Oral Questions

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

Mālō e lelei. Yes, in particular, I want to acknowledge our work around the vaccine roll-out, and I want to note that as of last night we’ve administered over 4 million doses nationwide, and what an exceptional effort, given it’s only taken us 14 days to reach this milestone after we hit the 3 million doses milestone. I want to acknowledge everyone who already had a vaccine or booked a vaccine and encourage everyone else to go to bookmyvaccine.nz to book now.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Was the Minister for Social Development and Employment correct when she told media on Sunday that the Government wasn’t ready for the current lockdown?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would be loath to have a Minister taken out of context and without seeing the full statement. What I would say is that it was only the week prior that very publicly we were making statements around what would happen if Delta arrived on our shores—that’s in the public domain. Minister Hipkins was part of that forewarning and foreshadowing that if we were to see a situation like this we would move into a level 4 environment, so I don’t think it’s fair to say that there wasn’t thought given to that kind of scenario.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Why did it take until around 10 p.m. last evening to issue the health order spelling out what rules would apply to businesses opening this morning under the new level 2D?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Minister for COVID-19 Response could walk the member through the health order processes that are applied any time that we have to make an amendment to a COVID order, and that has happened from time to time because we have made decisions based in real time from what we were experiencing and seeing during an outbreak. As I explained, possibly in the House or possibly in a previous stand-up, some of the research that we’re seeing out of Delta is only since June—it’s not as extensive as some of the other variants. We are aware, of course, now that aerosol transmission is an issue with Delta and we’ve had to amend our alert level settings as a result of that, and we’ve seen that in our real-time experience. The public health advice that we received on variations of that nature to alert level 2 came through on the Sunday prior to announcements, and that is why the accompanied orders would be in sequence with that.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Cabinet tries to convey to the public, through the Prime Minister, as quickly as possible, decisions that it has taken, and that the formality of putting the legal framework in place—the amount of time that that takes—will depend on how long it takes the Parliamentary Counsel Office to draft it?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is absolutely correct. So the time line for, for instance—keeping in mind that the orders around mask wearing, where the discussions there and the decisions by Cabinet predated this particular outbreak. So the mask wearing decisions had already been taken. The decisions around where people would be required to keep record keeping—those had already been taken. The only ones that were new information around alert level 2 relate to the physical distancing as a proxy for density in public buildings—so, for instance, museums, libraries, and so on. They’ve been brought into alignment with retail and malls. And the other was the overall cap on the number of people in those hospitality venues. So those were the new pieces of information. Public health advice was provided on the Sunday, a Cabinet decision on the Monday, we communicated straight away in the afternoon, and then the orders, of course, are completed and drafted.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Why did the Government not develop and consult on the new level 2D rules three weeks ago when it was clear New Zealand had a Delta outbreak, or even two months ago when the Strategic COVID-19 Public Health Advisory Group stated that new, more transmissible variants were likely to enter New Zealand?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Ah, I believe I’ve actually already really answered the question in some of my previous responses. First of all, the research into Delta isn’t nearly as comprehensive as some of the other variants. Yes, we know it’s more transmissible but we have, in real time, in this outbreak, seen—for instance, through the locations of interest that we’ve had—people where we haven’t been able to determine an epidemiological link but we’ve only been able to determine a link via the fact that two people were at a location of interest. So that’s really reinforced, in that evidence through our public health units, the fact that aerosol transmission is very real. So that has formed some of the basis of that public health advice. So that consultation, you’re right, did not take place, because that is something that we saw in real time in this outbreak. As soon as we received that public health advice—I got that on the Sunday afternoon. On the Monday morning we reached out to the Hospitality Association. I absolutely accept that it was not a large amount of time, but that was soon after we received that advice, and it was even before Cabinet took a decision on that advice.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Then why did she tell Radio New Zealand a month ago that we would have greater mask wearing requirements under a future level 2, but only release the new level 2 rules late last night?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That’s actually incorrect. New mask wearing was communicated some time ago at the beginning of the outbreak. Yes, the decisions had been taken beforehand, but we have shared those new rules prior to just yesterday, so that’s not correct.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So what’s not correct—did she tell Radio New Zealand a month ago that there would be greater mask wearing requirements under a future level 2, or didn’t she?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely stand by my statements, yes. We made public the fact that we were considering greater use of mask wearing and scanning. Both those things were in the public domain, that we were considering them. Where the member is incorrect is to say that those new rules were shared for the first time yesterday.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Will any support be provided to businesses when the whole country is operating at a new level 2D?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We do have an issue at the moment where—well, not an issue; one of the consequences of the current criteria for the wage subsidy, specifically, is that some part of the country has to be in alert level 3 or 4 to enable eligibility then in other parts of the country. So that is an issue that we’re considering in light of the fact that we’re very likely in the future to have a situation where Auckland is no longer in those alert levels, but may, of course, still have ongoing need for support. So that’s something that we’re working through at the moment.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: When will the Government consider or complete work on a rental support scheme for businesses suffering under current lockdowns?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, the member seems to be neglecting the fact that we not only have the wage subsidy, we have the resurgence payment. The resurgence payment was not available in the first lockdowns we experienced. That was an acknowledgment that it was a support for employees, but the resurgence payment directly supports fixed costs and is able to be sought and applied for by those businesses who have both at the same time. So that, I think, has provided some additional support, as has been sought.

💬 David Seymour: Will the Government give any consideration to extending the resurgence payment—as lockdowns continue week after week—from a one-off payment to a payment that is made further times as the length of the lockdown continues?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the Minister of Finance has said, these matters are under consideration.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So is the Prime Minister saying that there’s no consideration being given to a specific rental assistance for small businesses as opposed to simply the one-off payment that she’s just referred to in support?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There’s, of course, two ways to look at this. One is the way that we support businesses who may be seeking arrangements or agreements with their landlords. That’s obviously something that we’ve worked through before when it comes to direct financial support. The resurgence payment is a way to support businesses with fixed costs, and as I’ve just answered to the leader of the ACT Party’s question, we have been giving consideration as to the ongoing role, or otherwise, of the resurgence payment.

Before we come to question No. 2, I’m just going to note that there are currently too many Labour members in the House and at least one of them will leave. [The Prime Minister exits] I don’t want it recorded that I threw out the Prime Minister!

Question No. 2—Health

2. to the Minister of Health: What was he referring to in the House yesterday when he said that there were some DHB preparations that could have been done “a little better”, and what things, if any, could have been done a little better at Middlemore Hospital?

In relation to the first part of the member’s question: as I said yesterday, there were gaps in relation to DHBs, who could have done a little better with fit-testing of masks and preparing and maintaining surge capacity in ICUs by ensuring additional nurses were trained and available to work in our ICUs if called upon. I want to reiterate that our health system has done an extraordinary job of stepping up and keeping New Zealanders safe through testing, vaccinating, and caring for COVID-19 patients, alongside maintaining capacity to care for other patients as required. In relation to the second part of the member’s question: Counties Manukau DHB has responded extremely well to the call to prepare for COVID-19 outbreaks. They actively participated in regional and national readiness preparation work. The DHB has confirmed that as of 30 June 2021, it had trained another 123 full-time equivalent nurses for ICU cover, and it has reported that 80 percent of its staff have been fit tested. In relation to the COVID-19 - positive patient on a ward in Middlemore Hospital, I’m satisfied that the clinicians at Middlemore Hospital made clinical decisions that they based on the best information they had at the time.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: How many coronavirus contacts of any type have arisen from the coronavirus-positive man placed in a shared room at Middlemore Hospital?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, we know that 29 Counties Manakau DHB health personnel have been stood down as close contacts, we know that another three patients who were in the room that the chap at the centre of this event was in at the same time are regarded as close contacts and are isolating and are being tested, and we know that there are family members who have been tested, as well. I don’t know the precise number, but those are the classes of people who constitute contacts to this case.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Given that answer, how many casual contacts and close contacts have arisen from the positive coronavirus case at Middlemore Hospital?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I don’t have those numbers, but what I can say is that the public health response has been assiduous and diligent, and those who are required to isolate and to be subject to testing for a period of time have been isolating and will be tested.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Were other people put into isolation rooms the same day as the coronavirus-positive man waited in a shared room for his test result, and, if so, can he explain why this person wasn’t placed in an isolation room?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The clinical judgment made at the time, on the basis of advice received by front-line clinicians working in the real world and real time, was that at the time that this person presented with a fever and was tested for COVID, it was to leave him where he was. The judgment was that that would be sufficient to contain any risk that he presented. He returned a positive test. He and others in the four-bedroom room were moved to isolation rooms, but, in the end, the clinicians on the job at the time made the judgment they did with the information and advice that they had.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Was an isolation room available for this man?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have read reports to say that none was; I haven’t had that verified. I am not the front-line clinician in this case, nor, for that matter, is that member. I trust and I back our front-line clinicians to make the judgments that they do in the circumstances that they are in in the middle of a pandemic.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Does he accept that, ultimately, he is responsible for the coronavirus situation at Middlemore Hospital, and not health staff?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I don’t think I’ve heard a more ridiculous question in this House in the short time I’ve been in Parliament. In the end, we have a health system that has geared up to respond to the biggest pandemic the world has seen—I was going to say “this century”, but perhaps even for longer than that, and our health system has responded well. The one hospital that I think might be regarded as being at the centre of the pandemic in terms of response and in terms of keeping its staff safe, its patients safe, and its community safe is Middlemore Hospital, and they have done an exemplary job. The clinicians, in the circumstances that they’re operating in and were operating in at the weekend, made the best judgment they could with what information they had, and the circumstances as they now are what they are.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was: does he accept ultimate responsibility?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I probably should have stopped the Minister after his initial comment, because he had answered the question right at the beginning, and probably in a way which was not entirely parliamentary. But he made it very clear what his view was on that.

Question No. 3—Health

3. to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the response at Middlemore Hospital following the identification of a COVID-19 positive patient?

I am satisfied the clinicians at Middlemore Hospital made clinical decisions they had based on the best information they had at the time. The team at Counties Manukau District Health Board is experienced and provides high-quality clinical care. The DHB is managing a large proportion of positive patients and they are experienced in handling this. I’ve been advised by the Ministry of Health that all appropriate measures were complied with in relation to this case. I’m confident the DHB has a rigorous approach in place for the screening of potential COVID-19 - positive patients. However, I note that reviews of this event are being undertaken to ensure that this situation does not happen again. Whenever an issue arises, clinicians and managers review and make any improvements that may help avoid repetitions of unfortunate events. This is for all things in medicine, not just COVID-19. It is normal practice, and it’s why we have such a good health system.

💬 David Seymour: Why wouldn’t the Minister believe two of the four patients in that room who have contacted me—one directly and one through a relative—saying that the patient was coughing and spluttering and obviously had COVID-like symptoms all morning?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have taken advice from all the sources who have supplied it to me, which does not include people meeting the descriptions that that member provides. In the end, I have taken the advice of clinicians who were there, and the judgments they made. The basis of that is that the patient in question presented to the emergency department, was screened—as every person presenting to that department is—questioned about whether they’d been at locations of interest, questioned about any symptoms that they may have experienced or were then currently experiencing, and they judged that that patient was not under suspicion of having COVID. Throughout the time of that patient’s stay in the following 15 or 16 hours, the patient developed a fever, and at that point a clinician determined that it was appropriate that that patient be swabbed for COVID-19. Subsequently, a positive test was returned. The only symptom that has been referred to in all of the advice I’ve received is that the patient suffered a fever, and that was what prompted the need for a test.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Minister believe those other patients who said the patient was clearly symptomatic are confused or misleading me?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I make no judgment on any source of information that member has. I rely on the information that I get.

💬 David Seymour: What actions would the Minister take if he discovered that the testimony of those patients was correct, and he had been misled in the information he’s received that the patients did not show any COVID symptoms?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not going to get into hypotheticals. I’ve been very clear that the clinicians who were at the front line dealing with that patient on Saturday evening and Sunday morning and during the day on Sunday made the best judgments they could with the information that they had. The reports I’ve received are credible and reliable and I accept them.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Will he commit to criteria for undertaking spending under the authority of the second Imprest Supply Bill for 2021/22; if so, what will those criteria be?

As the member I’m sure is aware, there are already conditions attached to the authority granted under an imprest supply bill. This is because every Government going back to 1989 has had multiple imprest supply bills in each financial year, and the process around them is well established. Specifically, any expenditure incurred under the authority of the Imprest Supply (Second for 2021/22) Bill will need to be appropriated by Parliament before the end of the 2021-22 financial year. Authority under an imprest supply Act also only relates to the period a particular Act is in force. The authority granted by the first imprest supply bill for 2021/22 is repealed by the passing of the main appropriations bill. The second imprest supply bill, which is generally passed alongside the main appropriations bill, as we intend to do later today, is generally repealed by the supplementary estimates bill. If the member casts his mind back some months, he will recall that we did just that on Budget day 2021. For further assistance in this particular point, the member may find the current edition of McGee an invaluable resource in this regard.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will he be using imprest supply to fund initiatives under the guise of responding to COVID-19 that are neither related to responding to, or recovering from, COVID-19, rather than using the main Estimates of Appropriations?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The imprest supply bill contains, as it always has done, a number of different matters. This includes demand-driven needs within departments. It also includes tagged contingencies that come to fruition, and it has always included a buffer for unexpected expenditure. As the member is aware, COVID-19 is an ongoing matter, and it is quite possible that it will be needed to use some of the funding authorised under the imprest supply bill to deal with COVID response and recovery?

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Was funding for three waters unexpected expenditure requiring imprest supply authorisation last year?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Funding for three waters came under the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question wasn’t “Which fund was it paid from?” My question was: was it unexpected expenditure?

💬 SPEAKER: All right, I’m going to ask the Minister to elaborate.

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It was expenditure that was required to support the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund. I would need to go back and check whether it was appropriated in the appropriations bill or in the imprest supply bill. Regardless, it ends up in the Estimates. It ends up as part of the parliamentary process for which there can be scrutiny of that expenditure.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will he commit to COVID spending only of the nature of wage subsidies and resurgence payments through imprest supply, and not things like horse racing and public interest journalism?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Firstly, those matters, by and large, were dealt with in May 2020, through the Budget, through the appropriations bill. Those things were required because, at that point in time, as COVID had only just hit New Zealand shores, its impact was uncertain. If the member casts his mind back to that period, a number of publications, including one such as the New Zealand Listener, were going under and there was an outcry around New Zealand for the Government to do something. The member is applying 2021 hindsight to a 2020 issue.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he accept that taxpayers may be forgiven for thinking that he has used COVID-19 to initiate all manner of non-COVID spending between Budgets, and can taxpayers look forward to this not happening again this financial year?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What taxpayers can look forward to is once again the Government stepping up to make sure that we support New Zealanders through COVID-19. Yes, the wage subsidy and payments around that, and also payments to businesses through the Resurgence Support Payment, and those payments that we make through our Ministry of Social Development, will form the core of the response, as they have in the past. But, also, this Government has an obligation to make sure we support all New Zealanders through this, and we build the basis for recovery. The fund the member is talking about, which he is conflating with the imprest supply Act, is the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund. It has always had two R’s in it, and we will continue to focus on both the response and the recovery.

Question No. 5—Housing (Public Housing)

5. to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): Why did the Government prohibit residential rent increases last year in response to the outbreak of COVID-19, and will it do the same this year?

on behalf of the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): Since the 2020 lockdown, the Government has made a number of changes to the Residential Tenancies Act in order to better support renters. This includes limiting rent rises to once a year. This came into force in August, after the previous lockdown. If a tenant thinks that their rent is too expensive and not in line with market rent, then they should go to the Tenancy Tribunal to request a rent reduction. The Tenancy Tribunal is continuing to operate and is hearing matters by phone, rather than adjourn as it did last lockdown. Anyone who has had a reduction in income due to COVID-19 or is struggling to pay their rent or other housing costs should contact Work and Income to seek what support is available.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does she agree with the advice she received from officials that the new once-a-year limits on rent increases do not prevent unaffordable rent increases; they only standardise them?

On behalf of the Minister, the purpose of that clause was to prevent multiple increases in rent, to prevent unexpected increases in rent, which obviously would be very challenging for somebody when their income was reduced.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can she confirm median rents have increased approximately 8 percent between the end of the 2020 rent freeze and the start of the most recent COVID-19 outbreak, a time when interest rates have declined?

On behalf of the Minister, I can’t confirm that information. What I can confirm is in the most recent Stats New Zealand rental price index for June 2021, the stock measure of rental prices increased 3.1 percent and the flow measure 4.9 percent.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Has she seen reports that two-thirds of people who rent saw their income drop due to the COVID-19 lockdown, and, if so, what initiatives has the Government taken to respond to the needs of those people?

Well, a number of initiatives: obviously, the wage subsidy scheme, the support that’s being provided through programmes like the COVID income relief payment that followed on from the lockdown last year. For low-income earners, we’ve seen the increases to benefits and also access to other supports there—Work and Income.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can she confirm that not all renters will be eligible for the Ministry of Social Development’s Work and Income hardship support that she’s referenced?

I can confirm that not every person who rents would be eligible for that. That’s correct. We have some people on very high incomes in New Zealand who do rent. But what I can say is that support is available for those on low incomes and those who are struggling to make ends meet.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is she concerned that the current Residential Tenancies Act is allowing significant rent rises and leading to increased inequality as a result of the COVID-19 lockdowns, and will the Government do anything about it?

On behalf of the Minister, the Government and the Minister constantly keep an eye on what’s happening in the rental market and how the Residential Tenancies Act interacts with that.

Question No. 6—COVID-19 Response

6. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: When did he first receive advice on the new requirement for essential workers crossing the Auckland border to have had a test in the last seven days, and is he satisfied with the planning done for an outbreak of the Delta variant of COVID-19?

Discussion on how to ensure that any internal borders are as safe as possible have been ongoing since the current outbreak began, and that involved discussion around testing. I first received formal advice from the director-general regarding surveillance testing for essential workers crossing the proposed level 4-2 boundary on Saturday evening, 4 September. Cabinet then agreed on Monday that essential workers would be required to be tested within the last seven days before crossing an alert level boundary into and out of an alert level 4 area. In regard to the second part of the member’s question, yes. This is the first occasion we’ve required a level 4 - level 2 boundary split, and the work completed over the last five days has shown that the system remains robust and adaptable due to the changing nature of the virus. The Government has and continues to work closely with the sector on the implementation of this process. My ministerial colleagues have been in regular discussion with the heads of the sector. I’d like to acknowledge the efforts of everyone involved in this piece of work, including the sector, who have been particularly responsive in creating workable solutions to these challenges. Like all aspects of our response to COVID-19, we continue to look at our processes and we continue to adjust as necessary.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why was advice regarding requirements for essential workers crossing the Auckland border only received and considered by him on Saturday, 4 September, when the prospect of a Delta outbreak has been widely foreseen for some months in New Zealand?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because the specific requirements around an internal border, of course, can only be formalised and shaped up once we know the nature of the internal border that is likely to be required, whether it’s a level 3-4 border, a level 2-4 border, and so on. Scenario planning for a variety of different scenarios around COVID-19 outbreaks has been happening over the last year and a half, but it’s very difficult to finalise advice for specific plans if you don’t know what the specific situation you’re dealing with is.

💬 Chris Bishop: In that scenario planning that has purportedly taken place over the last 18 months, was a scenario considered in which Auckland would be at level 4 and other parts of the country would be at level 2 and there would need to be testing done for essential workers crossing that border, and, if that was done, why was the preparatory work not done in relation to that testing so it could be rolled out quicker than three days before it was finally promulgated?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A wide variety of different scenarios had been planned for, including the potential for there to be a variety of different alert levels in different parts of the country. It is difficult to finalise any of that until you know the exact facts of the situation that you’re dealing with and where the risk is, what the risk is, the nature of the risk, and how best to contain it.

💬 Chris Bishop: How will essential workers prove they have had a test within the required time frame, and what will be the turnaround between a test being taken and proof of a test being provided to workers?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Workers crossing the boundary will need to produce evidence of a test within the last seven days. The officials are working with employers about the easiest way to facilitate that. Ultimately, it would be good to get, as much as possible, an automated system for that. In the meantime, I suspect it is going to be a piece of paper that gets produced at a checkpoint. In terms of the turnaround time for tests, we’ll be working hard with employers to make sure that testing is widely available to all those who need it, which may involve standing up additional testing sites, certainly involves using a variety of different testing methods, including saliva testing and nasopharyngeal and throat swabs.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why is saliva testing at the Auckland border for essential workers still a few weeks away and not ready to be rolled out when an existing provider is already in place for saliva testing in New Zealand?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The existing provider is currently focused, or has currently been focused, on rolling out saliva testing in our managed isolation and quarantine facilities and at the border. I've already indicated to the member and to the House before that I would’ve liked to have seen that completed well before now. I think the indications I had back in July were that it would be in place for all those on a seven-day testing cycle towards the beginning of August. Clearly, that has not happened, and I’m disappointed that that has not happened.

[Member stands to seek a call] No, the questions for the Opposition have been used.