Oral Questions

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

Mālō e lelei, Mr Speaker. Yes. I especially stand by this Government’s work, alongside the Government of Spain, the European Union, and Pfizer, to secure over a quarter of a million additional vaccine doses, which are due to land in Auckland tomorrow morning. The welcome news means we continue pushing ahead in our vaccination roll-out that in recent weeks has seen record demand. This is just one more step we’re taking to ensure as many New Zealanders as possible can get vaccinated as soon as possible.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: What impact does the Government expect the current COVID-19 outbreak to have on the forecast debt track?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Oh, of course, some of that will depend on the ongoing financial supports that are provided over the course of the outbreak, and some of that is dependent on how long we are in different alert levels. Whilst I have had briefings on those and have some of those figures in my mind, I would want to ensure that I was giving the correct assumptions alongside them. If the member chooses to put something on notice, I’m happy to answer those. What I would say, broadly speaking, though, is that because we have been tracking a lot more positively against some of the Treasury’s original forecasting, in many cases some of that debt tracking is actually sitting even beneath where some of those original forecasts were.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she then agree with Treasury that if spending trends continue, it will put Government debt on an unsustainable path; if so, what is her plan to achieve a sustainable debt path?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would want to see—as I have said, that doesn’t actually square with some of the more recent briefings I’ve seen that demonstrate that even with some of the response to the existing outbreak—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: None of that squares with the briefings I’ve seen from Treasury that say, even taking into account the response to the most recent outbreak, we’re actually sitting beneath some of their original forecasting around the impacts on debt of COVID-19 on the Government books. So I would want more context on the briefing the member has probably randomly plucked that statement from.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Can she rule out using further tax increases to get debt back on a sustainable path?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We’ve already been very clear on our expectations over the course of this term. No, we will not be increasing taxes. We didn’t campaign on doing that and we did that, of course, knowing the impacts of COVID-19 and our various preparations we would need for the response to COVID-19. What I would point out is that we have been in a good position to deal with this outbreak for the very purpose that we kept in reserve, in the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund, the ability to manage any further outbreaks, whereas I recall the member campaigning on spending that fund on roading.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Prime Minister confirm that not only is net core Crown debt in New Zealand tracking below budget forecasts but New Zealand’s level of net core Crown debt sits at one of the lowest in the OECD?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I can, and, of course, that takes into account not only the starting point for New Zealand before going into COVID-19 but also the way that we’ve tracked relative to other OECD nations in the course of our response to COVID-19.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she intend to return Government spending as a percentage of the overall economy back to pre-pandemic levels, and if not, what is her long-term spending target?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’d note that not even that member’s finance spokespeople have promoted the idea of retaining debt levels at pre-pandemic levels. I don’t know that I’ve seen any member of her caucus, in fact, advocate for that.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Point of order. I was very clear asking the Prime Minister about her long-term spending target, not about the National Party’s.

💬 SPEAKER: I think the Prime Minister could provide a fuller answer to the actual question.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Would the member mind repeating the question?

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she intend to return Government spending as a percentage of the overall economy back to pre-pandemic levels; if not, what is her long-term spending target?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I will say is that we have been committed to keeping spending levels at a rate that is required in order to support our recovery from COVID-19, and that, of course, has meant that we have made decisions that, yes, have led us to take additional debt on, but at a rate that is far less than we’ve seen from some of our counterparts. We’ve made that commitment because those are the very investment decisions that are ensuring that we’re keeping people connected to work. It’s the very investment decisions that have allowed us to put in place the wage subsidy, the resurgence support scheme—all of those things that, in fact, will enable a quicker and speedier economic recovery. So I stand by all of that. As for the longer term, much of that will very much be determined by the ongoing impact of COVID-19.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So is the Prime Minister telling the House that there is no long-term spending target?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I’ve been saying is that we have been willing to make policy decisions based on the challenges that sit in front of us, and we have allowed ourselves some flexibility by keeping aside the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund, something that that member did not preserve herself. In fact, she already anticipated in her plans over the course of the election campaign to spend what would have been critical funding in the case of the kind of experience we’re having now, where that multibillion-dollar fund has been used to cover off things like the wage subsidy—a pot of money that would have been empty on her watch.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So how much of the $50 billion COVID fund, if any, has been spent to date on expanding capacity at our hospitals to manage a COVID outbreak?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’d be happy to give the member a breakdown, but my recollection of the last Budget investment included things like, for instance, training capacity to ensure that there was additional staffing, who, in the case that we had surge, would be able to provide ventilator support in high-dependency units, for instance. Of course, there’s the ongoing capital investment in our hospitals that is not just for surges but has the additional benefit of providing additional ICU capacity. There’s been a number of spending initiatives. If the member wishes to have a breakdown, I’d be happy to bring those to the House.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: What steps, if any, will he take to ensure the Government’s economic response to the current COVID-19 outbreak does not increase house prices?

Mālō ‘aupito. The Government has already undertaken a number of measures that will lead to more sustainable house prices. The comprehensive package that we announced in March addressed both the supply and demand side drivers, including changes to discourage speculators as well as making sure that we tackle the various barriers on the supply side that have hindered the building of new homes. In addition, the Reserve Bank is proposing to tighten lending restrictions further, including to highly leveraged investors. We have also directed the Reserve Bank to take account of Government policy to support more sustainable house prices. We are seeing promising signs that these policies are having an effect, with record levels of building consents being issued and house price growth starting to slow. The housing crisis, however, has been decades in the making, and I acknowledge it will take time to turn, but we are starting to make a difference. We will continue to monitor and assess the impact of the outbreak, including on housing.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he consider the Government’s current actions and plans sufficient when house prices increased 25 percent in the last year alone and CoreLogic have just released a report saying affordability is the worst it has ever recorded?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my primary answer, this housing crisis has been decades in the making, and annual price increases obviously still continue to have a fair chunk of the period of time before we made our announcement in March. What I would note is that on the rolling averages of the last three months, we are seeing that house price growth slow down.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: What weight is the Government putting on Treasury and Reserve Bank forecasts that house price growth will slow, and has that weight changed over the last few months, given house prices continue to rise well above those forecasts?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has been traversed a number of times, including with the member’s colleagues around this matter, house price forecasting is a challenging area. What I would say is, along with Treasury and the Reserve Bank, most of New Zealand’s major banks are expecting a significant slowing in house price growth.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he have a goal to make house prices affordable or is his focus on sustainability, a technical Reserve Bank definition that could mean sustainable and incredibly high house prices?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There is a lot of debate about the definition of the word sustainable, but I can certainly say that my commitment and the Government’s commitment is to make house prices both sustainable and more affordable.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he think that house prices would have to fall from the stratospheric levels they’ve reached in the past year in order to return to affordable levels relative to incomes in the short term?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The most important part of that question was the very last words of it from the member. This is an issue that will take time to resolve, but we have put in place the policies that I believe will make a significant contribution to slowing down that price growth. Obviously, we also seek to see people’s incomes increase as well.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is he concerned that giving an implicit guarantee to homeowners that his Government won’t let house prices fall may be contributing to higher house prices and reducing the chance of a soft landing?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. I don’t accept that that’s what the Government is doing. There are many factors that influence house price growth. The Government’s role is only part of that. Other conditions, including monetary policy conditions but also including the wider economic environment, contribute to it. The Government is putting its best foot forward to ensure that house prices are more sustainable and more affordable.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. to the Minister of Finance: How much of the $56.5 billion authorised by the Imprest Supply (Second for 2020/21) Act 2020 was appropriated in the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations 2020/21, and what sum is being sought by the Government through the Imprest Supply (Second for 2021/22) Bill?

I thank the member again for his examination of matters of the Public Finance Act. I’m advised that around 36 percent of the $56.5 billion authorised by the Imprest Supply 2021 Act was charged against the financial authority for that Act. This equates to approximately $20.5 billion. The vast bulk of that will appear in the Supplementary Estimates, although any fiscally neutral transfers between existing appropriations will not, of course, do that. The Government is seeking a maximum authority of $41 billion for the Imprest Supply (Second for 2021/22) Bill. The second imprest supply bill has always been used to provide authority for Government expenditure decisions made after the Estimates were finalised in April. It is an authority to spend, not a target for spending.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Was the $710 million funding for three waters only a COVID recovery initiative and, if not, why did it not go through the normal Budget process?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, as with a number of decisions, and I’m sure the member will recall this from his time as a Minister, a number of decisions need to be taken outside of the normal Budget process. That is not unusual. It has happened every year since the Public Finance Act has been in place.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why was it necessary for the several million dollars for strengthening the Family Court part of supplementary appropriations from the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund when the funding was based on a recommendation made more than seven years ago?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, I think the member needs to be a little bit careful about talking about why that work hadn’t been undertaken, given who the Minister of Justice was at the time at which that report was put in place. But along with a number of other initiatives funded through the fund, this is about supporting the recovery overall of the New Zealand economy and New Zealand society to allow a number of different parts of Government to work in a way that supports New Zealanders as we recover from COVID-19.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It may have been a fulsome answer, but it didn’t explain at all, or address, why the funding did not go through the normal Budget process, when it was based on recommendations several years old?

💬 SPEAKER: Taken in context with the previous answers, I think it’s certainly been addressed, and actually probably answered.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the Government instituting a new practice where it uses imprest supply to start spending on all the pet projects it wants but couldn’t justify in the main Budget?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I just want to consider whether that’s—I’m going to ask the member to rephrase the question, taking out the irony.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the Government instituting a new practice where it uses imprest supply to start spending on the projects that go through that supply but that they couldn’t justify in the main Budget?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. The imprest supply is being used in exactly the same way that it has been since 1989, to deal with—in this particular bill—matters that have taken the attention of the Government after the time at which the Estimates close off and through until the next Budget. It is not unusual. What is unusual, relative to previous years, is the scale of investment authority required. That is because of COVID-19. The member has already heard today in the answer to his primary question, and in the House yesterday, the fact that the authority that is given is not necessarily the amount that is spent. This is Government accounting. This is making sure we have authority to spend and then it comes back through the House through other means.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: So will he commit to New Zealand taxpayers that the second imprest supply will not be used to fund projects that could have gone through the normal appropriations process but didn’t?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I will commit to New Zealand that we will use the imprest supply bill for the reasons that are set out, that includes expenditure that is unexpected, including in response to COVID-19.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her answers relating to pre-departure testing in oral question No. 3 on 7 September?

Yes. I stand by also the decision to follow the advice of the Ministry of Health. As I said on 7 September, there were multiple reasons why Health advised against requiring a pre-departure test for those returning from New South Wales at that point in time. This included the situation in New South Wales at the time and the fact that returnees would be travelling on red flights back to 14 days of managed isolation. I also stand by this Government’s ability to change and adapt as the situation changes and adapts and as the public health advice does so too.

💬 David Seymour: Is the red flight for this coming Wednesday also not returning to New Zealand, followed by 14 days of isolation for the passengers, and if so, why will they be requiring pre-departure testing when the last red flight, that turned out to have a COVID case on it that has subsequently leaked out into the community, was not?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said at the time—and I reiterate this again—I would just caution the member on the assumption that had a 72-hour pre-departure test been in place at that time, that that would have changed the course of history. I don’t think that’s a fair assumption to make. On the issue of pre-departure testing generally, you’ll remember, of course, when we had quarantine-free travel, there were no pre-departure testing requirements. Health have subsequently changed the orders that apply to all of Australia, because there have been different rules that have sat across different states, and now brought all of those into alignment, keeping in mind that previously New South Wales was the only state that had red flights available, and now that’s broadening out. Now the pre-departure testing is sitting across every state.

💬 David Seymour: What is different in New South Wales this coming Wednesday, or will be different, that wasn’t the case last month when flights came with no pre-departure testing and the same outbreak was under way?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The time that the decision was made was around, if I recall correctly, about 9 July or there or thereabouts. So that’s when that decision was made, based on what was happening in New South Wales, to instead of—and keep in mind what the decision originally was. The decision was: do we allow people from New South Wales to come in on flights into New Zealand with nothing except health declarations and so on, or do we put them into managed isolation facilities? Now, at that time, the decision was made to put them into managed isolation facilities. The day before we received that advice, there were 38 cases in New South Wales. So that is what was different at that time. Also, keep in mind there was a short time period from that announcement to when the first flights would enable people to come home. There was also a view around whether or not, at that time, the level of restrictions meant that someone was at more risk by going out in order to be tested versus staying at home. The final piece of advice that we received, if I recall correctly, was—no, sorry. There’s a third reason that I’d be happy to share with the member if I can recall off the top of my head over the course of this line of questioning.

💬 David Seymour: If someone has COVID-19, should they be allowed on a plane full of people, and if not, shouldn’t the Government be ensuring that to the best of their ability, this doesn’t happen?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, to the best of our ability, we try and reduce down risk, but we always make an assumption that every single traveller coming into New Zealand has COVID-19. That’s the assumption that we work off. I now recall the additional piece of advice was that one cannot make an assumption that a 72-hour pre-departure test immediately eliminates the possibility that someone will have COVID-19. It doesn’t, and so that is why we do day-zero testing as well. It’s also why we have testing across the course of someone being in managed isolation, and, interestingly, what the advice also contains, to Ministers from 9 July, is the reported level of incidence in New South Wales of late onset and then wide infection. I recall now the additional thing I wanted to share with the member: we also, of course, had a health declaration. So everyone who was travelling also had to declare that they had not been at a place of interest or in contact with someone who had COVID, and that was at a time when in New South Wales, as I say, 38 cases were being reported a day. So that was an additional declaration that had to be made by everyone who was coming in on those red flights.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Have COVID-19 - positive people been identified in managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) among those who had completed a pre-departure test before arriving in New Zealand, and has the Government’s position always been that while pre-departure testing provides an extra layer of assurance, it is not a guarantee that people won’t come into New Zealand with COVID-19?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely, and that is why we have the day-zero test. We’ve always treated everyone as if they may have COVID-19. Again, the 72 hours beforehand, of course, means that it is not without risk. It’s an additional layer. But there were multiple reasons for the advice at that time, and Ministers accepted that advice, keeping in mind that the most precautionary thing we could do would be to put people into MIQ, and that is what we did.

💬 David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister accept that the origin of the current outbreak came into New Zealand while her Government had consciously decided to drop that extra layer of protection, and if not, why is she reintroducing that extra layer of protection now?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve already said to the member, we are resuming red flights across Australia, and so we need to make sure that we have a consistent application of those requirements across Australia. So that is what is different now. The second point I would make is: I accept that we put thousands of people into quarantine. That is what we did. There were multiple layers in our response constantly to try and protect New Zealand from COVID-19 at our borders, and 160,000 people have come through, and, for the most part, we’ve been seeing very, very few incidents. In fact, the only other thing I would say to the member is, from what I know of the time line of this case, it would be wrong to assume that a 72-hour pre-departure test would have necessarily stopped this individual from coming in in the first place. So again, I just stand by all of the efforts that have been made and every effort that’s being made to try and determine what happened at our quarantine facilities in the aftermath.

Question No. 5—Education

5. to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his Government’s preparations in education for COVID-related restrictions, and is he confident that Kiwi schoolkids can receive the best education possible through COVID-related restrictions?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, and can I acknowledge teachers and school and early childhood centre leaders up and down the country who have once again gone to extraordinary lengths to support our young people to learn from home, often whilst dealing with significant disruption in their own lives, recognising that some of our teachers will be home-schooling their own children at the same time as home-schooling the children of others. In 2020, we provided over 36,000 fit-for-education devices for years 9 to 13 learners. That met all of the known needs of those students at the time, but new demand, of course, has emerged since, particularly with a new year 9 intake in 2021. So we provided additional funding in response to the Delta outbreak, and by Tuesday the ministry had shipped nearly 7,000 more devices to schools and learners affected by COVID-19. The ministry held in contingency a supply of approximately 135,000 hard packs of learning materials, appropriate for learners across a range of ages and settings. As of Tuesday, 48,000 of these had been distributed, and the ministry is also printing new material which will be available for distribution by the end of next week. The learning from home TV station was also stood up again within days of the current outbreak emerging.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: If the preparations were as good as the Minister has suggested, why do we hear principals saying online learning is “just a joke” in their community?

💬 SPEAKER: I’m not sure the Minister quite has responsibility—I will let him answer, but I’m not sure he quite has the responsibility for that.

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Under our devolved system of learning, schools adopt a variety of different online learning systems and online learning methods. Some schools use online learning very regularly in their teaching; other schools do not use it as frequently or as often. So there is a range of different preparation across the schooling system. The Ministry of Education has been working hard to supplement that by providing hard packs of materials for the learners at those schools who are not as equipped for online learning, by supplementing digital devices and internet connections in those communities where they’re not as readily available as they could be. But, ultimately, schools do still pick up the bulk of the work here when it comes to educating young people during alert level restrictions.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: How can he say, during last year’s lockdown, “student progress was about the same or better last year”, when the Education Review Office reported only 26 percent of senior secondary students “agreed or strongly agreed that they were coping well with their schoolwork while learning at home” during the 2020 lockdown?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That’s a very interesting question from the National Party, who have argued for a long time that student wellbeing isn’t what we should worry about. We should only worry about the students’ results. Because if we look at the students’ results, they are as good, if not slightly better than they had been in previous years. Of course, it is difficult to learn from home. One of the reasons the Government places a focus on wellbeing is we recognise that achievement results are not the only thing that’s important in the education system, and I welcome the fact that the Opposition are now recognising that.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: How can the Minister be confident students who fall behind in lockdown will be identified, let alone get help, when recent official advice says “curricula don’t yet clearly signal important markers of progress and when to worry”?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A lot of work goes into supporting children who fall behind in their learning during lockdown. For example, if we just take the students at the senior secondary schooling end of the system, summer school is available for them over the summer this year to ensure that if they were a few credits short, they could pick up those credits. That was a well subscribed programme. We have also put quite a significant investment—a $50 million investment, in fact—into wellbeing, engagement, and attendance-related initiatives to ensure that those students who became disengaged from learning during last year’s lockdown were re-engaged in their learning. And, of course, that investment is often still being rolled out and will continue to benefit schools and young people following this year’s lockdown.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: What special preparations have been made to reassure Auckland students facing exams who’ve missed crucial weeks of preparation?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member will be aware that the timetable for NCEA exams has been changed, as has the timetable for the submission of NCEA portfolios. Additional support will be available over the coming summer, as it was over last summer, for those students who don’t quite get there, in terms of achieving enough credits to achieve their NCEA. That’s a programme that has proven to be very successful and one that I would envisage we’ll continue to offer in the future, regardless of whether or not there are COVID-19 alert level lockdowns. Significant work is being done to ensure that students are supported between now and exams so that they can be well prepared for those exams. And, again, I want to acknowledge the significant amount of work that teachers are doing to support those young people to learn from home, whilst they themselves are often living with other realities that they also have to cope with.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. to the Minister of Finance: Will he provide additional targeted support to businesses in Auckland that could be facing further weeks of lockdown, as well as to those businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector, in other parts of the country who continue to lose money as a result of the Government’s new level 2 restrictions?

In the past two weeks, the Government has put more than $2.1 billion into the economy to support businesses and workers. We are continuing to consider what further support could be offered the longer that the outbreak goes on. It is important to make the point that over the past 18 months, New Zealand has enjoyed the benefits that come with keeping COVID out of the community, and we’ve been living relatively normal lives compared to the rest of the world. Our intention is to contain this current outbreak and see the economy open up as quickly as possible, as it did after the first outbreak. In answer to the specific point in the member’s question about targeted regional schemes, as I said to the member earlier this week, regional schemes, which we have investigated in the past, can be slow to deliver, and require a significant amount of administration both by the person applying and at the other end, and that is why we have preferred more universal forms of support.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: When will he provide assistance to struggling businesses to help pay their rents, given he said one week ago he would consider a proposal for COVID-related rent relief, with rents now due again this week and again next week?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Firstly, the resurgence support payment is indeed the payment that the Government has put forward to support people with fixed costs. On the matter of commercial rent relief, that is a matter that the Minister of Justice is actively considering.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Thank you. Will Auckland businesses be able to apply for the wage subsidy under the new level 2 restrictions as businesses outside of Auckland are currently able to under level 2?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s very important to note that the reason that some businesses who are currently in alert level 2 can apply for the wage subsidy is because they will have been able to show that the revenue drop that they have experienced is directly related to—or alert level 3 in Auckland. So, for example, a tourism operator in the South Island may well be able to show that the lack of tourists coming from Auckland is the reason for their revenue drop, and that is why they have been able to apply. So the wage subsidy scheme always relates to an alert level 3 or an alert level 4 setting.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Is he aware that a large number of businesses are not sustainable under the Government’s new level 2 rules, with some Auckland hospitality businesses threatening to boycott GST, and saying they need urgent additional Government help now or they face closure?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I absolutely recognise that for some hospitality businesses they are finding this a particularly tough period, and that is why the Government is providing support. But what I also know that those businesses know is that the way that the Government has dealt with COVID-19 over the last 18 months means that they have been able to trade in a normal environment in a way that the hospitality sectors in countries around the world simply have not been able to do, and indeed still can’t do today.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Is he aware that the Government’s decision reducing the number of customers in hospitality venues to just 50, without providing additional assistance, means thousands of businesses face avoidable closure—like Prefab in Wellington, who have today announced they will be closing their doors for good?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m interested that the member raises the example of Prefab in Wellington. And I should note that Jeff Kennedy, the owner, who’s made a tremendous contribution to the hospitality scene in Wellington over a long period of time, actually isn’t opening because he doesn’t think the rules are strict enough. That’s actually what he said. I can read it out for the member. He says, “A café is a space where people eat, drink, talk, have meetings, cook, serve, clean, wash, prepare food. It is a perfect storm for spreading aerosols causing infection.” It’s entirely up to Mr Kennedy if he doesn’t want to operate under alert level 2, but the reasons he is giving are not the ones the member is giving.

Question No. 7—COVID-19 Response

7. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Have any of the planning and delivery groups listed on the Ministry of Health website as giving strategic advice and guidance for COVID-19 vaccines given advice on using Novavax as a booster vaccine dose to the current Pfizer vaccine, and what is the Government’s current policy on deploying booster doses for the COVID-19 vaccine programme?

No decisions have been taken on the need for or the best way to deliver booster shots against COVID-19. The Ministry of Health and our technical experts are closely monitoring any emerging evidence for the need for a booster campaign. The Government’s current approach is to ensure that we have a portfolio of options ready to support a booster campaign should it be deemed necessary. Novavax is one of those options, as is Pfizer, and we are in discussions with others.

💬 Chris Bishop: So can he confirm that none of the delivery groups on the ministry website that support the vaccine roll-out, such as the COVID-19 Immunisation Programme Governance Group or the COVID-19 Vaccine and Immunisation Programme Steering Group, have provided advice on using Novavax as a booster?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, they have not provided advice on that. No decision has been taken. As I indicated in my primary answer, they are still monitoring international evidence and international research about the need for a booster campaign. Very few countries have made a firm decision at this point to start administering booster doses. Most countries are, as New Zealand is, ensuring that they have options should a booster campaign be desired.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why, then, did the Dominion Post and stuff.co.nz report yesterday that Novavax was, quote—

💬 SPEAKER: Because the member’s getting close to running out of questions, I’m going to ask him to start his question again. There just can’t be responsibility from this Minister for why a newspaper reports something.

💬 Chris Bishop: OK. Is he aware of why stuff.co.nz reported yesterday that Novavax was “firming as the vaccine the New Zealand Government will use for a programme of COVID-19 booster shots”, in light of his answer just now that the Government’s own vaccine planning groups haven’t recommended it as a booster?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I was asked by Stuff what the status of our discussions with Novavax was. I confirmed to them that we have an advance purchase agreement with Novavax; that we have the ability to source doses of Novavax in the first quarter of next year, should it be required for a booster campaign; and that the preliminary information that we’re getting, and it is just ongoing discussions, from our technical experts is that they think that Novavax is shaping up well as an option for New Zealand. But no decisions have been made.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is he aware of why members of the Government’s own expert advisory groups found out via the media that Novavax was “firming” as the vaccine the New Zealand Government will use for boosters, when it hasn’t been approved by Medsafe yet—in fact, hasn’t been approved by any country around the world?

I think the member clearly hasn’t listened to the previous answers that I’ve given. No decision has been taken by the Government on whether or not to use Novavax, but I do note that earlier in the year the member was criticising the Government for not purchasing vaccines until they’d been approved by Medsafe and not securing delivery of those doses until they’d been approved by Medsafe, and now he seems to be criticising us for doing the opposite.