Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, including the Government’s $136.5 million investment in supporting the hosting of the 36th America’s Cup, in particular the development of the Cup Village, which is a legacy for the people of Auckland for generations to come. And, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I want to wish Peter Burling and the team all the very best for today and, if the wind does not behave, for tomorrow as well.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: What does she say to the people of South Auckland, who last week heard that Counties Manukau District Health Board is 150 nurses short, and when can they expect a trans-Tasman bubble to be opened up to free up 40 percent of MIQ spaces that could be available for more nurses?

In answer to the first part of the question, what I say to the people on behalf of the Prime Minister, what I say to the people of South Auckland, is it is a pity that there wasn’t a Labour-led Government for the nine years when National consistently underfunded the Counties Manukau DHB.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Would bringing more healthcare workers into the country help to speed up our vaccine roll-out; and, if so, why is she refusing to immediately open the trans-Tasman bubble to free up 40 percent of MIQ spaces?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, no.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Are there any benefits to healthcare workers to opening up a trans-Tasman bubble?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, I find that question difficult to answer. The benefits to healthcare workers of opening up the bubble would be similar benefits to those in a number of other industries. I don’t particularly think it is special to the healthcare workers.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Does she agree that having stressed and overworked nurses in our MIQ facility increases the risk of another border failure, and that freeing up MIQ capacity to bring more healthcare workers into the country could make the border safer?

We are acutely aware of the hard work that has been done on behalf of all New Zealanders by healthcare workers, and we’re in constant communication with them, and with those who employ them, to ensure that their wellbeing is maintained.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: How many life-saving surgeries in New Zealand public hospitals have been affected by the absence of a trans-Tasman bubble that has prevented highly skilled Australian specialists working in our DHBs?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, I would question the premise of the member’s question. What I would say is that we have put significant extra resources in to make up for delays that were caused by the original COVID lockdown, to ensure that New Zealanders are getting the surgery and services they need.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Would opening a trans-Tasman bubble improve the number of healthcare workers in New Zealand that would further improve our coronavirus response?

The situation we have in New Zealand at the moment is a hard-working health workforce that is doing their job well. It is not the goal of a safe travel zone with Australia in particular to improve the number of health workers that we have. We are doing the job on behalf of New Zealanders to plan for this but, more importantly than that, those health workers are doing their job on behalf of New Zealand, and we should be very grateful to them for that.

Question No. 2—Education

2. to the Minister of Education: What response has he seen to Government initiatives to support training and apprenticeships?

Good news—I’m pleased to report that New Zealanders are flocking to the trades, with more than 100,000 learners supported in free vocational training and apprenticeships under the Targeted Training and Apprenticeship Fund, or TTAP. The latest enrolment data shows 106,600 people have taken advantage of free trades training since we introduced it in July last year, including more than 58,000 apprentices. The Government introduced TTAP in July last year, and it makes a range of qualifications in targeted areas and all apprenticeships free until December 2022.

💬 Angela Roberts: What industries are these students and apprentices working in?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Good news—one-third of TTAP learners are in the building and construction industry, with the next most popular areas primary industries and then community support. Once qualified, these workers will help support New Zealand’s effort to recover from COVID-19 and develop our economy in the years to come.

💬 Angela Roberts: Are Māori, Pacific people, and older workers well represented in the programme?

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Very good question. Yes. It’s good to see very strong interest from across the community. Nineteen percent are Māori, 9 percent Pacific, and 13 percent Asian. Also, in terms of age cohorts, this isn’t just designed for school-leavers but for people in a wide range of circumstances throughout their lives. People have taken that on board; nearly a quarter are over the age of 40, and about two-thirds overall are over the age of 25.

💬 Angela Roberts: What reports has he seen about other Government initiatives to support training and apprenticeships?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: More good news—as well as the free training for learners, we’re backing employers to keep their apprentices in work through their training through the Apprenticeship Boost scheme. Apprenticeship Boost provides a subsidy for employers of $1,000 a month for the first year of an apprentice’s work and $500 a month in the second year. Since the Apprenticeship Boost was rolled out in August last year, over 10,000 employers have signed up and received almost $97 million worth of subsidies for 21,000 apprentices. In the second half of last year, it roughly doubled the number of apprentice new starts signed up compared to the year before.

Question No. 3—ACC

3. to the Minister for ACC: Will she direct ACC to ensure all survivors, including families and witnesses, of the tragic terrorist attack on 15 March 2019 can access ACC support?

As a Government, we continue to provide support to survivors of the 15 March mosque attacks and their whānau through a range of mechanisms, depending on need and circumstance. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) established a bespoke welfare programme for those affected by the mosque attacks; we invested into mental health support services at the Canterbury DHB; have made changes to visa programmes to allow greater access to domestic support for survivors; and, of course, ACC continues to cover those who are entitled to the scheme. To ensure people are able to navigate that support, MSD has also been providing an intensive case-management service, Kaiwhakaoranga. This ensures survivors, witnesses, and their whānau have a single point of contact for accessing support across Government and in their communities. While we continue to assess the situation for ways we can better understand and address the needs of survivors across Government, I have no immediate plans to direct ACC in the way the member suggests.

💬 Jan Logie: Does she agree that mental injury and trauma as a result of experiencing a deadly terrorist attack may have as significant an impact as a physical injury and also require a higher level of compensation for inability to work and ongoing support?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I don’t think any of us can underestimate the mental trauma that those who were witnesses to the mosque attack have experienced. The decision was made to put additional support into place through the DHB with regards to mental health, also the single point of contact and the wraparound support via MSD. We continue to monitor the situation to see how we can continue to support those who have been impacted by the mosque attacks.

💬 Jan Logie: What is the Minister’s response to those victims who have clearly said that the support from the health and welfare systems has not been adequate?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We have an ongoing programme to ensure that we are looking at ways that we can support those who have been impacted by the mosque attacks. That work involves a range of Ministers, including Minister Radhakrishnan, Minister Little, myself as the Minister for ACC, and others also. So we want to continue to assess the situation and ensure that the supports that are in place are working. If the member comes across families or individuals who she feels are not getting access to the supports that we’ve put in place or that they are not adequate, then I would encourage the member to send those cases through to us.

💬 Jan Logie: Does she agree that ACC can provide a greater level of ongoing support and healthcare than is otherwise available?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I am often approached—and I think every ACC Minister would have been across the course of time that this scheme has been in place—to look at expansion and ways to expand. That is not just with regards to the mosque attacks and the mental trauma that people have experienced here. Moving forward, we need to continue to look at the scheme and see that it’s fit for purpose. With regards to the suggested directive that the member has asked that I make today, there is no consideration being given to that type of directive.

💬 Jan Logie: Is she unwilling to extend ACC to cover mental injury to all victims of the attack alone because the cost of compensation for inability to work is considered too high?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think it would be unfair to put the reason for not utilising ACC, or looking to expand it in this circumstance, down to any kind of fiscal constraint. We need to keep in mind that there are numerous situations where ACC have an expectation placed on them that they would look to expand the provisions of ACC. To the member, I will say that I’m comfortable with regards to where we settled in ensuring that we had adequate wraparound support across the agencies that I spoke about, with the two ministries leading that work being the Ministry of Social Development and the Ministry of Health.

💬 Jan Logie: Could a decision to extend just for these additional victims of the terrorist attack force wider reform if Cabinet didn’t support that?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: If I am interpreting the member’s question correctly, I think that it would be fair to say that if there was any expansion of the ACC scheme to cover the area that the member has spoken about, then there would be expectations from a broader range of New Zealand to also revisit other decisions. So we do need to make sure that we are looking at the entire landscape and picture with regards to the support that ACC offers and taking into consideration the expectations of New Zealanders in a range of different circumstances.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Has he asked Treasury for advice on the economic cost to New Zealand of not opening a trans-Tasman travel bubble; if so, what is the estimated cost per day?

The Government continues to do the work required to open a safe travel zone with Australia so that it is in the best interests of New Zealanders, and where the appropriate protocols and safeguards are in place. Not being of a negative mind-set, I have not asked for advice about not opening the trans-Tasman bubble. I have previously asked for advice about the economic impact of trans-Tasman travel settings as both countries take measures to protect their citizens from the global COVID-19 pandemic. The member can read about this himself in the 26 June 2020 weekly economic update that has been published on Treasury’s website. In answer to the second part of the question, that information does not give a per-day cost or benefit, which is understandable given the significant uncertainties about what the scale of travel between the two countries would be in the current environment.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Why is his Government dragging its heels on the trans-Tasman bubble, at great cost to the New Zealand economy, when public health expert Michael Baker has said Australians pose incredibly low COVID-19 risk?

💬 SPEAKER: Oh—

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part—oh, sorry.

💬 SPEAKER: I mean, I will let the member answer it, but I am being quite generous, because it does not relate to the primary question.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: With respect to the first part of the question, I completely disagree with the member’s premise. What we’re doing on this side of the House is acting in the interests of New Zealanders to make sure that arrangements we make have the proper protocols and safeguards in place.

💬 Andrew Bayly: How many jobs would be saved by opening the trans-Tasman bubble immediately in places like Rotorua, Taupō, Queenstown, and the West Coast?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In order to be able to answer that very, very specific question, we would need to know a lot about the behaviour of Australians, and I would note, for the member’s benefit, that for an Australian to travel to New Zealand right now, they require an exit visa, and so what we would have to know is just how many Australians would be prepared to go through the rigmarole of that; in return, in terms of the net benefit to New Zealand, how many New Zealanders would go to Australia. These are matters that are very difficult to quantify. Our premise is a principled one: that we will do this in the interests of New Zealanders and making sure that we have the right safeguards in place.

💬 Andrew Bayly: What is his response to businesses who are desperate for workers right now and are calling for the freeing up of the 40 percent of the managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) spaces currently taken up by people arriving from Australia? [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Well, it’s about as related as two back, so I’ll let it go.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member needs to think carefully through what he’s saying there, and, in fact, if he wants to quote Michael Baker, as he did earlier, he could look at one of Michael Baker’s statements earlier today, which is that when those spaces are freed up in MIQ, when we do get ourselves to a safe travel zone, we will have higher-risk travellers who will be in New Zealand at that point, and Mr Baker is actually concerned about the availability of space at that point.

💬 Andrew Bayly: What regions are expected to suffer the highest economic cost due to the lack of a trans-Tasman bubble?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’re well aware, on this side of the House, that there are certain regions of New Zealand who have been affected more in terms of the loss of international tourism, and the member will be well aware of which regions those are—the likes of Queenstown, and Westland, and elsewhere. We are working actively with those regions on plans to support them, on top of the $400 million that has gone into support the tourism sector, the $1.8 billion of wage subsidy funding that went into support the tourism sector—amounts of money, I might say, that are significantly larger than what I heard being offered by the other side of the House during the election.

💬 David Seymour: Will the higher-risk travellers the Minister just referred to include Nala and Simba?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m pleased that the member has spent his time learning the names of the characters of the Lion King. What I would say to the member is that throughout the period of COVID-19, we have prioritised the return of New Zealanders to their home country; where possible, we have made available spaces for those who are playing significant roles in the economy; and we’ve made space for cultural and sporting events, because that is part of making sure that New Zealanders have actually been able to enjoy some time over the last few months.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Could the tourism regions of New Zealand end up worse off if restrictions preventing New Zealanders travelling to Australia are removed whilst Australia continues to maintain the requirement for Australians travelling to New Zealand to have exit visas?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s absolutely a good point and comes back to my primary answer to the member: this is a two-way street, and if Australians still require an exit visa, we could end up with a net loss to New Zealand.

Question No. 5—Social Development and Employment

5. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What announcements has she made about the social work profession?

Today, on World Social Work Day, I announced that New Zealand has now reached a milestone of 10,300 registered social workers—an increase of 3,600 over the last four years. This milestone follows the introduction on 27 February 2019 of mandatory registration legislation—a measure that has been long sought by the sector. Today we celebrate the progress that has been made in future-proofing the profession, as well as acknowledging the 10,300 registered social workers who continue to serve on the front line, supporting some of New Zealand’s most vulnerable tamariki, whānau, and communities.

💬 Terisa Ngobi: Why is mandatory registration important for the social work profession?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Our social workers are at the front line, providing assistance to those who most need it. Mandatory registration is a step forward, recognising the professional nature of the workforce. It offers reassurance to the public that social workers are qualified, adhere to a code of ethics, are annually updating their practising certificate, and are continually engaged in professional development. This gives New Zealanders confidence in the care, advice, and support they need from the social work profession.

💬 Terisa Ngobi: What actions has the Government taken to support and increase mandatory registration in the profession?

💬 Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Government invested just over $2 million in Budget 2019 to support the Social Workers Registration Board’s implementation of mandatory registration over two years. In another step forward, I’ve asked the Social Workers Registration Board to act as the lead agency on workforce planning, in a move to strengthen the profession. They are also looking into a scope of practice which will provide a high level description of social work practice. These actions are aimed to encourage more social workers into the profession and underlines the Government’s plan to support healthier, safer, and more connected communities.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions in relation to the land at Ihumātao?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, in the context in which they were made and undertaken.

💬 David Seymour: Does she stand by the statement of Grant Robertson on 17 December about the Ihumātao deal: “Let’s be very clear - this is not part of the treaty settlement process”?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes.

💬 David Seymour: Did the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development—the Government agency that paid Fletcher Building $29.9 million for the land—ever advise that the payment might be part of a Treaty settlement process?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, on a very specific question like that the member will understand I would need to be able to go back and check. My recollection is that there was a range of views discussed throughout the period of well over a year about how a settlement could be reached at Ihumātao that would not breach the Treaty settlement process, and the Government is very confident that we have reached that settlement.

💬 David Seymour: Could the redacted parts of this Cabinet paper refer to the deal being part of a Treaty settlement process?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, I recently got new glasses but I can’t quite read that Cabinet paper from here.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m actually going to ask David Seymour to ask the question again, and I’m going to ask the Prime Minister to answer it.

💬 David Seymour: Could the redacted part of this Cabinet paper possibly refer to the deal at Ihumātao being part of a Treaty settlement process?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, I would need to see that Cabinet paper. What I do know is that the Government is confident that we have reached an arrangement at Ihumātao that upholds and protects the Treaty settlement process.

💬 Nicola Willis: Why are we in a situation where KiwiBuild money meant to be spent on building houses has been spent instead on stopping houses being built?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, we are not.

💬 David Seymour: Why, then, does the redacted parts of this Cabinet paper, when cut and paste out of the PDF, put into Word, say that Crown Law and Te Arawhiti have been working through the Treaty implications of a purpose due to the fact the land is being purchased by an agency whose land is not generally available for use in Treaty settlements for a specific purpose—e.g., housing right there?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, if the member considers what he just said, he said that these issues were being worked through, which is exactly what I said in a previous answer to this question. We worked through a process with a range of agencies to ensure that we had a resolution at Ihumātao that upholds the Treaty settlement process, and we achieved that.

💬 David Seymour: Did the Government receive advice saying that the deal as conceived would be part of a Treaty settlement process, or not?

As I’ve already answered in the previous questions, we worked through whether or not the settlement would do that—that’s exactly what the member has just said—and the outcome of which is that we have a deal that does not undermine the Treaty settlement process.

💬 David Seymour: What does she think New Zealanders in general, and iwi in particular, should think about a Government that told them the Ihumātao deal was not part of a Treaty settlement process, and then, dastardly and failedly, tried to hide those details?

💬 SPEAKER: No, no, no. I mean, I’m reluctant to ask the member to ask it again, but there are certainly some words in there which he knows add no value and characterise something in a way which is inappropriate. I’m going to ask the Prime Minister to ignore those words and just answer the question.

On behalf of the Prime Minister, what New Zealanders, in general, are seeing is a situation where there was a significant stand-off, there was an inability for Fletcher Building who own the land to be able to pursue a development, and what they have seen is a Government that actually wants to bring New Zealanders together for a settlement that will build houses and also build a much stronger and more cohesive society.

💬 Rawiri Waititi: Does the Prime Minister accept that the land was stolen from Māori and, regardless of the mechanism, the land had to be given back?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, they are not the terms under which this agreement has been made. The terms under which this agreement has been made is that we have an opportunity now to see a development at Ihumātao that is supported by mana whenua, that is supported by the wider people of Auckland and New Zealand, and that the Government can help with. This is a win-win-win argument and I’m very pleased the Government has got to this point alongside, I might say, the tremendous efforts of the kīngitanga who need to be recognised for the work that they did to bring together all of the mana whenua.

Question No. 7—COVID-19 Response

7. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Is New Zealand still negotiating a joint decision-making framework with Australia regarding the proposed trans-Tasman safe travel zone; if so, what remaining issues, if any, are being discussed in the negotiations?

In answer to the first part of the question, no. As I told the member last week, we have moved from discussing a joint decision-making framework with Australia to discussing more of a unilateral approach to decision making, and those discussions continue. Issues that we’re working through include understanding the circumstances that could lead to a suspension of green zone travel on either side of the Tasman; what we would do with those whose travel is disrupted by the suspension of a green zone; testing requirements that may be put in place on either side; Australia’s current exit visa restriction, that prevents Australians travelling to New Zealand without a visa; the state-by-state differences in decision making in Australia; decision making around expansion to other countries outside of the safe travel zone and who would make those, and whether New Zealand would have any input into that process; and contact tracing system interoperability, in the event that we needed to do contact tracing for people who had been in one country, and were then identified as being more at risk after they had travelled to another country.

💬 Chris Bishop: Thank you for that answer. Has Cabinet ruled out unilaterally declaring that people from Australia can come to New Zealand without undertaking isolation and quarantine; and if not, why not?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, we have not ruled that out, and the reason we haven’t ruled it out is because that’s actually where we’re most likely to end up.

💬 Chris Bishop: Oh, very good. Good!

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, the member clearly didn’t listen to my answers last week—I actually told him that last week. We have moved from the notion of a joint decision-making framework to having a unilateral decision-making framework—

💬 SPEAKER: Mr Brown—zip it.

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —where each country reserves its ability to make its own decisions about the suspension and opening up of the green travel zone.

💬 Chris Bishop: When was the issue of stranded travellers being potentially stuck in Australia first identified by the officials?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That’s been one of the items that’s been ongoing through the discussions right the way through—including when we were discussing a joint decision-making framework. One of the goals for having a joint decision-making framework was so that we could avoid people being stranded. We have already seen examples of people’s travel being disrupted and people being stranded as a result of Australia’s suspension of the green zone. We’ve had flights on the tarmac at Auckland about to take off that have had to turn back when Australia, at very short notice, has suspended green zone travel. I do want to note that, at the moment, only Victoria and New South Wales are allowing people to arrive in those countries without mandatory quarantine, or mandatory isolation, but they are still requiring those travelling from Auckland to self-isolate for 72 hours, and return a negative COVID-19 test upon arrival.

💬 Chris Bishop: When was the last time COVID-19 was detected in managed isolation and quarantine in an arrival from Australia who had come direct from Australia and had not transited via Australia from another country?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There’s been one case this year; I think, overall, about two dozen cases in total since we’ve had the border restrictions in place—I don’t have the exact dates of those off the top of my head. It is a relatively small number, but that’s in the context of a relatively small number of people coming into the country in total. It’s worth remembering that, at the moment, we deal with probably several hundred arrivals to New Zealand per day, in total. We would be talking about a return to trans-Tasman travel, pre - COVID-19 levels, of between 8,000 and 12,000 people travelling across the Tasman every single day.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why does the Government say that Australians being required to have an exit visa to leave Australia is an impediment to the trans-Tasman safe travel zone, when the Prime Minister of Australia has made it very clear he’s happy for Australians to holiday in New Zealand?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If so, I look forward to his removal of the requirement of Australians travelling to New Zealand to have an exit visa in order to do so.

Question No. 8—Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into the Terrorist Attack on the Christchurch Mosques

8. to the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into the Terrorist Attack on the Christchurch Mosques: What recent announcements has he made regarding ongoing work with survivors of the 15 March 2019 mosque attacks?

Al salam alaikum, Mr Speaker. Monday marked two years since the horrific attack on New Zealanders gathered in peaceful worship in Christchurch. It was an attack on all of us, but it was particularly an attack on the Muslim community. In response to the recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry, and following engagement with faith and ethnic communities, the Government last week announced the following: an Implementation Oversight Advisory Group, to ensure a timely, effective, and accountable implementation of the Government’s response to the royal commission’s report. Next, a Collective Impact Board, that will enable affected whānau of the 15 March victims to guide and advise on services to support their long-term recovery needs. Next, a boosted Safer Communities Fund, with $3.255 million available, to provide a broader range of communities with funding to upgrade and implement security measures. Next, the Ethnic and Faith Community Engagement Response Fund, to help minority ethnic and faith communities engage with the Government to inform it on its response to the royal commission’s report. And finally, the Ethnic Communities Graduate Programme, which will create employment opportunities for graduates and build the diversity of knowledge and experience within the public sector.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: What other commitments has the Government made to respond to the royal commission’s recommendations?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Government has a number of other new and ongoing initiatives under way that focus on three key areas: supporting our diverse communities, tackling harmful behaviour and discrimination, and keeping New Zealand safe. As part of its response, the Government will establish a Ministry of Ethnic Communities; establish a national centre of excellence for independent research into violent extremism; implement a trial to support young children to improve their self-regulation, resilience, and social skills; establish the New Zealand Police programme, Te Raranga, a data collection process for hate crime; increase the capacity of the Human Rights Commission; change hate speech legislation; strengthen New Zealand’s counter-terrorism laws; establish a new Crown entity for strategic intelligence and security leadership; and accede to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: What are the next steps in the process going forward to implement the royal commission’s recommendations?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We will be phasing the work programme, prioritising safety of communities and social inclusion. One of our key priorities at the moment is setting up the Implementation Oversight Advisory Group. That group will provide independent advice to me as the lead coordination Minister for the Government’s response, and the group’s work will include advice on work programme priorities. We’re also currently focused on establishing the Collective Impact Board for the Canterbury region. That board will enable affected communities of the 15 March terrorist attack to shape ongoing support services for their long-term recovery needs.

Question No. 9—Tourism

9. to the Minister of Tourism: What advice, if any, has he received on the forecast benefit of a trans-Tasman travel bubble on tourism businesses in New Zealand, and by what date does he expect a trans-Tasman bubble to be in place?

For the first part of the question, I have received advice on trans-Tasman travel. For example, the Treasury has provided advice that Australians contributed about $2.6 billion to the New Zealand economy, but then New Zealanders also spent $2.3 billion in Australia. I’ve also received advice that there has been a surge in domestic tourism, and for the month of January 2021, the last month that we have the data, domestic tourism spend was up by 24 percent from January 2020, with a monthly spend of about $1.16 billion, but in some areas like Queenstown, for example, the domestic spend was up by 71 percent to $60 million, compared to January the previous year. I’ve also received advice that the Government’s provided a $400 million tourism recovery package, and an estimated $1.8 billion in wage subsidy payments to support jobs and businesses in the tourism industry. To the second part of the question, we’ve always maintained that we would commence a safe travel bubble with Australia when it is safe to do so. Opening the trans-Tasman bubble involves balancing the opportunities with the risks of an outbreak.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: You said next year!

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Mr Bridges, I won’t require you to apologise, but please keep me out of the debate.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Why did he say to a West Coast community meeting, as quoted in the media, “Until we get 70 percent herd immunity with the vaccine, then the borders are not going to open at all, not even with Australia, and this wouldn’t happen until January of next year if you’re lucky”?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: I did not say that at all. In fact, you can ask my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor, who was there. I have always been very, very clear that in terms of opening our borders to international tourists, we are probably not going to see them in our country until next year. However—and I’ve always been very clear about this—the Government is working incredibly hard on a trans-Tasman bubble.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: What is his response to Auckland Airport’s CEO Adrian Littlewood, who said, in regard to a travel bubble between Australia and Singapore, that there was, and I quote, “Real risk that we as a country will be left behind while the rest of the world gets on.” in respect of tourism?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: That’s Mr Littlewood’s opinion.

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: What about Max Bradford?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! That’s not kind to either of them.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: What is his response to Queenstown mayor, Jim Boult, in respect of a trans-Tasman bubble, who said yesterday, and I quote, “Right now businesses are looking down a black hole. There’s no light at the end of it. If they know a date in which they are likely to get going again, they can talk to their bank, they can talk to their lawyers, and find a way to scrape through”?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: I’m aware there are a number of businesses that are doing it really tough in Queenstown—I’ve always acknowledged that. I also acknowledge that Queenstown, at this point in time, is a bit of a two-speed economy. You’ve got some areas, like infrastructure, like construction, that are doing quite well. You’ve got about 3.9 percent unemployment in Queenstown. But I’m also aware, and I’ve also acknowledged, that a number of businesses that have really struggled to morph from a pure focus on international to more the domestic market are struggling. But, as mentioned, domestic spend in Queenstown, for January, was up by over 70 percent.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Has he asked for advice on the number of tourism business closures and job losses that would occur if New Zealand was to stay closed to Australian visitors until January of next year, as he stated in a public meeting, and in particular—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I just want to make absolutely clear: we’ve had an assurance from a Minister that he did not make a statement. I’m just making clear that this is a different statement and not the same statement? You’ve had a clear assurance from a Minister on the subject.

💬 Hon TODD McCLAY: You stopped me, Mr Speaker, before I said as reported in the media.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think—all right, continue.

💬 Hon TODD McCLAY: —as reported in the media—and in particular that domestic tourism spend would have to increase by 72 percent just to draw even with the loss of international spending?

💬 Hon STUART NASH: One thing I would say is I am always very clear, when I talk about tourism going forward, that we will not see tour buses with British, German, Chinese, and Japanese tourists up and down our motorways this year. However, I am always very clear to say the Government is working incredibly hard to open up a trans-Tasman bubble with Australia, and I stand by that. If, in fact, that was what was said in the media, I was absolutely misquoted and I refute that.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Which approach does the member think would be better overall for the tourism industry: one where a Government sticks to a plan of an elimination strategy that’s seen domestic tourism able to operate at almost normal—and even above—levels, or an approach that would have seen flip-flops on whether the border should be open or closed depending on who the leader of the Opposition was?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Question No. 10—Shanan Halbert.

💬 Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to know why you removed two supplementary questions from National’s allocation during that last question.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I took one from the National Party allocation, and the reason was there was an interjection while a member was asking a supplementary question.

💬 Chris Bishop: What was the interjection?

💬 SPEAKER: I think it could be described as a guffaw that came from the direction of the member.

💬 Chris Bishop: Well, Mr Speaker, in the process of Mr McClay asking that question, a loud voice from the back bench of the Labour Party yelled out something very unparliamentary, and there was absolutely no consequence for that.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, actually, there was. The member’s team got an extra question. Is the member finished now?

Question No. 10—Transport

10. to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcement has he made about investment in Auckland transport?

On Friday, myself and Auckland Mayor, Phil Goff, announced the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) 2021-2031 package, which invests $31 billion into critical transport infrastructure and services across Auckland. For the first time ever, we’re turning around the average transport emissions of Aucklanders. The ATAP 2021-2031 package alone will result in a 13 percent decrease in the emissions per capita of Aucklanders using the transport system when compared to the previous package, and it’s projected to increase public transport trips by 91 percent over the forecast period. There is, of course, much more to do to decarbonise our transport system. Importantly, ATAP is also projected to reduce the Auckland road toll by 65 percent by 2031, or around 1,700 fewer deaths and serious injuries over the decade.

💬 Shanan Halbert: What projects does the package include?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: There are a number of projects already under way, which are helping with our economic recovery and which will reduce congestion, like the Glen Inness to Tāmaki Drive shared path, the third main rail line, upgrades to State Highway 20B, and the Northern Busway extension. It’s important to note that Auckland is paying its fair share with the regional fuel tax, which has meant that projects in ATAP like the Eastern Busway, Puhinui Station, and the downtown ferry terminal redevelopment could get under way. I’m also looking forward to seeing work start on the north-west bus improvements, and the City Rail Link (CRL) day one improvements, like removing level crossings, and new trains, to make sure that we get the full benefits of the CRL as soon as it’s finished.

💬 Shanan Halbert: What ATAP initiatives will help those on lower incomes get around?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I was extremely pleased on Friday to be able to announce the Community Connect concession card pilot, which will reduce public transport fares by 50 percent for holders of a community service card in Auckland. This will mean around 2.7 million more public transport trips around Auckland in its first year, reducing congestion, reducing emissions, and reducing transport poverty in our biggest city. Officials have advised that this project will be ready to roll out around about mid-2022, and I’ll be working hard to see it implemented as quickly as possible and, depending on its success, to consider rolling it out further across the country.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is he concerned that the ATAP package is forecast to increase total carbon emissions from transport through to 2031, when we need to substantially reduce total carbon emissions in order to meet our climate obligations?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I agree with the member on the overriding importance of meeting the targets set by the independent climate commission to reduce our emissions over that period. As I’ve identified, the interventions and infrastructure made by ATAP lead to a 13 percent decrease per capita in Auckland. Auckland’s sustained significant population growth does mean that we face that prospect as outlined by the member. That’s why it’s important that we don’t look at ATAP alone; we look at the other interventions and policies that we can roll out to reduce emissions. I note that the Government has already this year committed to a clean car standard to make new cars coming into our fleet 40 percent cleaner than they are now, the decarbonisation of public buses, and the roll-out of a biofuels mandate. These measures taken together with the measures in ATAP would get Auckland to the point of a gross emissions reduction, but we acknowledge that there is much more to do, and I’ll be working on that with officials over the remainder of this year as we produce a transport emissions action plan in response to the independent climate commission’s recommendations.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: What additional steps will he take to update ATAP in the future to ensure that that $31 billion of investment is doing the maximum it can to reduce total overall carbon emissions over the next decade?

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I’ll be working closely with Auckland Council to make sure that we move towards our shared ambitions to be decarbonising the transport system, and I think the direction of travel is clear. It’s about providing Aucklanders and, indeed, people around New Zealand with real transport choices so that people have got the opportunity to access high-quality, frequent public transport and mass transit, and safe, appropriate walking and cycling options. I’ll be continuing to work with my officials and local government partners to see those opportunities are given to New Zealanders to help us reduce our emissions.

Question No. 11—Immigration

11. to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by his statement, “many members in this House will know just how much demand there is on managed isolation”; if so, what advice, if any, has he received that improving utilisation of managed isolation and quarantine capacity could support the reunification of split migrant families?

To the first part of the question, yes; to the second, I’m regularly advised by the Minister for COVID-19 Response that demand for managed isolation continues to be high, and it is expected to be at full capacity well into this year. Utilisation rates of available spaces in managed isolation are currently already very high, but we are always looking for ways to improve and refine our processes to give us more options. It’s important for the House to note that New Zealanders trust the Government to maintain the system as our first and best defence against COVID while the vaccine is being rolled out.

💬 Erica Stanford: Why, then, have 126 members of the Lion King production been allowed into New Zealand, while nurses who arrived to meet our critical healthcare needs have been separated from their partners and children for a year?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The application that the member speaks of is under the “other exceptions” tranche of visas that were introduced as of June last year. Since that time, 6,500 exceptions in the “other” category have been approved; 1,800 for research and development; 1,300 for primary industries; and 335 for manufacturing. While the member might want to focus on a small number of entertainers, I’d also note that the hotels, the bars, and the restaurants that will benefit from that particular production happening are desperately calling out for this kind of business.

💬 Erica Stanford: Can he explain how a migrant nurse who left New Zealand last month is now returning as a critical healthcare worker with her family, taking up two managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) rooms which would have only been one room had he allowed her family to travel here without her?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As has already been mentioned, I think, last week, there is an anomaly within the system which we are currently looking at, and we also thank the 4,500 critical health workers that we have brought into the country since the borders closed.

💬 Erica Stanford: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t think that he addressed the specific question that I asked. The anomaly has got nothing to do with the question.

💬 SPEAKER: I’ll get the member to ask it again. I thought he came very close; if he didn’t—but ask the question again and I can check the answer.

💬 Erica Stanford: Can he explain how a migrant nurse who left New Zealand last month is now returning as a critical healthcare worker with her family, taking up two MIQ rooms—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to stop the member now. I’m going back to what the Minister said, and he did address the question. All he had to do is say yes, and he had.

💬 Erica Stanford: Has he received advice that a trans-Tasman bubble would allow him to reunite migrant nurses with their families without those nurses having to leave New Zealand and their jobs in a sector that is critically short-staffed?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As I said in the answer to the primary question, we continually and regularly get advice from the Minister for COVID-19 Response about the utilisation of managed isolation spaces and if we can do better in some of those processes and what we might be able to do for many people who would like to come into New Zealand but cannot at the moment because of the very limited amount of managed isolation spaces available.

Question No. 12—Conservation

12. to the Minister of Conservation: What recent announcements has she made regarding Jobs for Nature projects in South Westland?

Last week, I was in Franz Josef to announce the launch of an ambitious Jobs for Nature - backed project that will restore nature and sustain jobs in COVID-hit South Westland. Predator Free South Westland represents the biggest step yet on mainland Aotearoa towards the predator-free 2050 goal, and, over five years, the $45 million project aims to eliminate possums, rats, and stoats from 100,000 hectares between the Whataroa and Waiau rivers, the crest of the Southern Alps, and the shores of the Tasman Sea, including the townships of Franz Josef, Whataroa, and Ōkārito.

💬 Rachel Brooking: How will this project support the local community in South Westland?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Can I first acknowledge that the community is one of the worst affected economically by COVID, and that while this project is not a silver bullet, it will provide real opportunities. Over the length of the project, up to 50 people are expected to be employed, with 18 locals already on board, including some who have been working in the tourism industry. Over the longer term, it is anticipated that the project will provide career pathways for locals and young people to maintain predator-free zones and expand them into new areas.

💬 Rachel Brooking: What outcomes for nature is this project expected to deliver, and how will they be achieved?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Eliminating pests in this area will protect New Zealand’s rarest kiwi, the rowi, along with many other rare and threatened species, including kōtuku, kea, and the recently rediscovered Ōkārito geko. The project will deploy boots-on-the-ground labour and innovative remote reporting detection devices, high-tech traps and bait stations, with the mountains, rivers, and lakes that surround the area being used as a natural barrier—so, no fences—against predator reinvasions. Can I thank the community partners that are involved, including Zero Invasive Predators, Osprey, the NEXT Foundation, and the Rūnanga O Makaawhio for their hard work and dedication towards this ambitious and exciting project.

💬 Hon Member: Go the Warriors.

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Go the Warriors.

💬 SPEAKER: I can’t quite tell the relationship, but that concludes oral questions.