the New Zealand border with those individual states if they have no community transmission and have rigorous tracking and tracing regimes, as she just said?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It’s actually a question better placed to Prime Minister Scott Morrison. We have been doing the work to make sure that we have—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’ll just say that most of the noise is coming from my left, but I’d rather only have one Minister answering the question.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have been doing the work to make sure that when we are in a time and place when that threshold can be met by Australia that we are ready. However, it is ultimately a matter for Australia as to whether or not they choose to open up at a federal level, in which case it may take longer for them to reach that status, or whether or not they move state by state. That is a matter for Australia.

💬 Todd Muller: What conditions and criteria would need to be occurring in this country for a safe reopening of the border with Australia?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously it would be a reciprocal arrangement, so the preconditions I’ve already just set out around days free of community transmission, the ability to test, contact trace, that’s actually based on what we ask of ourselves in the same way we would be asking of anyone that we would be creating a travel bubble with.

💬 Todd Muller: How many days free would New Zealand need to be and what level of accurate, robust track and tracing would need to be met before the Prime Minister would be satisfied that New Zealand would be in a position to meet the equivalent standard in Australia?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We are meeting our own standard already for opening up, but, again, the member is asking me what standards Australia would want to set against us. That is for them to determine. When it comes to Australia, we ultimately want to assure ourselves, quite simply, that, if we open up our borders, we do not import cases. Now, either the member agrees with that criteria or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t, it’s for him to answer to New Zealanders.

💬 Todd Muller: What expectations would she have of the Australian Government and their testing regime and their community transmission and their cases, for her to feel comfortable that the New Zealand border could open?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The same expectations we have opening ourselves up in the way we have. I have answered multiple times: the ability to quickly contact trace, the ability to process testing in quick time, the absence of community transmission. If the member is suggesting that when Victoria is declaring 75 cases in one day, and community transmission, that we should be opening up to that state currently, the member is out of step with the New Zealand public. That has not stopped us continuing to do the work, but the member may wish to reflect on whether or not it is good for the economy to have us move up alert levels because of an outbreak brought in over the border.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Prime Minister, should we, despite there being a spike in COVID-19 cases in Beijing, open our borders with China, as Mr Muller from the National Party suggests?

💬 Todd Muller: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Apart from knowing me for 30 years and he still can’t get my name right, that is not what I have said, and I have never said that directly.

💬 SPEAKER: The member’s word must be taken.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A member’s word must be taken, but if that question has been put at least four times in this House—and the Hansard will attest to that—on the fifth time he can’t ask us to surely believe his word.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I’m not sure that the member is correct in that particular area. I think the precedent for a question being asked is indicative, but my feeling is that speed is not necessarily required. The member has given the House an assurance that he did not say that, and we must take his word.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order, what are the consequences, if it can be proven, that he did say that?

💬 SPEAKER: You mean that he did say that? Well, the member knows as well I do what the consequences of that are.

💬 Hon Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can we take it from that ruling, therefore, that no longer do members of Parliament have to seek leave of the House to make a personal statement; they can simply take a point of order, refute a comment, and you will accept it as their word and the whole of the House now has to accept it?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the short answer is yes. That is the long-time precedent here, and that is that all members are honourable members and when they make a statement, especially with regard to something that they have said or they have not said, their word is taken. The consequences for misleading the House in that circumstance, as a number of members should know, is very serious.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: What is the Prime Minister’s response to the statement from National Party leader, Todd Muller, that it was critically important that we considered broadening the bubble beyond Australia: “It’s totally appropriate that Australia is our number one priority, but concurrently we need to be thinking around ‘so how do we open up to China, what does that look like?’ ”

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would confirm what I’ve said many times in this House: regardless of the overseas country we are considering, the criteria needs to be the same—that is, the safety of New Zealanders, the ability to keep our economy open, and our ability to move around domestically freely. Importing cases puts all of that at jeopardy.

💬 Todd Muller: To the Prime Minister, again, could she please confirm for New Zealand what is the criteria that would meet her satisfaction for the border of New Zealand to be opened to other countries?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: For the third or possibly fourth time: a country or state being free of community transmission, the ability to rapidly contact trace along the same criteria that we have in New Zealand, and the ability for rapid turn-around of testing so that we can be assured of the public data for any country being accurate data from which we make our judgments. To come back to the principle of what the member seems to be getting at, the suggestion that somehow New Zealand is standing in the way of opening up a trans-Tasman bubble is simply incorrect. There are two issues at play. One, community transmission in Australia—the idea that we would open up to the entire nation right now, I think, is out of step with where the New Zealand public is, and would threaten our position. Secondly, the possibility of state-by-state openings is not a matter for New Zealand; it is a matter for Prime Minister Morrison and is up to him. If the member takes issue with that, he should contact his counterparts in Australia.

💬 Todd Muller: Does she foresee some opening of the border, perhaps to certain countries in the first half of 2021?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We are working, as we speak, for arrangements to ensure that if there is a time and place where it is safe to do so, and that it meets our criteria, we will be ready to do that. We’ve started with trans-Tasman. That work is still under way, but, again, I say to the member: if he believes New Zealanders want us to open up our borders without any concern for their public safety, the member is well out of step with the public sentiment.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister, on the question of opening up the border with China, has she seen the Stuff article of 25 May—that’s last month—where Mr Muller said, “How can we move into other countries, like China, in due course”?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer to Speakers’ ruling 159/5, that states: “It is not reasonable to use questions from the governing party or its support parties to attack other members of the House.” It was an original Speaker’s ruling by Lockwood Smith, reinforced by—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, as I’ve said, actually, I would say there are a number of countries that actually have experienced prolonged periods without COVID and where that has then changed. South Korea has been one where we’ve looked to; Singapore; obviously, Australia. This is a highly uncertain time where this Government has been focused on giving domestic certainty to those who are trying to reopen their businesses, get the economy going, in a globe where there is such uncertainty. That has to be our focus, and that is our priority.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Late last week, Standard & Poor’s (S & P) global ratings released a report on the economic outlook for the Asia-Pacific region. The S & P report said that economies that flattened COVID-19 curves quickly and launched substantial and well-targeted stimulus—like New Zealand—are expected to escape with less permanent economic damage. S & P Asia-Pacific chief economist Shaun Roache said, “New Zealand definitely is one of those economies that has exited the most severe periods of the pandemic first, and that clearly was just because what that allows the economy to do is reopen so those face-to-face service activities that are so important for the labour market, and that hopefully should get jobs restarted and people can go back to work.” While our economy continues to face challenges from COVID-19, the S & P forecast shows that our decision to go hard and early with our health response, combined with our significant investments to protect businesses and jobs, will help stimulate the economy and speed up the recovery.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: What did the S & P report say about New Zealand’s current economic outlook compared with international peers and previous downturns?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: According to the report, S & P expects the COVID-19 pandemic to leave “lasting scars” on the Asia-Pacific region. New Zealand is not immune, and this is reflected in its forecast. S & P expects the New Zealand economy to contract 5 percent in the year to June 2020, reflecting the impact of the lockdown and the global recession, but this is then followed by a strong period of projected expansion: 6 percent in 2021, 3.4 percent in 2022, and 3 percent in 2023. That is a faster rebound than either Australia or Japan are projected. While we’ve always been clear that the economic fallout from the pandemic would be difficult, it is encouraging that S & P expects the New Zealand economy to rebound relatively strongly, meaning less of an economic hit over the medium and long term.

💬 Dr Deborah Russell: Has he seen reports of recovery in the New Zealand job market?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yesterday, Stats New Zealand released employment indicators for May, showing some encouraging signs for the job market. The Stats data shows the total number of filled jobs rose a seasonally adjusted 0.8 percent in May, after a 1.6 percent drop during April as a result of the lockdown. The May result is the highest monthly growth rate since January 2019. The data also showed that the overall fall in filled jobs since March has been most significant for those aged 15 to 24, who tend to be doing more part-time and casual work while studying. While the headline increase is encouraging, we are obviously concerned at the impact on younger people, which is why we have already put in place initiatives including training and apprenticeship funding, and, obviously, the continuation of the first year of post-school training free. There will be a long way to go in providing sustainable, skilled employment pathways for people who have lost their jobs as a result of COVID-19, but the Government is committed to doing that.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: How much of the $62.1 billion of available support in response to COVID-19 has been allocated so far, and, of the amount allocated, how much money has been spent to date?

The Government has set aside $62 billion for investments to support the economy through this one-in-100-year pandemic. This includes the $50 billion COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund announced in the Budget, and the initial $12 billion economic package on 17 March. To date, about $44.4 billion has been announced and allocated over the forecast period, including for schemes to protect jobs and support businesses, like the wage subsidy scheme and changes to the tax system. At the same time, the Government has committed significant new investment for essential public services like health and education. In answer to the second part of the question, the Crown accounts for the 2020 fiscal year have not yet been finalised, but Treasury forecasts that more than $26 billion will be spent in the current year to 30 June.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: What boundaries or rules, if any, has he put on spending the unallocated $18 billion or so during the election period?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The boundaries and rules are that that is the COVID Response and Recovery Fund. It is designed to ensure that New Zealand can continue to respond to COVID-19 in the way that we have, which means that we respond as need arises and support New Zealanders to get through this. We will continue to spend as is needed and as is required.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he assure New Zealanders that his Government won’t spend whatever it thinks it might take to keep its poll numbers up until 19 September, before presenting New Zealanders with the bill on the 20th, if they succeed?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The assurance I can give the member is that I don’t view the world the way he does.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he believe higher taxes will be necessary to pay back the debt incurred so far from the COVID fund and that forecast over the next three years?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I’ve said in this House before, the way that New Zealand will get through this is to grow our economy sustainably. The long-term projections show that debt will reduce as we do that.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he rule out any increases to income taxes if he has a chance to carry on being the Minister of Finance?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m responsible as the Minister of Finance in this Government. This Government has been very clear, and our record shows over these months, that we’re interested in putting money into the pockets of New Zealanders.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he think increasing fuel taxes again tomorrow will help New Zealanders get through the post - COVID-19 recession?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’re going to come to that matter in a moment, but I would say that the member will be well aware that fuel taxes, as they are paid for through the fuel excise duty and the road-user charges, are hypothecated to transport. That is an engine of growth in the economy. And I do note that, in the wake of the global financial crisis, when the previous Government was in power, on 1 October 2009 they increased fuel excise duty by 7 percent.

Question No. 4—Finance

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was submitted to the Prime Minister, not the Minister of Finance. I seek leave to have it transferred back and addressed by the Prime Minister.

💬 SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? Yes, there is.

4. to the Minister of Finance: Why is the Government planning to increase petrol excise duty, road-user charges, and alcohol excise duty tomorrow, at the same time as New Zealand enters a recession?

The member knows that the petrol excise duty and road-user charges are hypothecated levies, where every cent goes towards investing in transport, which we need right now to help stimulate the economy and to create jobs. As with alcohol excise, these are the subject of regular calculations and changes, as was done by the previous Government.

💬 David Seymour: Why is it that the Government needs to raise road-user charges, petrol excise tax, and alcohol excise tax, but it can afford to give a $10 million package to a millionaire named AJ Hackett?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve heard members on the other side of the House cry foul about the fact that we’re not giving enough money to tourism, so it’s a confused picture on the other side of the House. What we’re doing there is supporting strategic assets in the tourism industry, and I repeat the primary answer: the petrol excise duty and the road-user charges are hypothecated levies. The money goes to transport.

💬 David Seymour: How can the Government stand by the adulation it gave to truckies and the whole logistics sector, when the increase in road-user charges will push up their costs and, by extension, the costs to families of every single good they carry?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Those users of our transport network are the very people who want to make sure we have well-maintained roads and that we build new roads and that we build public transport to reduce congestion. These are the very people who want to see us improve those roads.

💬 Hon James Shaw: Once the excise increase of 3.5c takes place tomorrow, will prices at the pump be higher or lower than they were in January?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: They will indeed be lower, because I believe that we’ve seen a pretty significant drop in tax in the price of fuel over this period of time. But the good news that all motorists know is that money goes directly to improving the roads in the transport network that we all use.

Question No. 5—Housing

5. to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has she made about managed isolation and quarantine facilities?

On Sunday, Air Commodore Webb and I released the findings of the end-to-end review of the managed isolation and quarantine system. The review found that the system was under extreme strain and identified that resourcing capacity was not sufficient to carry out planning, there had been insufficient structure and role parity, and there is a need for a clear chain of authority. Communication and coordination of procedures and policies needed improvement. It is important to underscore that we are one of the only countries in the world even attempting managed isolation at the border. We know that there is no playbook for this kind of pandemic. These facilities were stood up in April, and this review recognises that there are some aspects of the system that need to change for it to cope with the increasing demand of returning New Zealanders. Air Commodore Webb and I have been working, and will continue to work, on improving our systems and our managed isolation and quarantine facilities in response to the review to protect the hard-won gains we have collectively won as a nation.

💬 Tamati Coffey: What action is the Government taking in response?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Even before the review concluded, we began swiftly addressing resourcing issues. We’ve doubled the on-the-ground Defence Force staff, bringing the total number of Defence Force personnel to 168 people across 21 facilities. Resourcing will continue to be a strong focus for the Government as we continue to cope with the increasing demand for returning New Zealanders. The Government announced, yesterday, $150 million for personal protective equipment (PPE) for front-line health workers, including staff at managed isolation and quarantine facilities. We are working closely with Health to ensure PPE guidelines are up to date and consistently applied. Finally, we have improved communications with returnees at all points of the returning process. A comprehensive information pack is provided to all returnees, and, critically, nobody leaves a managed isolation or quarantine facility without returning a negative test.

💬 Tamati Coffey: How is the managed isolation and quarantine system protecting New Zealanders from COVID-19?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We know that our borders are the strongest line of defence in protecting our communities from COVID-19. We also know that around the world the virus is growing, not slowing. With the increase in New Zealanders returning from overseas, we need rigour around our border, and our managed isolation and quarantine system becomes even more important. The system we have in place has worked well up to this point. We have no community transmission, and cases are being picked up at the border. What this review highlights is the strain the system is under. We are working swiftly to implement its recommendations and ensure that the systems in place are able to transition effectively from the immediate response phase to a more permanent solution—and why we are not just rushing out for calls to open up the border further.

Question No. 6—Health

6. to the Minister of Health: Is he responsible for COVID-19 testing; if so, how many of the 2,159 people who left managed isolation between 9 and 16 June were tested prior to leaving and returning to the community?

As I said when answering a similarly worded question last week, ultimately I have ministerial responsibility for the entire public health system, which includes oversight of the testing regime. In response to the global pandemic, New Zealand has arguably the strictest border measures in the world. More than 20,000 people have completed 14 days of managed isolation and quarantine, and there is no evidence that any have gone on to transmit COVID-19 into the community. As has been publicly reported on the Ministry of Health’s website, of those who left managed isolation between 9 and 16 June, 800 had completed a test before leaving the facility, a further 484 have now been tested since they left managed isolation, and all have returned negative tests.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is it correct that health staff had to phone those who had left managed isolation, to determine whether they’d had a test before leaving, because the records could not determine who had and had not been tested?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The testing regime was not working as had been intended. That was made very clear at the time—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Answer the question.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —and those who have been—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member will withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 SPEAKER: Thank you. Continue.

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: And that is why those phone calls needed to be made.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question referred to the phone calls having been made, but the answer did not address the question of whether that was because records could not establish who had been tested.

💬 SPEAKER: I think the question had been addressed, and I think it had actually been answered.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Did Ashley Bloomfield say yesterday “There are still 367 with whom we are having trouble making contact—not for want of trying—with text, where possible, email, and repeated phone calls.”, because those records had not been kept?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Obviously, phoning up those people is the quickest way to ascertain all of that detail, and, yes, Dr Bloomfield, I believe, did say those statements, although I don’t have them in front of me.

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has he seen any reports as to whether or not a non-returning homeless person who wandered in off the street has received a test?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No, I have not been made aware of any homeless people receiving a test at a managed isolation or quarantine facility. Claims about breaches of protocol at these facilities would be very serious indeed and anyone making such claims should be taken at their word. I would encourage anyone with information about breaches of protocol to front up with that information.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: How many of those 2,159 people have not been found by the Ministry of Health, and can he confirm that the Ministry of Health will use the finding services referred to by Ashley Bloomfield to locate those who aren’t picking up the phone?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I can confirm that a number of them have already been handed over to finding services.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether or not this mystery homeless person, not 2,159 but 2,160—whether his name has been established and was it Pinocchio?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member knows that’s ironic.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: In respect of his previous answer, would they be the same finding services that, according to written question 5744, failed to find more than half of the 1,800 people they were referred between 6 April and 20 May?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’m not sure where the member has got those statistics from, but what I would say is that the most important thing here is that managed isolation is the most secure way we know of in the world. There’s no global playbook for this virus. It’s spreading faster than ever. And what we see in New Zealand is that that is working. We’re one of only two countries, as far as we know, in the world that has managed isolation and quarantine facilities that are Government mandated, and we’ve got no evidence that any of the over 20,000 people that have been through have gone on to community transmit.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Would he not agree that the finding service would not be required had he been better at testing them while they were actually in managed isolation?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I tend to leave the testing to the clinical experts.

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: Would he not agree that the finding service has better things to do than look for mythical homeless people?

💬 Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Hear, hear.

Question No. 7—Social Development

💬 SPEAKER: I’ll warn now that I have been informed that the answer to this question is very long.

7. to the Minister for Social Development: Is she satisfied that she has good financial oversight of her portfolio; if so, how much has been spent on each of the payments listed on Work and Income’s A to Z webpage in each of the last three years?

Yes, and, as I have previously noted in my response to written parliamentary question No. 10913 (2020), this is a substantial request that requires considerable time to process, notably because it goes beyond the Ministry for Social Development (MSD). There are 61 payments or supports listed in the Work and Income A to Z. Not all of these payments are primarily administered by MSD and not all of them are funded entirely by Vote Social Development. I also note that to answer this question fulsomely would require over 180 different figures to be listed. I can advise the member that for 2019/20, the amount spent for the 11 months ending 31 May 2020 are $5.440 billion on main benefits, $14.336 billion on New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension, and $3.118 billion on supplementary assistance and hardship assistance. In 2018/19, $5.386 billion was spent on main benefits, $14.56 billion was spent on New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension, and $2.978 billion was spent on supplementary assistance and hardship assistance. In 2017/18, $5.088 billion was spent on main benefits, $13.862 billion was spent on New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension, and $2.160 billion was spent on supplementary assistance and hardship assistance. In total, Vote Social Development expenditure was $36.896 billion for the 11 months of 2019/20, $26.174 billion for 2018/19, and $24.067 billion for 2017/18. Can I assure the member that a more fulsome response will be provided as soon as that information is available.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: How much money, if any, has been spent on the employment transition grant over the last three years?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I have said, there are 180 payments to be processed here. I did say to the member, in writing, that we could get that information to her. I actually said, I think, that it would come via the Official Information Act. I’ve reviewed that, and, actually, we will give it to the member in a written answer to her written question. It does just take some time, for the reasons that I’ve already outlined.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: How much money, if any, has been spent on the transition to work grant start-up payment over the last three years?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I refer to my previous answer—that I am more than happy to give the information to the member in writing, but I cannot rattle off 181 different payments that were made over three years in this House.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Is she concerned, with the largest unemployment crisis in decades, that she doesn’t have current information on spend, including on key employment support?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’m not concerned, because I reject the premise of the question asked by that member. I gave the substantive response in my primary answer. There is more information to come. There are reasons why—as I laid out, one being that some of these payments are not made by the Ministry of Social Development and it takes time to collate—it takes a little bit of time, and I will give that information to the member, in writing, as soon as it is available.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Is it a priority for the Ministry of Social Development to be increasing their support for people getting into work, and, if so, how can she measure this if she doesn’t know what’s currently being spent?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I reject the premise of that question.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Does it concern her that taxpayers are funding 111 people in an insights team at MSD, when they can’t even provide insight into what her department’s spending?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Again, I reject the premise of the member’s question. I think I’ve laid out very clearly why I can’t rattle off the 181 different payments over three years in the House today and it would be more appropriate for me to give that information to the member in writing. I’m actually very proud of the job that the Ministry of Social Development has done during this time, particularly during this COVID period. They have worked incredibly hard to roll-out a wage subsidy that has supported over, I think, 1.6 million New Zealanders during this very uncertain time, as well as rolled out the temporary job loss cover, as well as continued to support New Zealanders who are experiencing hardship and needing Work and Income support. I’m very proud of the job that the Ministry of Social Development has done and, as I’ve said, I reject the premise of that member’s question.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m just going to invite the member to make a slight correction to her answer. I think she said there were 61 areas for three years; that’s 183, not 181.

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I so correct my answer, Mr Speaker. Apologies for my maths.

Question No. 8—Regional Economic Development

8. to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent Provincial Growth Fund announcements have been made?

Over the last week or so, the leader Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, under-secretary of regional development, and myself have been incredibly busy in the vineyard of economic development. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: It’s better than the tobacco plantation.

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Initially, we made announcements in Whakatāne and Rotorua, which reflected the desire of the Government to accelerate developments in association with established leaders from local government, not the least of which is former parliamentarian the Hon Steve Chadwick, who is the mayor, who is driving the redevelopment of Rotorua through a refurbished museum programme and a host of new tourism options for domestic tourism in the Whakarewarewa forest. In addition to that, Whakatāne, an area that has suffered some bad news recently, they also received high-quality political attention through the arrival of the Deputy Prime Minister and the allocation of money to accelerate those projects. And, with a small level of modesty, I announced the kauri dieback sanctuary in the area of Northland, which will get the nephs off the couch and futureproof the existence of kauri in a historic part of New Zealand that has cried out for attention and suffered after the nine years of neglect under the former regime. But, as they—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! That’s enough.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: What announcements has he made regarding Taranaki?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Following on from the former Treaty of Waitangi settlements Minister, Minister Finlayson, we have allocated some pūtea to Parihaka to add substance to the apology the Crown made under the former Treaty Minister. These announcements were shared between myself and the current Treaty of Waitangi settlements Minister, and it is to futureproof the infrastructure of that iconic site. It has been widely supported—much to my surprise—by every single mayor and civic leader in Taranaki, as they want to see even-handed development, fair development, and they realise that such iconic sites have much to contribute to the future of Taranaki.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: How have these recent announcements been received across the regions?

💬 Hon SHANE JONES: Whakatāne Mayor Judy Turner has identified that these infrastructure projects will develop and create momentum and jobs and will lead to the growth of Whakatāne, an area sadly written out of the script under the last economic model. More importantly, Steve Chadwick has described my announcement as “icing on the cake”, aided, no doubt, by the arrival of the Deputy Prime Minister and the man to my left, Fletcher Tabuteau.

Question No. 9—Justice

9. to the Minister of Justice: Is his Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2020, as assented on Monday, good law?

The Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill was good law and had been subject to extensive scrutiny by Cabinet, officials, the Justice Committee, and the public. The substantive change in the bill as passed by this House is clear: prisoners sentenced to three or more years of imprisonment remain disqualified from voting. It remains illegal for those prisoners to cast a vote. However, last week, the National Party voted on three aspects of the bill. First, they voted to not extend voting rights to all prisoners. Secondly—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: First, they voted to not extend voting rights to all prisoners. Secondly, they voted for prison managers being required to inform all prisoners, regardless of length of sentence, that they are qualified to be registered as an elector of an electoral district—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: All right. Order! Order! The balance of the answer to this question will be heard in silence, other than from the Minister.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Second, they voted for prison managers to be required to inform all prisoners that they are qualified to be registered as an elector of an electoral district, regardless of their length of sentence, and that those prisoners are required to apply to the Electoral Commission for registration to vote. Thirdly, they voted to abolish the power of the Electoral Commission to remove from the electoral roll the names of people who are disqualified from voting. The amendments that the National Party voted for are clearly inconsistent with each other and with the policy consistency of all elements of the bill. It also puts the Electoral Commission, prison managers, and sentenced prisoners in unworkable situations. And, today, I have introduced an amendment bill that will ensure that the new law functions as Cabinet intended it to do.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What was wrong with National voting for a Green Party Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that removed eight clauses from his bill when we opposed his bill, or is it now the Government’s view that it is the Opposition’s job to clean up the mess of warring coalition partners?

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If you were to rule that there is ministerial responsibility for the first part of that question, on which the second part hangs, that would certainly open up quite a wide range of questioning possibilities that the Government would welcome.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order, with respect, Mr Speaker, we just listened to a considerable diatribe from the Minister of Justice trying to explain how he managed to get this bill into such a dreadful state, in a way that was entirely designed to make it the fault of the Opposition. The reality is that he did not talk to his coalition partners and could not control his bill in the House.

💬 Hon James Shaw: Speaking to the point of order, I think the question that Minister Hipkins raises is whether the Minister has responsibility for the Opposition’s voting, when, clearly, the Opposition isn’t responsible for their own voting.

💬 SPEAKER: I think all of us know what the answer to this is. The Minister has no responsibility.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary?

💬 SPEAKER: No, Nick Smith first.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why?

💬 SPEAKER: Because he’s only had one crack, you know? You generally get two attempts to get a question right.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Been here continuously longer too, mate!

💬 SPEAKER: No. The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] The member will resume his seat. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister of Justice whether he is saying that, as things now stand, as a result of the voting from the members of the House the other night—he knows who they are—that the person charged with the Christchurch massacre is now entitled to be approached by the prison officers and put on the electoral roll of New Zealand?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As a consequence of the voting the other night in Parliament and the support given by the National Party to some parts of a Supplementary Order Paper—

💬 Darroch Ball: The National Party voted for that, did they?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Who was that? The member will leave the Chamber.

Darroch Ball withdrew from the Chamber.

💬 SPEAKER: I was very, very clear about the answers being heard in silence.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As a result of the voting the other night in Parliament and the National Party’s support for an obligation on prison officers to advise prisoners sentenced to any length of sentence that they are required to be on the roll, it is correct that—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: The Government SOP.

💬 SPEAKER: Who was that one? Who interjected then?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, I did. Sorry. My apologies. I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As a consequence of the voting last week in Parliament and the National Party’s support of an amendment to my bill that required prison officers to tell prisoners of any length of sentence that they are required to enrol and to provide that information to the Electoral Commission, it is correct that, on sentencing, whenever that happens, the person who has admitted guilt for the Christchurch massacre will, under the law as it stands, be required to be advised that he is entitled to enrol on the New Zealand electoral register.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did, at third reading, the Minister commend his bill to the House and vote for it under urgency when it was clear it was flawed law?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The bill sought to overturn the insidious decision of the National Party in 2010—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Parliament’s decision!

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Now, who was that one?

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m just wondering—[Interruption] No, the member will resume his seat. I’m just contemplating. I have given some leniency to his colleague the shadow Leader of the House—much more leniency than I gave to the junior member from New Zealand First. I’m just contemplating what good reason there is for the rule to continue to be unevenly applied to the detriment of one side of the House and not the other. If the member, by way of point of order, gives me a good reason, I will contemplate it.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Two things—firstly, when you ruled silence in the answering of the question, it was interpreted by many, including me, on this side of the House, that that related to the answer to the primary question, which was extended. Secondly, if it is for the entire question, the quid pro quo, surely, is that the Minister, in responding, cannot be as provocative as he has been in every supplementary answer he has given, and expect that—

💬 SPEAKER: OK. I’ve heard enough. I only need to deal with the first part. The member saw me toss another member out for interjecting on a supplementary answer. [Interruption] Just because it’s a member for New Zealand First doesn’t mean that the rules change for everyone else.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m not sure I finished answering the previous question. I’m more than happy to complete the answer.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are asking for fairness. We accepted your ruling. We are asking for fairness. We accepted it when the shadow Leader of the House was not called out because he is the shadow Leader of the House, but it cannot be that New Zealand First gets penalised when every other backbencher, therefore, or frontbencher, of the National Party can break your rules.

💬 SPEAKER: I’ll sort of ignore the fact that that is a reflection on me, and I will say that it has always been my practice to be slightly harder on the parties on my right than the parties on my left. I know that members do not always see it that way, and I know that there has been, every now and again, some public criticism as to that—loudly, on some occasions from my left in public, and, privately, quite loudly in my room from people on my right. I do, however, tend to try and run the Parliament that I used to referee children’s sport, and that is I was a little bit harder on the home team than I was on the opponent. That is the way I will run it. But I will give fair warning: if there is any more interjection from my left, those members will go.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for making that clear. Can I just say, sir, though, we are a little bit perplexed that we’re being asked to listen to the answer to this question in silence, when the Minister of Justice is doing his very best to blame a difficult or a messy situation on the National Opposition. That has been the theme of his answers so far. What it tends to avoid, though, is the fact that, knowing that there was a problem with the bill, he still had his party vote for it.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I support the law and supported the third reading because the law responded to the overwhelming findings, critical findings, of the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, and the Waitangi Tribunal that the 2010 law that disqualified prisoners—

💬 Hon Clare Curran: That’s right.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —serving sentences of less than three years—

💬 SPEAKER: All right. Who was that? Who interjected then? The Hon Clare Curran will leave the House.

Hon Clare Curran withdrew from the Chamber.

💬 SPEAKER: And the member has answered the question.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Government block National’s motion to refer the bill back to the Justice Committee after the committee stage, when it was obvious to everybody in the House that the bill was flawed?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It was very clear from the pattern of voting by the National Party on the night that its voting was the product of a crazed mind. So there was no wisdom in acceding to the request of members opposite to refer the matter to the select committee.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Now, the Minister will withdraw and apologise for that.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have made no reflection on any individual. I referred to a voting record that has to be explained somehow or another.

💬 SPEAKER: And the member will now withdraw and apologise again.

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement by Andrew Little MP in 2015—and I quote—“Electoral law is too important to be rushed under urgency.”?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I agree with the proposition that electoral law should be given proper scrutiny. Ideally, it should not be the subject of member’s bill, and I don’t think New Zealanders should be easily shorn of their right to vote, in the way that that member did with his Canterbury Regional Council legislation some years ago.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister confirm that this is the fifth electoral amendment bill to which he has passed under urgency, and that is more than any other justice Minister in the history of New Zealand?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can say that electoral law, like most justice legislation in this Parliament, has gone before a select committee that is equally divided, that is usually not capable of producing a majority decision. But, in any event, there are problems in our electoral law, sometimes identified by the Electoral Commission and other independent bodies, that it is proper for this Parliament to rectify and to correct. In the face of overwhelming findings by our High Court, our Court of Appeal, our Supreme Court, and our Waitangi Tribunal to say a law is manifestly unjust, it is incumbent on myself, as justice Minister, to bring that to the attention of Cabinet and the Government and, ultimately, to Parliament, which is what has happened, and that’s where we’ve got the result we have now on this legislation.

💬 Michael Wood: Does he agree with former Attorney-General the Hon Chris Finlayson, who said that the law that he has amended “appears to be inconsistent with section 12 of the Bill of Rights Act and that it cannot be justified under section 5 of [the] Act.”, and also that the objective of that bill was “not rationally linked with [a] blanket ban on prisoner voting.”?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes. I agree with those comments made by the then Attorney-General, as, indeed, to the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, and the Waitangi Tribunal. I just say, if there’s any question of irrationality, something was clearly on display last Wednesday night in this House.

Question No. 10—Education

10. to the Minister of Education: What steps is the Government taking to bridge the pay gap between teachers working in ECE centres and those working in our kindergartens and schools?

This year’s Budget provided a funding boost for early learning centres up and down the country to help bridge the gap between the pay of early childhood education centre teachers and teachers in schools and kindergartens. As a consequence, pay boosts for up to 17,000 qualified teachers working in education and care services kick in from tomorrow.

💬 Jo Luxton: Will these changes fully bridge the pay gap?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Unfortunately, no, they won’t. While this funding will go some way towards levelling the playing field, fully closing the gap between education and care services and kindergartens will be a challenge to be addressed over a number of Budgets and it requires more than just additional funding.

💬 Jo Luxton: Why has it been important to start on tackling the pay gap now?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As we respond to the impact of COVID-19 on our economy and on our society, the Government remains committed to fair pay for low-paid workers, especially the workers who have helped to get the country moving again. A significant pay gap had built up over time between these teachers and those in schools and kindergartens, following the decision nearly 10 years ago to stop passing on to education and care services the funding rate increases that kindergartens got to meet the cost of pay settlements.

Question No. 11—Transport

11. to the Minister of Transport: Will he cancel the increase in fuel excise duty and road-user charges that come into effect tomorrow until after the election, in light of his Auckland light rail process ending; if not, why not?

No, because the project hasn’t ended. Cabinet has directed the Ministry of Transport and Treasury to continue work on Auckland light rail, and if re-elected, we will continue with the project at pace.

💬 Chris Bishop: God loves a trier.

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Chris Bishop: Sorry, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: I think you withdraw and apologise, so I’m consistent with your senior colleague.

💬 Chris Bishop: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker. I thought I was sotto voce. Why will New Zealanders be paying even more at the pump from tomorrow, when the multibillion-dollar light rail project the fuel tax rise was meant to help fund has been canned?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I object to the premise of the member’s question. The project hasn’t been canned. We are investing billions of dollars in transport infrastructure to boost jobs and grow the economy. That’s our focus, and, frankly, I’m surprised that the member is advocating cutting the transport budget, because if he hopes to be elected to Government, how’s he going to pay for his ghost roads?

💬 Hon James Shaw: Can he confirm that once the excise increases 3.5c tomorrow, prices will still be approximately 40c per litre cheaper than they were in January?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, I can confirm that petrol prices are currently lower than at any time since 2017. But that’s not enough for our Government—that’s not enough for our Government. The Hon Megan Woods is about to bring legislation to the House that will introduce a raft of changes to make the fuel market more competitive and lower prices at the pump.

💬 Chris Bishop: What does he say to the road carriers forum, who describe the fuel tax increase as “a kick in the guts”, when throughout the lockdown the road freight industry kept the country moving, delivering essential supplies including medicine and food?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, it’s true that the road freight industry and the rail sector kept the economy moving and moved vital freight throughout the lockdown. That industry is absolutely dependent on us building good quality transport infrastructure to serve the freight supply chain. That’s what our transport budget is intended to do, and taking $2 billion out of the transport budget for the next 10 years, which is what that member is proposing, would reverse all of that work.

💬 Chris Bishop: Isn’t this the very worst time to be raising fuel tax, with household budgets under huge pressure thanks to the economic effects of COVID-19?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Our Government is very concerned about the impact of growing expenses on household budgets, but many low and middle income households now receive the Government’s Families Package, which puts an extra $75 a week into their pockets. Think about the Best Start tax credit, changes to the accommodation supplement, and Working for Families—not to mention nearly $12 billion put into New Zealand businesses and their employees through the wage subsidy scheme.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why is he raising fuel tax at a time when the New Zealand economy is going to go into a recession the likes of which we haven’t seen for a generation?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I’m surprised that last week the member was expressing concern about reducing transport revenue and the deflationary effect on the economy and the loss of important transport infrastructure projects. Now he wants to cut transport revenue. He really can’t have it both ways.

💬 Ginny Andersen: Has the Minister heard from any stakeholders recently on whether he should halt fuel tax?

💬 Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, I heard yesterday from the Automobile Association. The AA said that they are not calling for fuel excise duty and road-user charges to be deferred as they did previously, because they recognise that current economic conditions have already reduced transport revenue.

Question No. 12—Conservation

12. to the Minister of Conservation: What is her response, if any, to the comments made by the chairman of the New Zealand Game Animal Council that the Department of Conservation’s tahr control plan was “not founded on adequate science and is a departure from plans previously supported by the hunting sector”?

It is public knowledge that the Department of Conservation’s (DOC’s) operational plan to control Himalayan tahr is subject to court action in the High Court, with Forest & Bird seeking a declaration, on the one hand, and the Tahr Foundation seeking an urgent injunction against the draft plan being implemented, on the other. I understand the matter has been set down for a hearing next week. As the matter is before the courts, it would be inappropriate for me to comment.

💬 Hon Jacqui Dean: What is the estimated cost of the Department of Conservation’s tahr cull for the current period?

💬 Hon EUGENIE SAGE: As the matter is before the courts and this goes to the matter before the courts, it is inappropriate for me to comment.

💬 Hon Jacqui Dean: Why should taxpayers have to pay for DOC’s tahr control plan, when there is a large group of recreational hunters in New Zealand who have already reduced herd numbers by 1,800 over the last three years and who wish to make a further contribution in this year?

💬 Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The matter is before the courts. It would be inappropriate for me to comment.

💬 Hon Jacqui Dean: Does she agree with the New Zealand Deerstalkers’ Association, who say that DOC has conducted a rushed process this year with a lack of the usual consultation?

💬 Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The matter is before the courts. It would be inappropriate for me to comment.

💬 Hon Jacqui Dean: Why was the tahr plan implementation liaison group only given two days before feedback was required from them?

💬 Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The matter is before the courts. This is part of that matter. It’s inappropriate for me to comment.