Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does she agree with the comments regarding shovel-ready projects made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters in a speech to the Wellington Chamber of Commerce, “I’ve got the list, the whole lot—why they are not telling you, I don’t know. But I’m going to go back and find out. How can you tender if you don’t know?”

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, in the context that it was made. For example, the Government has a list of projects, and the question was being put by a potential tenderer who wanted to know how she could become part of the tendering process. She was told, of course, there is a list, but, of course, when the fiscals and all the due diligence is done before the tendering process opens, not until that time can you start tendering. When the tender goes up to the whole wide world, that’s when that person can be part of the process, and Mr Brownlee, I’ve got the list here, for what it’s worth—google it.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, how was the Government able to issue the press release detailing the shovel-ready project funding by region with an estimate of jobs if they had not confirmed the details of the shovel-ready projects—meaning that the list can be released in the substantive form mentioned by the Prime Minister today?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, when one has a grasp of commercial actions and transactions, you do realise that people out there understand how the process works. It’s very hard to inform a person without that knowledge of how the intricacies of these commercial transactions work, but we have announced about 60 projects, worth over $750 million, as a Government, since the launch by Minister Robertson and Minister Jones on 1 July. The list of announced IRG projects—meaning Infrastructure Industry Reference Group projects—are up on the Crown infrastructure partnership website, Mr Brownlee. I’m happy for my office to send him these details because I do realise it’s very hard for that member to have been caught up with these problems, given what’s been happening lately.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The voice of the Prime Minister.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why has the Government not released the full list of shovel-ready projects with accompanying details—which the Prime Minister now says they have—as was announced on 1 July, so that work can begin?

I’m very grateful for Mr Brownlee to get to the very issue that is at the centre of this Government’s action, and that is immediacy—not some other time in the distant future, but right here, right now. The Government took only six weeks between receiving the initial infrastructure reference group report in mid-May and announcing the first projects that showed we’d progress them with dynamic speed, and 1,924 submissions for projects were received. Due diligence on more than 150 projects takes time, and sometimes announcements are not able to be made in order to protect the Crown’s negotiating position. Anyone who understands commercial transactions will realise—because they do understand it, of course—how sensitive that is. I note the Prime Minister went to reopen Redcliffs School last week, nine years after the Canterbury earthquake, which that member was in charge of managing the recovery from, and we’re still having to work on it, nine years later, Mr Brownlee.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is it fair and kind for the Government to be drip-feeding projects via ministerial visits, press releases, and other announcements, instead of releasing the full list of projects and delivering certainty for the construction sector?

On behalf of the Prime Minister—and perhaps answering more in her name than in my own—fairness and kindness is the middle name of the Prime Minister, but I want to say that the Government has been undertaking due diligence on some of the projects. Releasing them early would impede commercial negotiations, and that’s clear if you know anything about commercial transactions. The Government will announce the projects when it’s appropriate to do so. This programme is a direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic situation and the impact on the economy, and is proof that we have listened to our businesses and communities about their needs. This work stream will provide a pipeline of work across different sectors in different regions and will help provide much-needed certainty.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Did she receive a question from the Rt Hon Winston Peters asking her why the Government was not releasing the full list of shovel-ready projects with the details she’s outlined for the House today to provide certainty for the more than 200,000 construction workers currently receiving the wage subsidy?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, understanding that particularity when a question is put relates to the circumstances in which the question was asked by the lady at that meeting—a packed-to-the-wall meeting, I might say, and I was devastated by the response. But it was clear as daylight that she wanted to know how to become a tenderer, and that’s why the way the question was put by Mr Brownlee is simply wrong.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: How has this Government’s record on infrastructure compared to the previous Government?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, unlike some people who talk but there’s not any action, we intend to build things, and not just issue uncosted press releases of $31 billion, with no costings or detail whatsoever, going from Tauranga to Katikati—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Order! We’re now into the areas where the Prime Minister does not have responsibility.

But I’ll get it to where she has got it—can I?

💬 SPEAKER: No.

💬 Jenny Marcroft: How much has the Government announced in infrastructure investment over the next 10 years, and how does that compare to other parties’ proposals?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The first part may be answered, and it’s a warning to the Prime Minister not to stray into the second part.

Well—

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Good luck with that.

On behalf of the Prime Minister—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Minister of Finance will not comment on my rulings, especially if he wants to be present to answer his questions.

On behalf of the Prime Minister, can I say it’s not $11 billion, it’s not $21 billion, and it’s not $31 billion, but $54 billion has been planned by this Government—not $31 billion but $54 billion. It will be costed and, better still, for the great comfort of businesses and workers around New Zealand, it will be supported by the money to back it up. We will not take years and years and years, like happened in Canterbury—

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

Oh, sorry—I’ve got to bounce this back.

💬 SPEAKER: The member will apologise to the House.

I apologise.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Given that the Government is claiming such an extraordinary record of announcements of infrastructure projects, can she explain why her Government is ignoring the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ assertion that contractors must know what the projects are in the shovel-ready line-up in order to be able to tender for them?

Thank you very much. On behalf of the Prime Minister, that’s exactly what the Prime Minister found out the question dialogue was all about. A lady wanted to know “How can I become a tenderer?”, and the answer is that when the process has had all the fiscals done and all the legal work done and it goes online, if she keeps her mind on there and if she—like Mr Brownlee—googles it, she will know exactly that day, in the first minute, and will get equal treatment. But here’s the fact of the matter: on 1 April, this resource group established and announced applications sought—that’s 1 April. On 17 May, the report was received. On 29 June, Cabinet signed off the broad allocations. On 1 July, the launch and initial projects were confirmed. As Harry Truman would say, “Action this day”.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does the Prime Minister accept that, notwithstanding that interesting time line, the bit that’s missing is when the shovel-ready projects full list with their implementation dates will be announced, and will she commit to releasing that list with those details today?

Again, on behalf of the Prime Minister, it is sometimes difficult to grasp when you haven’t got a commercial background or have never been involved in business, but this is how it happens. Someone in the local government or in the local area around the country, in the far-flung regions as well, has got an idea that, essentially, needs to be funded. These applications go, in many ways, by way of process all the way to the infrastructure group that’s looking into them. When they have done all the fiscals and all the work and seen whether it’s possible, it’s then that they announce the Government’s preparedness, backed up with money, to put these projects in place. As for all the other questions about shovel-readiness, I do not follow the member’s questions, because they have no sense of understanding in terms of what the commercial practice of this country is.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, I thank the Prime Minister for that answer and I ask her: will she be talking to the Rt Hon Winston Peters to perhaps give him some of her commercial knowledge on how these things work, so that he won’t go round saying statements like “I have the list, the whole lot—why they are not telling you, I don’t know. But I’m going back to find out.”? How can you tender if you don’t know? If there is a commercial reason why that’s a load of rubbish, the Prime Minister should just tell the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

On behalf of the Prime Minister, because of the way the questioner put the question, she suggested that somehow she didn’t know about the tenders, when at that point in time what she wanted to intimate to the Deputy Prime Minister was “No, Deputy Prime Minister, you don’t have a tin ear. How can I become a part of the process?”, and I answered her.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: What reactions has he seen to the Government’s economic response to COVID-19?

I’ve seen a huge number of positive reactions from people who have taken the time to contact the Government to say what a difference the support has made to their business during COVID-19. One business owner wrote to us to say, “Thank you to you and your team for your mahi to date. The quick response with the wage subsidy has saved our small business and kept our nine workers in full pay all through lockdown and beyond. Our workers are content and appreciative. The result means there is a boost to their wellbeing and they’re feeling positive about the future.” Another said, “A heartfelt thankyou for the second subsidy. That will keep me afloat until spring when business will flourish again in its pre-COVID status, and the profits over summer will maintain us over the quieter winter period.”

💬 Jamie Strange: What reactions has he seen to the impacts of the Government’s economic response to COVID-19?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’ve had many businesses contact us to say what a difference the Government’s decisive early economic response has made to their business outlook, now that we have the virus under control and business activity is returning to normal. A director at a dairy firm said that the Government can take some of the credit for the biggest upward move in Fonterra’s global dairy prices for several years. They said, “Because we locked down early and eliminated COVID-19, this meant our dairy economy could get going quickly and gave the world, especially China, confidence to buy our product.” Another medium-sized business owner contacted us to say, “Your actions and support over the first stages of COVID-19 have been a lifeline to my businesses, our 50-odd staff, and hundreds of suppliers we work alongside. Without the wage support scheme and the small business loan scheme, it would’ve been impossible to stay afloat, and your decisive action has meant a quick, positive return to business.” I’m pleased to see that our support for business is having the desired effect of improving cash flow and confidence.

💬 Jamie Strange: What reactions has he seen to the Government’s fiscal management of the economic response to COVID-19?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve seen many positive reactions to the Government’s fiscal management as we navigate through this unprecedented global pandemic. One New Zealander has written to the Government to say it was a very wise move to hold back $14 billion of the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund in contingency. I’ve also seen other reactions from commentators in the media, including Cameron Bagrie, who said it was sensible, and well-known socialist Mike Hosking, who said, “credit where credit is due” and that in comparison to other countries, “there are those that started off worse than us, and we will still end up a lot better off than many.”

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. to the Prime Minister: Has she asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs whether he made it clear to Bee Lin Chew and Su Arn Kwek that he was facilitating their passage to Antarctica on the basis that sponsorship was being sought for the redevelopment of Scott Base; if so, have they provided sponsorship?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister, on 4 June 2019, Cabinet decided that as part of an over $250 million redevelopment of Scott Base, Antarctica New Zealand would seek $50 million through private sponsorships to offset some of the costs of redevelopment. It’s the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ prerogative to invite people to visit Scott Base, as countless foreigners have in the past, in the interests of New Zealand’s broader objectives in Antarctica. This is a prerogative that both the previous National Party Government and this Government have taken up. It is for Antarctica New Zealand to seek sponsorship, but as a wise man once said, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: When the Prime Minister said yesterday that she wanted to check the integrity in New Zealand’s Antarctic programme and she’ll be seeking reassurances from her Foreign Minister on that, did she ask him to give reasons for the travel Bee Lin Chew and Su Arn Kwek took to Antarctica?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, for the past year or so, the Government has been encouraging Antarctica New Zealand to generate private sponsorship for our redevelopment of Scott Base to offset the cost to the taxpayers. Taking interested individuals to Antarctica is an integral part of those efforts. Or is the member and those members over there saying now that they don’t believe in public-private partnerships—are they saying that? And does the National Party no longer believe in managing the taxpayers’ financial risk, as a responsible Government ought to? The Foreign Minister met with the Antarctica New Zealand board on three occasions to outline his expectations following Cabinet’s decisions and more recently to express his disappointment at the board’s failure to follow the Cabinet direction on this issue.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Has her Government or her Foreign Minister asked Bee Lin Chew and Su Arn Kwek for a donation towards the redevelopment of Scott Base?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, who just answered this point in the last question by saying it was for Antarctica New Zealand to seek sponsorship—in the same way, for example, that a former Prime Minister, who I thought would have appraised his Foreign Minister in the time of his policy, said this in 2013: Mr Key said the Government was still considering whether to increase its $26 million funding for Antarctic activities, but he was keen on support from the private sector. Mr Brownlee, weren’t you told that?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why weren’t Antarctica New Zealand staff working on the ice at the time told why Bee Lin Chew and Su Arn Kwek were there, rather than being left with the impression that the reason for the pair being on the trip was “kept very quiet”?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, there was no reason for the staff at Antarctica to be told that, any more—

💬 Erica Stanford: How were they supposed to ask for a donation, then?

Well, you can scream out as long as you like, lady, but let me give you the facts. Murray McCully took 130 people down to the ice, including staff members. [Interruption] Keep on shouting. Keep on making a fool of yourself. Keep on shouting, lady. A hundred and thirty, including staff members—where, on the ice, they said that it was inappropriate and unsafe. That’s the National Party’s record.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Did anyone from the Government, Antarctica New Zealand, or the Minister of Foreign Affairs—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Sorry, before the member goes on, I’ve just been contemplating one of the comments that the Prime Minister made. I think we’re living in times where many of us sense change, and language which would have once been acceptable is no longer. I think referring to a member just as “lady” is not any longer an appropriate thing to say. I think it’s fair to say for most of my parliamentary career, it would have been—members were, in fact, referred to as “lady members” on occasions—but I think we’ve passed those times. So it’s just a general—[Interruption] Who said that? Who said it? [Hon Shane Jones raises hand] Go and have some time outside.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, calling someone a lady, in my view, is not denigrating at all. It’s, in fact, the height of respect, and that’s why I use it. If I was to use the word “woman”, I’d regard that as thoroughly a put-down. If you don’t mind, some of us wish to stay with the age of chivalry.

💬 SPEAKER: Yes, I do—I’ve asked Mr Jones to leave the Chamber.

Hon Shane Jones withdrew from the Chamber.

💬 SPEAKER: I understand that, and I think I might have even tried to express it myself, but I think it was clear that the comment that the member made was one which was not appreciated by the majority of members in the House. Some of us, Mr Peters, when the times move, have to move a little with them.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Did she, her Minister, or any agency of Government explain to Bee Lin Chew and Su Arn Kwek that their invitation to visit the Antarctic was as part of a programme for attracting private sector funding for the redevelopment of Scott Base; if not, why not?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, nothing so nakedly mammonic as that. Can I just say the Foreign Minister is a long-time proponent of getting other interests and other countries involved to advance the New Zealand interests on the ice. It’s illustrated by the fact that 12 years ago he spent considerable time with Senator McCain of the United States going to Antarctica, spent time with the European Union and getting representatives from the Europeans to go to Antarctica, and spent time with international shipping registry countries to say to those countries “You must come to Antarctica because the boats you are registering are ripping off the environment.”

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: How about answering the question?

I’m answering the question, Mr Smith. That member knows absolutely nothing about this or why he’s in this Parliament after all these years.

💬 Darroch Ball: What role did her office play in the Antarctica trip?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister, as before and down through the decades, is only involved in the approval of travel by Ministers and their staff.

💬 Darroch Ball: Does the Antarctic trip breach the Cabinet Manual?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, no; these individuals are not family members or close associates of the Minister, Mr Peters in this case, but is of a number of people in the National Party who are aghast at this attack right now. Can I say, in 2007 the Government facilitated the transport and travel of Jan Cameron, the founder of Kathmandu Clothing, to Antarctica, seeking a contribution to the redevelopment of the Scott and Ernest Shackleton huts? That’s the fact of the matter. And on that trip, incidentally, was one Guyon Espiner, the architect of this story. How do you like that?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Were Bee Lin Chew and Su Arn Kwek targeted for a donation to the Scott Base redevelopment, and is that the reason why they were granted the trip?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, there was a cancellation by a Minister, and the factual evidence—happy to be disclosed to the member—was that it emerged without difficulty, over time, not by way of direction at all, but at request, also backed up by the evidence, that there were two seats available. As a consequence, it was asked, “Well, what about these two who have a serious interest in nature and Antarctica?”, and, more importantly, in line with the plan as we have done with Le Quesnoy in France and elsewhere, do something proactive to save the taxpayer money. On behalf of the Prime Minister, I have talked to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is proud of the fact that he took a proactive role.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very, very tight and specific question, and the answer did not even go close to answering that. It gave some interesting facts, which are, of course, able to be partially substantiated by the Official Information Act releases that we’ve seen so far, but it doesn’t answer the question if they were granted that trip because they were being targeted for a donation to the Antarctic redevelopment project.

Speaking to the point of order, I made it very clear in the first answer, second answer, and three other answers after that that the responsibility to take the matter further lay with the Antarctica foundation. How much more clear could I make it?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: When the Minister who was to travel cancelled his arrangements, who put forward the names of Bee Lin Chew and Su Arn Kwek?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, as admitted, probably for the 30th time, the Minister of Foreign Affairs did. Of course, when Mr Key went down there with all his journalists, none of them asked about the taxpayers’ cost, did they? See this photograph? [Holds up photograph] Full of journalists, 14 on the trip, and they have the temerity to raise that issue themselves. How do you like that?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, if a taxpayer benefit is to be seen in this, can she explain why it’s reasonable for the Foreign Minister to invite someone who has said, “I don’t … do business [in New Zealand]”?

Oh really? On behalf of the Prime Minister, I would ask Mr Brownlee to have a chat to his party president, Mr Goodfellow, about that. Why doesn’t he? Caught red-handed. Typical, isn’t it—just typical. I can say out there in New Zealand the National Party people are aghast at his appalling attack on two innocent people.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: Is the Prime Minister aware if any of the journalists that accompanied the former Prime Minister to Antarctica provided any form of sponsorship to Antarctica New Zealand?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, and—dare I say—the people of New Zealand, thank you for that very apposite question. The answer is doughnuts so far.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does she accept that journalists travelling to the Antarctic will be able to tell the team of 5 million New Zealanders about the programme down there through their various media outlets, and, if so, what outlets did Bee Lin Chew and Su Arn Kwek use to tell the New Zealanders about their travels to the Antarctic, other than Instagram photographs with seals and penguins?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, very good question. They came back, wrote a book about it, and talked to the most important person with respect to Antarctica these days—the person who’s finding the money, namely the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Is he confident his policies and actions are providing businesses with as much certainty as possible so that they can invest and create new jobs with confidence?

I am confident that that is the case. For example, our policy of not putting the economy at risk by reopening the borders until it is entirely safe to do so is part of our plan to minimise our risk of a second wave of infections. This gives businesses the certainty that this Government is focused on keeping our economy as the most open economy in the world, with the fewest restrictions on domestic movement and activity, allowing them to invest and create jobs.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why does the Deputy Prime Minister have a list of so-called shovel-ready projects but the contractors trying to save jobs don’t have any certainty about most of the projects?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I disagree with the latter part of that question. There are plenty of people who are now, with a great deal of certainty, looking towards the more than three-quarters of a billion dollars’ worth of announced infrastructure reference group projects. The fact of the matter is that some of the contractors will be bidding into a commercial situation. We have to make sure that we have all the ducks in a row before we undertake that process.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he declined to confirm yesterday that each project is being announced immediately after due diligence has been completed by Ministers, he mentioned other factors; was political calculation the primary other factor?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. As discussed, commercial negotiations would be another factor.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can he explain to the House how it provides certainty to developers for the Government to prevent the development of more than 400 new houses at Ihumātao and more than a year later for the entire situation to remain in limbo?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I can say is that, in contrast to the houses that may or may not have been built at Ihumātao, we can see, on this side of the House, thousands of public houses built in contrast to the sell-off by the other Government.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he have any advice on the number of jobs that have been lost by the prevention of houses being built at Ihumātao?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. And, as the member knows from the answer I gave yesterday, Treasury are projecting an increase in the net number of people in employment by the end of the year.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that the Government’s intervention at Ihumātao has undermined the certainty of property rights in this country, one of the foundations of job creation?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely not.

Question No. 5—Local Government

5. to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has the Government made about supporting councils to improve their drinking-water infrastructure?

Earlier this month, the Prime Minister announced a $761 million investment to support councils’ investment into their water network across the country. Our water infrastructure is run down and urgently needs to be upgraded. That’s why we’re working alongside councils to address some immediate and long-term challenges to reform the way in which water services are provided, so that no matter where someone lives, they will have clean, safe drinking-water, cleaner lakes, streams, and rivers.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What has the Government done to futureproof our drinking water in the wake of the 2016 Havelock North water disaster?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: We’re in the process of standing up Taumata Arowai, the water services regulator, which will be responsible for the comprehensive enforcement and compliance of drinking-water standards and will start to collect a comprehensive set of data relating to waste and storm water systems. This will help drive a more consistent approach to our water management system. The $761 million will be used to bring forward planned infrastructure for repairs, maintenance, and renewals to act as direct stimulus for the local economy.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: Will councils have to amalgamate?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: No, and it’s important to stress that the water reform agenda is asking councils to rethink the delivery of water services so that ratepayers receive the full benefit of scale and cost sharing. Importantly, what I’m asking councils to consider is a world-class water management system that doesn’t burden future generations because of the current, inefficient model. The Government is acutely aware of the significance of the proposed reform programme on other roles and functions of local government. That’s why we’re working with them.

💬 Willow-Jean Prime: What if councils do not opt in?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Good question. The approach I’m taking to water reform is about working with the sector. It’s an opt-in approach. A sign of this is a partnership approach that we’ve established with local government in our three waters steering committee. The group is now undertaking engagement with the sector to explain in more detail the opportunities of the stimulus package and the approach to water reform. If a council chooses not to participate, the region will still benefit, because we need councils thinking strategically about the long-term challenges ahead of them to achieve a reliable nationwide water network and efficient service delivery.

Question No. 6—Health

6. to the Minister of Health: How would he rate the performance of his coronavirus testing policies for effectiveness and economic recovery?

In the context of 440,000 tests having been completed and the fact that we are now 83 days since our last case of community transmission in New Zealand, I would say that our response to coronavirus, including our testing regime, has been incredibly effective. However, as I’ve said many times, there is no room for complacency. I have been concerned that, over the school holidays, testing rates have not been at the level that we would expect in order to provide New Zealanders with a level of reassurance that there is no further COVID-19 emerging within the community, and the Ministry of Health is working with all of the relevant stakeholders to ensure that testing rates come up again. In terms of the economy, I would repeat what the Prime Minister has always said—that the view of this Government is that a very good health response is the best thing we can do for our economy. Unlike many around the world, New Zealand is now one of the freest economies in the world, with New Zealanders having most of their ability to move freely around the country and interact on a day-to-day basis as they normally would restored—very, very different to what other countries are experiencing.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Was it a one-star performance of his testing policies last Sunday when, instead of the 4,000 daily tests he has indicated, only eight people were tested in the community?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, that’s not eight tests in total; that’s eight people tested in the community. There were tests in managed isolation and people working at the border in addition to that on that day. But, no, those are not the levels of tests that we’re expecting. But I do want to make clear, though, that the testing numbers in the community will fluctuate on a day-to-day basis, but we certainly wouldn’t expect them to be that low.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: How much Government funding was used across the country last Sunday to test eight people in the community; and how does he rate that economic performance?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The level of funding required is the level of funding that will be supplied. So, if more funding is required for more testing to take place, the Government will supply more funding in order for the testing to take place. Those levels of testing that the member’s referred to are not good enough. Since that time, further guidance has been issued to ensure that those testing rates are coming back up again.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: How many people in managed isolation have tested positive at the day three test, given there were two last Sunday; and how does he rate his day three testing policy?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t have with me the exact number who’ve tested positive at day three, but I would note that a number of people who tested negative at day three tested positive at day 12. What that shows is that our policy of having two tests—one about three days after people arrive and one about 12 days after they arrive—is helping us to pick up cases that might otherwise go undetected. I do note that day three is about the right period of time—and all of the evidence is suggesting that’s about the right period of time, given the incubation period for the virus—to pick up most of the cases coming across the border. But it doesn’t pick up absolutely all of them, and there are still cases of people who have tested negative at day three coming up with a positive result on day 12, and that’s why the testing regime we’ve got in place is the right one.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: What impact does the Minister believe it would have had on testing and the cost of testing if the Government had agreed with the Opposition’s calls to open up the borders?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The need for testing would be significantly higher because if we had reopened the border or created the trans-Tasman bubble with Australia at the time we were being urged to do so, we could be Melbourne, where they are seeing hundreds of new cases on a daily basis, and that is involving extensive levels of testing within their community that we do not need in New Zealand at the moment because we do not have community transmission.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Given, then, that he is so pleased with day three testing in managed isolation, how does he account for his answer to written questions where he states that day three testing is not compulsory?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m going to ask the member to rephrase his question. There was quite a lot at the beginning which was nothing to do with the question. Just ask the last bit, which is the question.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: How does he respond to written questions stating that day three testing is not compulsory, given people are still testing positive to day three?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because the testing that is required—the compulsory testing—is when somebody is going to be leaving managed isolation. They will not be able to leave managed isolation or quarantine without there being a negative test. If they refuse the day three test, then it doesn’t make a heck of a lot of difference because they will still be picked up further down the track. But the key issue here is that day three testing helps us to ensure that those people are getting any support that they may require.

Question No. 7—Small Business

7. to the Minister for Small Business: What support has the Government provided to small businesses to help them adapt and innovate to deal with the impacts of COVID-19?

The Government is taking decisive and considered action to support small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) through a once-in-a-century global economic shock caused by COVID-19. In addition to the $15 million invested in the Regional Business Partner Network since March, that has been accessed by 12,465 businesses, the Government is now boosting this with an additional $40 million. The fund enables the network of over 1,400 registered professional service advisers across 14 regions to deliver free business advice and training to SMEs to build their capabilities. Businesses with under 20 employees have received 78 percent of the support funding. The additional boost will keep up the momentum to help SMEs adapt and innovate to deal with the impact of the virus.

💬 Jo Luxton: How does the additional investment in the regional business partner scheme help businesses adapt and innovate to deal with the impacts of COVID-19?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: The Regional Business Partner Network connects firms to expert advice at no cost to the business. Advice covers topics like business strategy, finance and cash flow, continuity planning, human resources and employment relations, digital services, marketing, and health and wellness for owners and staff. The professional support is in huge demand from our smallest businesses—those with 10 or fewer staff. This is the same cohort of SMEs that have been most enthusiastic about our Government support, like interest-free loans and the wage subsidy scheme. Around 80 percent of businesses that have used the network for professional support have 10 or fewer workers. Over 500 Māori businesses have accessed this support, and there’s been strong interest from manufacturing, tourism, construction, and retail businesses. The network offers a fast and localised way to get practical support to businesses, especially the small to medium firms that are the backbone of our economy.

💬 Jo Luxton: What reports has he seen from small businesses or their advocates who have accessed the regional business partner scheme?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: Napier small business owner, Mr Paul Freeman, who received business finance training and social media training and used it to change his company’s marketing, has stated that the services have been lifesaving. The Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce says the extended funding will make a critical difference for many businesses in the region, enabling them to get the right advice at the right time. One Southland business advised, and I quote, “Prior to our sessions with the service providers, we were concerned and didn’t really have a grasp of exactly where we were financially—when the pain would start or stop. But, armed with updated cash flows and reports and the know-how, we can trade our way through.” The Government does not underestimate the struggles small businesses are facing at the moment and the pressures they are under, be they financial or mental health. This is the time to leverage personal and business networks and to use local contacts to help to innovate and to grow.

Question No. 8—Immigration

8. to the Minister of Immigration: Is he satisfied the border closure exceptions are responsive to the needs of businesses critical to our economic recovery?

Yes. Fundamentally, our border is one of our best defences against COVID-19. Our border restrictions are our best defence against COVID, which keeps our economy open for business. This Government is taking a measured and cautious approach to opening the border. Overseas, we’re seeing the implications of opening up the border too quickly, and this is a risk that this Government is not prepared to place on New Zealanders after sacrifices our people, communities, and economy have made. I’ll be working closely with other Ministers to ensure we are effectively managing the flow of people into managed isolation and quarantine.

💬 Stuart Smith: What does he say to businesses such as Mainstream Engineering, who can’t commence projects because they are unable to get essential workers into New Zealand even though there are clearly no New Zealanders available for the roles?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, I would advise them to apply an expression of interest under the critical worker scheme.

💬 Stuart Smith: What does he say to the director of Rebar Technology, who said that the inability to get two skilled workers into New Zealand, due to not getting exceptions to commence urgent work on a project, has cost 10 jobs they had planned for Kiwis?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: There are challenging times for all businesses during this crisis. As I said, our border restrictions are our main line of defence in ensuring that New Zealanders and our economy are safe. There are parameters and criteria now for critical workers. I’m sure the member is aware of those, and I won’t necessarily labour the House with that, but it is also time for businesses who have traditionally relied on migrant workers to look at other ways, including, essentially, training up New Zealand workers to make sure that they can meet their labour needs.

💬 Stuart Smith: How can he say that these exceptions are supporting long-term economic recovery when businesses can’t get the workers they need to commence projects when no Kiwis are available?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, there are tests within the process and criteria that all businesses that may have shortages have to meet in order to get critical workers into the country. There is a balance to be had about keeping our communities and our economy safe. Businesses must make sure that they extinguish all avenues to find New Zealand workers, and there are criteria there for it. If they can’t meet that, then they have to potentially innovate and start training up people who may be out of jobs.

💬 Stuart Smith: Will he take responsibility for delaying projects and the jobs that will be lost due to businesses not being able to get critical workers into New Zealand?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: This Government will take responsibility for the actions that it’s taken at the border to ensure that our communities are safe, that our economy is back up and running. When you look at overseas economies that are still hit by the COVID virus, there are criteria, and the bar is very high because we need to keep the country and our communities and our economy safe. Those businesses know those criteria, and they need to make sure that they can find New Zealand workers. If they can’t, then there is a process which they can go through.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Is the Minister aware of the calculation of the cost of the lockdown in Victoria amounting to around A$3 billion, and how does he see that as a balance against calls to open borders up?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I’m aware now that the member included that figure in the question, but as I say, the importance of keeping border restrictions tight and balancing that with ensuring that if there is critical work to be done, there is a pathway for people to come into New Zealand, is extremely important. Again, if you look around the world and see the economies that are struggling to deal with COVID, and you look at New Zealand’s experience in terms of being able to manage it, we are in a very good position, and we need to protect that.

Question No. 9—Agriculture

9. to the Minister of Agriculture: How is the Government supporting the agritech sector?

This Government knows that our primary sector is going to play a key part in our post-COVID economic recovery. New Zealand agritech companies are creating innovative technologies and solutions that support our farmers, growers, harvesters, and fishers to create more value and achieve greater productivity and sustainability. This week, Minister Twyford and myself launched key Government and industry plans critical to scaling up highly productive and internationally competitive Kiwi firms. Now is the time for New Zealand agritech firms to seize the opportunities to solve challenges affecting the primary sector globally and to show the world the Kiwi entrepreneurial spirit. This Government is investing $11.4 million directly into the agritech sector. They have access to $84 million of the Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures fund. They also have access to a $300 million fund initiated by my colleague the Hon David Parker, supported by Cabinet, that provides them a pathway to a better future.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: What role can agriculture technologies play in supporting the primary sector through their current workforce challenges?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: A huge role. This Government is committed to lifting skills and lifting incomes right across the primary sector, and technology is one way of achieving that goal. As part of our Agritech Industry Transformation Plan, that we launched this week, there is a specific work stream around talent and skills. In common with other technology sectors, the agritech sector provides a pathway for high-skilled roles and there is an increasing need for expertise in this area—for example, this week I met with some highly skilled robotics and mechatronics engineers who are working in the field of horticulture robotics. We see the growth in automation as providing an opportunity for new highly skilled, highly paid roles. The automation of farm processes that are traditionally labour intensive will also, in time, take pressure off the need to continuously find labour for picking, for packing, and for other roles. This is something that is a real challenge for the sector right now, and as a Government we are committed to assisting them to solve those problems.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: What is the Government’s reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic when it comes to the agritech sector?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: COVID-19 has clearly been a major issue for all sectors. In our Industry Transformation Plan, we’ve looked into New Zealand’s comparative advantage globally, and with the work our Government has done to eradicate COVID-19, we see that New Zealand is in a good position to use this period of global uncertainty to build our offerings. New Zealand has the opportunity to extend our agritech expertise into product areas which have an increased appeal globally, building on our skills in dairy- and pasture-based innovation. COVID also gives us an opportunity to look at some of the challenges here in New Zealand that we can resolve in order to grow the sector, such as how to better utilise data and how to increase the flow and commercialisation of our intellectual property. COVID-19 is a challenge but it offers huge opportunities for New Zealand also.

Question No. 10—Education

10. to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement, “the Government has been very clear that our cash reserves that have been accumulated by Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics (ITPs) will be ring-fenced for spending in the region that has accumulated those. That is the policy decision of the Government. That’s recorded in the Cabinet papers and in the Cabinet minute. That is very clear.”?

Yes.

💬 Simeon Brown: Does he support the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology’s (NZIST’s) policy which removes control of the cash reserves from ITPs, puts them in a central balance sheet, rather than leaving the money for use in the region which has earned it, and which NZIST’s chief executive, Stephen Town, has said does not reflect Cabinet’s intention to the extent expected?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The NZIST are reviewing their cash reserves policy. I think Stephen Town is correct that the policy that they had drafted—and it was only a draft policy—didn’t reflect Cabinet’s intention, and they are going back and having a look at that. It did mean that some of the ITPs were not seeing the level of reserves ring-fenced that they expected to.

💬 Simeon Brown: Then can the Minister assure each ITP that every dollar from an ITP’s cash reserves will be spent in the region that has accumulated them and that the policy will reflect Cabinet’s expectations?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, that’s the Government’s intention. I do want to, however, make it clear, though: cash in the bank doesn’t necessarily mean cash reserves. At different times of the year, institutions will have a much healthier level of cash in the bank, but they spend it down during the course of the year. So one of the issues that NZIST have to work through is what actually are reserves versus cash in the bank that’s already committed. Some ITPs have already committed to significant capital projects that they’ve committed their reserves to. So if they’ve already committed their reserves, they don’t get to have them twice.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why would Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT) chief executive Liam Sloan publicly say that he felt “misled” and “disappointed” at the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology policy that would allow the loss of $23 million of reserves not being spent in the region?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I did follow that matter up, and the chair of the board has stated—and I’ll quote from that—“While there are concerns at NMIT about the proposed policy from NZIST around the use of reserves, we’re working closely with NZIST to develop a shared understanding and resolution around this policy. Discussions are very productive and we feel confident in reaching a mutually agreed solution. It is regrettable that this work is not clearly articulated in the article. The board of NMIT is committed to ensuring a positive relationship with the NZIST and it is not helpful dealing with media misrepresentations and material delivered out of context.”

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will he give a categorical guarantee that all of the $23.4 million in cash reserves at the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology on 31 March, when the new institute was created, will be retained for our region?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member didn’t listen to the answer to the question before the last, which is: cash in the bank doesn’t mean cash reserves. Some of that money has already been committed by NMIT.

Question No. 11—Research, Science and Innovation

11. to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: Why, considering it was due to be released in June 2019, has the Government not yet released its Research, Science and Innovation Strategy?

on behalf of the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: The tentative June date was set, but sector participants recommended a broader round of public consultation, which they preferred to a quicker process. It was then intended that the strategy would be released earlier this year, but COVID intervened. I then decided to put the release of the long-term strategy on hold while we responded to the COVID-19 epidemic. On behalf of the Minister, I intend to revise the strategy in light of COVID and will complete this following this year’s election, if re-elected.

💬 Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How can she use COVID-19 as an excuse, when COVID-19 did not hit New Zealand until February this year, and the Research, Science and Innovation Strategy was due to be released in June last year?

💬 SPEAKER: Can I—oh, no; the member can answer it. But can I just recommend to members that they listen to the answer before they go for a pre-prepared supplementary.

I gave that explanation in my answer to the primary question.

💬 Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Does she accept that if she had released the strategy on time, there could have been more investment in innovation in Budget 2020, as a Government report from early last year suggested different investment in innovation until the Research, Science and Innovation Strategy is released?

No, and, in fact, the sector will benefit from the $401.3 million funding boost that was in Budget 2020, which included a lift to Crown Research Institutes funding of approximately $196 million; plus that fund also includes the COVID response and recovery fund. And, of course, since COVID, the Minister has rapidly stood up the $25 million COVID-19 Innovation Acceleration Fund to accelerate the development and deployment of innovative solutions and to support research to alleviate the impacts of COVID-19.

💬 Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What does it say about the importance her Government is placing on the research, science, and innovation sector that she has failed to release the strategy, creating uncertainty for the sector, which is already struggling to rebound from COVID-19?

I thank the member for the opportunity to inform the House that the assertions in that question are quite wrong, for the reasons I’ve previously explained.

Question No. 12—Internal Affairs

12. to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcements has she made to help support firefighters throughout New Zealand?

It was my privilege to recently announce over $50 million worth of upgrades and repairs to fire stations across the country. This involves improvements to 26 fire stations across the country, ranging from total replacement of old stations or ones with significant seismic issues through to partial refurbishments and improvements for obsolete facilities. I’d like to specifically highlight Christchurch City, Sumner, and Kaikōura, who will all finally receive new fire stations after theirs were damaged in earthquakes. For a long time, communities have been waiting to see firefighters housed in facilities that make their difficult jobs just a bit easier. These projects will help our firefighters. They will help their communities and create local jobs.

💬 Mark Patterson: Why are these improvements needed, and is this the total amount to be spent by Government and Fire and Emergency New Zealand to improve the conditions of our career and volunteer firefighters?

💬 Hon TRACEY MARTIN: In answer to the first part of the question, this funding will provide for decontamination facilities to be constructed at Ōkaihau station. Decontamination facilities enable firefighters coming home from a fire to remove equipment safely and prevent carcinogens from smoke being brought into living and eating areas of stations. It will also support rural brigades whose facilities are obsolete or no longer fit for purpose, including the Cavalli brigade, which is currently operating from a pair of shipping containers. This funding will allow a brand new station to be built for these firefighters. For a period of time, these dedicated firefighters didn’t even have a toilet because their portaloo was stolen by local criminals. In answer to the second part of the question, no. In addition to this funding, Fire and Emergency has also budgeted $38 million for property upgrades in 2021. Since its formation on 1 July 2017, Fire and Emergency has invested over $120 million in capital property works. I believe that fire stations should be up to the same standard as the amazing people who operate from them, and these upgrades will help accelerate that process.