Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: What do the latest reports on New Zealand’s GDP show about the strength of the New Zealand economy, and how does this support the response to the Delta COVID outbreak?

Statistics New Zealand reported last week that GDP rose by 2.8 percent for the June 2021 quarter—the strongest quarterly growth since 1999, with the exception of the one-off bounce-back in September 2020, and a significantly better result than even the most optimistic commentators had forecast. The economy in the June 2021 quarter was 4.3 percent above where it was in the pre-COVD December 2019 quarter. What this gives us room for is our quick and decisive response to the current outbreak, including providing cash flow and confidence through schemes such as the wage subsidy, which also in turn help the economy to rebound quickly again. We do know, however, that the impact of this outbreak has been uneven, and we are continuing to work with affected sectors to support them in these challenging times.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: How widespread was the growth in the June quarter?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The expansion was broad-based, as our approach meant households and businesses have the confidence to move about and operate more freely than in many other countries during this period. The primary sector grew 5 percent in the June quarter compared with the March quarter, led by fishing and agriculture. The goods-producing industry was up by 1.3 percent, with solid activity in construction and manufacturing. The services sector, which makes up two-thirds of the economy, expanded by 2.8 percent in the quarter, with retail, accommodation, and restaurants benefiting from New Zealanders spending more time at the shops, eating out, and on holiday. Business confidence in the economy was also reflected in investment levels, which remained high and above pre-COVID levels. The ANZ noted that this broad momentum is what we want to see to be confident that the economy can keep going. Nevertheless, we know that some sectors and regions are doing it tough, and we will continue to monitor and assess that situation.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: How is this growth in the economy supporting the response to the current Delta COVID-19 outbreak?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Economic growth has been reflected in the Government’s books, which shows that revenue is well ahead of forecasts, along with lower deficits and debt than had been forecast. This gives the Government greater fiscal headroom to combat the outbreak, which we have done by topping up the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund by an extra $7 billion. There is also an additional $3 billion available to spend from money previously allocated in the fund that had not been spent. We have already boosted support to business in this lockdown and the extra funding will be targeted at further economic support, as well as building further resilience in our health system and supporting initiatives such as the vaccination roll-out and border and managed isolation and quarantine provision.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, including our announcement yesterday that Auckland will move to level 3 from 11.59 p.m. tonight. This decision was based on advice from the Director-General of Health and was made because level 3 is an extension of the strict social distancing protocols that will help keep New Zealanders safe and, of course, it continues to ask Aucklanders to stay in their bubbles and reduce interaction with others as much as possible. By moving Auckland in this way, we’re ensuring that we protect against the spread, and Auckland will be in level 3 for at least two weeks, because the director-general was clear that given the long hard tail of Delta we will need time here. But this move gives Aucklanders greater certainty as we continue our work to combat COVID-19.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Is the Government still committed to eliminating COVID-19 from the community?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member will have heard me say yesterday, we continue to take a zero tolerance approach to COVID-19, and that means stamping out, as we’ve said consistently all the way since the very beginning, cases whenever we see them arise. That has not changed and we continued to commit to that yesterday.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: How many more times is she prepared to put Auckland or other parts of New Zealand into a level 4 lockdown in order to continue with her strategy?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said time and time again, lockdowns have been used because we haven’t had other tools available including, for instance, as has been noted by almost every country that has used lockdowns—and they’ve been a strategy around the world until we had the ability to treat COVID or indeed vaccinate against COVID. We now have vaccinations available and we are working incredibly hard to ensure that everyone who is eligible is vaccinated. Fantastic to see how close Auckland is to reaching 80 percent of eligible Aucklanders having received their first dose. We have the capability to, within another two weeks beyond that, reach 90 percent, but it is incumbent upon all of us to work with all of our communities to ensure that people who may have concerns have those concerns addressed and are vaccinated, because it is the best way to remove the need to use those harshest public health restrictions.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Prime Minister seen suggestions that the New Zealand Government should have set a vaccination target of around 70 percent, and is she satisfied that, based on first doses, we’ve already well and truly exceeded that?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I actually have seen various members of the National Party—the member asking the questions, I think, has suggested something like 70 percent. I’ve seen Chris Bishop suggest something closer to 80; Dr Reti more around the 90 percent mark. The point that I would make—

💬 Chris Bishop: Different thresholds for different things.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The point that I would make—

💬 Chris Bishop: Don’t even understand the policy.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —we need as many people as possible to be vaccinated. You will have heard Dr Bloomfield say 90-plus—

💬 Chris Bishop: This is hopeless.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —and the reason that you’ll—

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —hear us talking about such high rates is the higher you go, the fewer ongoing restrictions that are required on a day-to-day basis to ensure people’s safety.

💬 Chris Bishop: That’s the whole point!

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: And perhaps, Mr Bishop—perhaps that’s something we all agree on.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So if vaccinations are critical to preventing level 4 lockdowns, then why were only 20 percent of eligible New Zealanders fully vaccinated against COVID at the start of the Delta outbreak?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Vaccinations are critical for us not having to use them in the future, but you can see that even countries who have had months of availability of vaccination, they have in some cases had low uptake. My hope for New Zealand is we won’t be one of those countries. We’re in shooting distance of passing, for instance, the United States’ vaccination levels in the coming days, I believe. So that’s a demonstration that despite having had a country that for a long period of time has had availability, it all comes down to your ability to work alongside your communities and ensure good take-up rates. That is something surely this House can work collaboratively on.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Then, again, why were only 20 percent of eligible New Zealanders fully vaccinated at the start of this latest Delta outbreak?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I note the member is referring to “fully vaccinated” rates. The member well knows that we at that time were using all of the supply available to us, but we did not have enough supply from Pfizer to enable a greater rate of vaccine at that time. That is no longer the case. We long signalled from the beginning of the year that the arrival of our largest orders of doses would be in the latter half of 2021. That is—

💬 Chris Bishop: Exactly. The Government chose that.

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, if I may—

💬 SPEAKER: I’ll ask the Prime Minister to resume her seat.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is totally incorrect.

💬 SPEAKER: I just want to make it clear to Mr Bishop. He may not be aware that his leader’s mike is open and his very loud interjections, very frequent interjections, his interjections that are sometimes repetitive and therefore on all bases out of order, are interfering with people’s ability to hear the answers, including mine. I rely on the microphone systems within here to do it, and when the Prime Minister’s being drowned out by him because he is using his leader’s microphone, then it means that people outside the building have trouble hearing as well.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Putting aside any difference of view I might have on the degree to which Mr Bishop’s interventions were rare and reasonable, if there is a problem with the sound system, that is a problem the House has, not Mr Bishop. What we’re hearing is that those interjections—rare and reasonable—are being moderated because of a failure in the sound system. I think that’s something that needs to be looked at.

💬 SPEAKER: No. I just want to make it absolutely clear: from when I was first an MP here, and, in fact, earlier on, when there were overhead microphones hanging down, some of them were turned on and off in order for a particular individual to get the call. That’s what the staff do. The Leader of the Opposition’s microphone is not turned off in between her primary question and her supplementary or other supplementary questions. We can do that, if the member wants; if that is the member’s request, we can move to a system whereby his leader’s microphone is turned off and then turned on again. But that has not been the practice in the House, and what has occurred is that members who sit around people who are asking questions have always given some respect to the person who is asking the question by not using their microphone. Had the Prime Minister finished?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: What advice has she had on the economic cost of five weeks of level 4 lockdown on Auckland?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Perhaps I can assist with the microphone issue by no longer continuing to answer Mr Bishop’s questions, rather than the Leader of the Opposition’s questions. I have in my mind—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. I’m sorry, it’s not appropriate for the Prime Minister—or any other member—to comment on the rulings that I have made. Continue.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My recollection of the last advice we received from Treasury was that, for the extension that we last had in Auckland, that amounted to a $700 million cost. There is no question that there is, of course, a cost to the economy, and, indeed, people’s lives, through restrictions. However, we have to, of course, factor in the cost of widespread uncontrolled outbreaks and the impact that that has on people’s lives and livelihoods also.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So is that per week? Or is that over the five-week stretch, where people have been locked down in a level 4 lockdown?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I just said, that was for the one-week extension. I’m sure the member can extrapolate across the five weeks, keeping in mind we have had different parts of the country at different alert levels, and therefore, the draw-down on, for instance, the wage subsidy and the resurgence payment varies. If the member would like me to bring the precise figures for each of those weeks, I can do that; happy to do so if she pops that one on notice.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: So why did she wait until a Delta outbreak to buy additional vaccines from other countries?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I completely reject the assertion in that member’s question, as I do the statement made by the member behind her, who, in the course of asking her questions—and the member may wish to take issue with the fact that he has done this over the top of her—gave the assertion that, in some way, we have delayed the delivery of vaccines to New Zealand. I find that an outrageous claim. At every step, we have sought to access the Pfizer vaccine as quickly as we were able; in fact, entering into arrangements with Pfizer before the completion of clinical trials. The fact of the matter is, though, most countries have not received their vaccines at a time that is convenient to them, but rather at the time they’ve been available from manufacturers. As they have arrived, we have distributed. To answer the member’s question on the outbreak: as soon as we had that outbreak, there was a huge surge in demand, and rather than curtailing that demand to meet the supply that we had, we met it, and pulled out all the stops to then try and supplement that supply through other countries who may have had availability to support that. We were able to do so, and I stand by that work.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the market for vaccines—much like every other market—relies on there being a willing buyer and a willing seller, and it is only in recent weeks that there have been other countries willing to sell?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is absolutely right. Of course, other countries have sought to purchase vaccines to cover their entire populations, and in some cases have found that with the reasonably short shelf life of this vaccine, most countries have about four months to have them distributed across their population, and have not been able to use their supply necessarily across their whole population. That’s where you’ve, only in recent times, seen those kinds of arrangements, and that is, really, captured by the fact that New Zealand was the first country to use the EU template agreement for the purchase and supply of vaccines within the EU, because we had not had that template arrangement available to other countries prior to that point.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Would a willing buyer of vaccines be expected to raise an order for those vaccines before 29 January this year, given that other countries did so well earlier?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member completely—completely—misrepresents the process for purchasing vaccines. As I said, we began discussions with Pfizer in July of 2020. In August, we had a purchasing payment. In September, Pfizer presented to our research panel, and we made our first logistics call with the Ministry of Health. We signed an advanced purchase agreement in October of 2020 before Pfizer even completed their phase 3 trial. Again, so many times in this House we’ve tried to correct the member. I cannot help the member if she does not understand the process for the purchasing of pharmaceuticals in this country.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Prime Minister seen predictions that the inventory management system for the vaccine wouldn’t be ready, that the booking system would fail, that bookings were going to have to be cancelled because we were going to run out of vaccines, that we hadn’t purchased enough syringes for vaccines, that we couldn’t extract seven doses out of a vial of vaccines, and that we didn’t have enough vaccinators ready to deliver the vaccine—and did any of these predictions prove to be true?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister can answer one of those nine questions.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have seen those claims; they have proven not to be true. At this point in our process, I wonder if it would be more helpful, rather than the member misrepresenting the process of purchasing Pfizer vaccines, if the member actually got on board and continued to encourage—as I’ve seen signs the National Party have—people to be vaccinated.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement, “We’re in lockdown because we do not have enough New Zealanders currently vaccinated to stop an outbreak that would devastate our community”?

Yes, and within the context of that interview, where my recollection is the claim was being made “Why have we used a lockdown in this situation rather than alternative measures?” But I’d more generally say lockdown has been used the world over and, in fact, less in New Zealand than in many other countries, and has helped us achieve the lowest case rates, death rates, and hospitalisations that we’ve seen in the OECD. But now we have vaccines that are safe and effective and that can help us change the way we have used public health restrictions, and we need to use that tool now we have it.

💬 David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister name a country whose geographical isolation, population density, population age, and wealth gave it a greater head start in battling a viral epidemic or pandemic than New Zealand?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That actually squares with the answer I just gave. We’ve used those advantages to the best of our ability, and the team of 5 million has helped us not only return to pre-COVID levels in terms of economic growth—and you saw where our GDP stats were taking us—but also some of the lowest case rates, death rates, and hospitalisations in the world, so I’m not sure which table the member is suggesting we should top out. We compared ourselves to ourselves, and did what many others did not achieve.

💬 David Seymour: Why didn’t the Prime Minister add the Government’s response to that list of advantages I just gave?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because it’s implicit we led the response all the way through, and perhaps I’d noticed the member had stopped using the one country he did use to use, which was Taiwan, who I see has had to deal with extra outbreaks and is continuing to try and lift its vaccination rates.

💬 David Seymour: Which country, if any, has high enough vaccination rates to stop an outbreak from, in her words, devastating their community?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think you’ll see every country is trying to get their vaccination rates high enough that they can use a lower level of public health restrictions. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone that is using nothing, though. Even Denmark, who many are referring to, does have very high vaccination rates across their total population, but is still using border controls. Businesses are still using what they call their corona pass. So I think you’d find very few places that are managing to keep hospitalisations low without using a coupling together of vaccinations and other measures, including their border measures.

💬 David Seymour: If the Prime Minister can’t name one country with a high enough vaccination rate to stop outbreaks that would, in her words, “devastate their community”, what strategy is this country relying on?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is putting words in my mouth. It’s only for those countries to determine whether or not their case rate is able to be managed in a way that they find acceptable to their community and to their health system. What I just gave you an example of, though, was a country that has managed to reduce down their public restrictions because they’ve had high rates. On the flip side, Singapore—just as high vaccination rates, but they’ve continued to still use restrictions. I think the thing that I would say to the member is we have always had the ability and the benefit of casting our eye around the world to see what other countries have done, and we’ve very rarely simply replicated ourselves on others. We have designed our own strategy that is fit for purpose for our unique population, for our circumstances, and that meets our goals of keeping people safe and protecting their livelihoods and having as many personal freedoms as possible.

💬 David Seymour: Will the vaccine roll-out be complete when, as Chris Hipkins has clearly said—and she agreed—every New Zealander has had an opportunity to be vaccinated, or, as Ashley Bloomfield has said, when 90 percent of New Zealanders eligible are vaccinated?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is incorrectly trying to portray there is a difference in opinion here; there is not. Both the Director-General of Health and every Minister that you will have heard speak on this issue has pointed to us aspiring to have the highest vaccination rates in the world if we can, but, certainly, having as many eligible people as possible vaccinated. One of the concerns we’ve always had is if you set a rate too low, you immediately give the ability for someone just to opt to be a part of the percentage that is not vaccinated. We can’t afford that. Roughly, 40 percent of this outbreak has been those under 19 years of age, so a good portion have been children who cannot at this rate be vaccinated. They require all of those who can be to be, to care for them.

💬 David Seymour: If 89 percent of New Zealanders are vaccinated, and everybody’s had an opportunity, will the Prime Minister deem the vaccine roll-out complete, even though we’re not at 90, and will we be able to start taking steps to abandon the use of lockdowns and connect with the rest of the world?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We actually presented our plans around reconnection several weeks ago, so I refer the member to that work, rather than being repetitive on that. You will have heard us say that we have plans to alter the way that we’re working at our border in the first quarter of 2022, and that includes the self-isolation pilot that we’re establishing for the latter part of this year. On the question of whether or not we suddenly just close off the vaccine programme, vaccines will need to continue to be available. I will never take away the ability for anyone at any point to change their mind and take up a vaccine. So, so long as there is any New Zealander who has not been vaccinated, vaccines will be available to them.

💬 David Seymour: Was the number of vaccine doses administered yesterday down to only 50,000 from a peak of 90,000 a month ago due to supply or demand?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Demand. We have more than enough supply. Supply will no longer be an issue for the course of this vaccine roll-out. We have long signalled—long signalled—that October was the month when supply no longer becomes an issue, and with the additional doses that we managed to secure from Spain and Denmark, that certainly made that the case from September. One thing I’ll also point out is we do expect, of course, those numbers to move again once that big cohort we saw come through early on in the outbreak return for second doses. In fact, today was the first day where second doses outnumbered first doses. Pleasingly, the uptake for second doses is at a very high rate, so we do anticipate being able to mirror that high first rate uptake with second. But it is going to take all of us. That last, kind of, 10 percent is going to be the bit that every country has seen takes that extra bit of effort.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Did the Prime Minister see projections only two months ago that New Zealand would fail to achieve a vaccination rate of 50,000 doses per day, a rate that now some people are regarding as a failure?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. I do recall, when we said that our expectation was that we would hit a peak of 50,000 a day, being told that wouldn’t be possible. Not only did we show it was possible, somehow now that is a sign of failure.

💬 David Seymour: Why hasn’t the Minister given a date by which she will be able to say every New Zealander has had the opportunity to be vaccinated?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Every New Zealander has an opportunity to be vaccinated now. As a member of a traditionally liberal party, I’d be surprised to suggest—the member seems to be suggesting that we should take away anyone’s free will as they seek those vaccines. That seems to be the suggestion from the member. Everyone has the opportunity today. There will be some who may have access issues, and we’re actively reaching out, particularly to those who may be isolated or disabled, to overcome those barriers. But everyone who wants one today can get one today. We have walk-in clinics; we have bookings. There is no question of capacity.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement, “Ministers have decided to use the greater fiscal headroom to top up the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund by an extra $7 billion”; if so, does that indicate that the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund would not have been topped up had that fiscal headroom not been apparent?

In answer to the first part of the question: yes, and I stand by my full statement, “The stronger economy has been reflected in the Government’s books, with lower deficits and debt position than had been predicted, and well below that of other nations that we compare ourselves against … the extra funding will be targeted at further economic support as well as building resilience in our health system, supporting the vaccination rollout and border and MIQ provision.” In answer to the second part of the member’s question: I know that he is fond of hypotheticals, but I don’t get to deal in hypotheticals in this instance.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he accept that any perceived fiscal headroom arising from the previous quarter will have evaporated due to the protracted lockdown, and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think the member underestimates the resilience of the New Zealand economy that we’ve seen over the course of the COVID outbreak. He will recall that when we saw a significant drop in the June quarter of last year, we saw an even greater bounce-back in the September quarter. I have faith in the New Zealand economy.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does describing a massive spending and debt burden that might be ever so slightly massive meet his definition of fiscal headroom?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What the definition of fiscal headroom is is that the Government has overseen an economy that has produced more revenue in terms of tax, that has seen lower deficits and lower debt. That means that the Government is in a strong position to support New Zealanders through this outbreak.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is using the May year-to-date projection of $6 billion less debt to justify $7 billion of extra spending an example of the Government’s fiscal discipline?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What it’s an example of is the fact that the New Zealand economy, up until this outbreak, was performing extremely well. It was generating high levels of tax revenue, and it means that when we do come back out of this outbreak, I am very confident that the New Zealand economy will be resilient. I know the member doesn’t want New Zealand to succeed, but on this side of the House, we do.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Did he receive advice from Treasury on alternative approaches to making use of the so-called additional fiscal headroom, and, if so, what was that advice?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I receive a steady stream of advice from No. 1 The Terrace, but we’ve been focused most recently on our response to the COVID outbreak.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: How much of the $7 billion top-up would not have been needed if the Government didn’t spend as much as $12 billion of the previous $50 billion fund on items with tenuous or no link to COVID-19 response and recovery?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I completely reject the premise of the member’s question. The COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund has been spent on ensuring not only that we have the resources for the direct response and the health system, or through the wage subsidy scheme, but also to support, for example, New Zealanders to stay in work. When we put out the Budget in May 2020, where the first part of the $50 billion was allocated, we were facing down a 9 percent unemployment rate. New Zealand’s unemployment rate peaked at just over 5 percent and has come down to 4 percent. That is a good outcome for New Zealanders. We have helped keep New Zealanders in work through the COVID fund.

Question No. 5—Police

5. to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has the Minister seen regarding Police’s efforts to disrupt organised crime?

I’ve seen reports that police will continue to relentlessly target gangs and organised crime, with the extension of the successful Operation Tauwhiro. Already, as part of Operation Tauwhiro, police have seized 987 firearms, seized $4.99 million in cash, and charged 865 people with firearms offences. This is a fantastic result. We have never been more active in cracking down on gangs and organised crime, and we’ll get gang leaders off our streets. With the extension of Operation Tauwhiro, this Government is continuing to take action to make sure New Zealanders and their families are kept safe.

💬 Ginny Andersen: How is the Government continuing to support Police’s efforts to disrupt organised crime?

💬 Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This Government has put a record number of police on the front line, including those with a specific focus on organised crime, and the result of this investment continues to pay off. In the last four years alone, police have seized $500 million in cash and assets from organised crime. We are also committed to introducing the firearms prohibition orders to protect the public from firearms harm, and to hit gangs where it hurts—their pockets—by amending the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act to give the police new powers to seize assets from organised criminals.

Question No. 6—Foreign Affairs

6. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does she stand by her statement that “We’re acutely aware of the environmental risks associated with deep-sea mining”; and if so, why did New Zealand abstain on a motion supporting “Protection of deep-ocean ecosystems and biodiversity through a moratorium on seabed mining” at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature last week?

Yes, I do. New Zealand is committed to the protection and preservation of the marine environment. We recognise that deep-sea mining poses risks to the marine environment. New Zealand is one of the few countries to have a robust regulatory framework to govern seabed mining within its national jurisdiction. Internationally, we are actively engaged as a member of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) in the development of a regulatory framework to govern seabed mining. We’re calling for a robust legal framework, effective governance structures, and high standards of environmental protection to ensure that deep-sea mining does not take place unless we can ensure the protection of our oceans.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Does the Minister agree with Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s recent submission to the International Seabed Authority on its mining code, which states that a precautionary approach “should be incorporated into the framework of regulations, standards, and guidelines in a more considered, deliberate way.”; if so, why?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes, I do, and alongside that, as we advocate for the application of the precautionary approach, for public participation in decision making, for robust standards of environmental impact assessment and environmental monitoring and management plans, and having a regulatory framework where there are set international rules and norms that sovereign nations can abide by when they consider deep-sea mining—it is a great guide to go by.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Why is a moratorium on sea-bed mining inconsistent with developing high standards of environmental protection, then?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: It’s not a matter of whether a moratorium is inconsistent with high standards; it’s a matter of what international rules and norms will guide countries as they make their sovereign decision around deep-sea mining. That is why New Zealand continues to participate in the International Seabed Authority to develop the regulations that will guide these countries.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Will New Zealand support an international moratorium on deep-sea mining if development of the mining code at the International Seabed Authority fails to ensure the protection and preservation of the marine environment; if not, why not?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Thank you for the question. We are not at that stage yet. We would hope that by participating in the ISA to develop a strong regulatory framework where there are high environmental standards to guide sovereign nations on its consideration of deep-sea mining, that is the first port of call that we would go to. Any other consideration beyond that will have to be dealt with at that point in time.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What will she say to tangata w’enua in Aotearoa and tangata moana across the Pacific who have been consistently opposing this destructive mining of the seabed?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That New Zealand participates in a regime where we want a strong environmental framework to guide significant decisions such as seabed mining. In participating in the ISA and in establishing rules and norms that sovereign nations can abide by, we are, in effect, trying to achieve the same standard that we are applying on ourselves.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Does the Minister agree with the position expressed within the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) motion that there should be a moratorium until and unless, where relevant, the free prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples is respected and consent from potentially affected communities is achieved; if not, why not?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I’m aware of a number of views that have been expressed in relation to the views around the moratorium, but New Zealand’s position remains the same. We participate in the ISA to ensure that there is a strong regulatory framework to guide sovereign nations in the way that it considers deep-sea mining. That framework sets a very high environmental bar for those sovereign nations to be able to apply a mining code, and it would be the responsible approach as they are considering their deep-sea mining opportunities.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: In abstaining on the motion at the IUCN, is the Minister concerned that New Zealand’s position on the deep-sea mining motion is different from most other Governments and Government agencies at the IUCN, 81 of whom supported it; if not, why not?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Our position on that particular motion, alongside the UK, USA, Australia, Canada, France, was set to ensure that we could continue to work in a very strong way to build the regulatory framework through the ISA to guide countries in their determination—their sovereign determination—of deep-sea mining. It is a very high standard that we’re trying to set and assure ourselves, and, with multilateral countries who are of a common mind, they took the same position as New Zealand.

Question No. 7—COVID-19 Response

7. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What percentage of the eligible population in New Zealand had received two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine as at 7 August 2021, and what modelling, if any, has he seen relating to how the level of vaccination coverage could affect the severity of COVID-19 restrictions?

As at 7 August 2021, 19 percent of those aged 12 and over had received two doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine; 33 percent had received at least their first dose. We’ve seen an extraordinary uptake of vaccination since everyone aged 12 and over became eligible to book a vaccine. To date, more than 4,762,000 doses have been administered. Approximately 39 percent of the eligible population are now fully vaccinated and approximately 74 percent have received their first dose. I’ve received a range of advice that emphasises the importance of widespread vaccination in preventing the spread of COVID-19, which, in turn, reduces the need for restrictions. That’s why right now we’re encouraging all New Zealanders to come forward and be vaccinated.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why did New Zealand only have 19 percent of the eligible population of the 12-plus population with double vaccination at 7 August?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A range of factors, but the most notable, of course, was supply.

💬 Chris Bishop: Has he seen any modelling or advice from officials indicating that if New Zealand had had even 50 percent vaccination coverage in August, as opposed to what happened, which was less than 20 percent, the most recent lockdown could have been shorter and more regional?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, not necessarily. One of the things that we need to think about when we are talking about vaccination rates is actually a focus on the unvaccinated population and the characteristics of the unvaccinated population. What we’ve seen from around the world is that COVID-19 hunts out those parts of the community that are unvaccinated. They tend to be lower socio-economic areas. They tend to be people who are more susceptible to COVID-19 and an adverse health outcome from that. So setting an arbitrary target, for example, around vaccination isn’t, actually, the ultimate answer here. We want to get everybody vaccinated.

💬 Chris Bishop: So is he saying, firstly, that he hasn’t seen, or, secondly, that he doesn’t agree with, the paper from Shaun Hendy on 30 June that shows that a 50 percent vaccination rate compared to a 30 percent vaccination rate halves the length of time lockdowns are required for?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Again, the member didn’t listen to the last answer that I gave. Yes, I’ve seen a whole variety of different models, but let’s talk about this current outbreak. This current outbreak is disproportionately skewed to young people, a significant proportion of whom are not currently eligible for the vaccine.

💬 Chris Bishop: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s comments from February in relation to the vaccine roll-out that “We’re not in a race to be first”, and does he now accept that if we hadn’t been the slowest in the OECD for most of this year, we’d be in a better position now?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, I utterly reject the assertion in the member’s question, along with all of the other assertions that he has made, like we were going to run out of vaccines, we didn’t have enough syringes, we didn’t have enough vaccinators, the booking system was going to fail, and we weren’t going to be able to deliver 50,000 vaccines a day. Instead of undermining the vaccine campaign, perhaps he should get behind it.

💬 Chris Bishop: Does he agree with the Prime Minister and other Ministers who have said words to the effect of “It doesn’t matter how fast our vaccine roll-out is, because other countries need it more”, and does he think that the Aucklanders who are now enduring the longest lockdown in New Zealand history might be reflecting negatively on those comments?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: What I do agree with is that the member should stop spreading misinformation. That is not what any Minister in this Government has said. I would say to any New Zealander listening to him that they should think twice about any of the statements he makes, because most of them don’t stack up.

Question 8—Research, Science and Innovation

8. to the Associate Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: What recent announcements has she made about helping New Zealand’s COVID-19 response and preparedness for future pandemics?

On Sunday, I was pleased to announce that the Government is investing in a new Infectious Diseases Research Platform. New Zealand’s response to COVID-19 has been informed by science from the beginning, and as a result, we have saved lives, but the lack of a dedicated infectious diseases research fund has been a longstanding gap in our domestic science capabilities. When the pandemic hit, scientists either volunteered time to support the COVID-19 response or received ad hoc grants for small pieces of research. To address this, we are investing $36 million over three years in the new programme of research to sustain the contribution of cutting-edge scientists to the COVID-19 response.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: What will the major research focus be?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The first priority area is improving prevention and control, including through better understanding of disease transmission and future vaccine research. The second is improving our management of infectious diseases—for instance, through diagnostics, surveillance, and therapeutics. Reducing the impact of infectious diseases on Māori and Pacific people will also be a key focus. That work can only be done here in Aotearoa New Zealand. I also see this research platform as promoting the development of our next generation of pandemic scientists. This work will not just help with our current response to COVID-19 but also help prevent future pandemics.

💬 Ibrahim Omer: What reaction has she seen to the announcement of the Infectious Diseases Research Platform?

💬 Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I’ve been heartened by the positive reception of local experts. Arindam Basu, associate professor of Epidemiology and Environmental Health at the University of Canterbury described the announcement as “an excellent and welcome move”, saying, “additional infectious disease research funding focused on COVID-19 will be immensely beneficial to everyone.” Epidemiologist Dr Amanda Kvalsvig from the Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, also welcomed the announcement, saying it “has the potential to make a huge difference [to] the lives of New Zealanders.”, and immunologist Professor Graham Le Gros, director of the Malaghan Institute of Medical Research and programme director of the Vaccine Alliance Aotearoa New Zealand said, “This is very good news and a much needed investment in the skill-sets and technologies that will be needed to protect New Zealand against the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.”

Question No. 9—Immigration

9. to the Minister of Immigration: What communications, if any, has he received from Afghan translators who live in New Zealand about bringing their families to New Zealand, and what actions is he taking as a result?

I have received a number of communications from Afghan translators who live in New Zealand setting out their concern for their community and their family members who remain in Afghanistan. Understandably, these concerns have heightened as a result of the fall of the Afghan Government. Many of them are seeking pathways for their family members to join them here in New Zealand since the emergency evacuation window for getting people out of Afghanistan closed. They’ve also turned to what more New Zealand can do to assist in the plight of people still in Afghanistan, and our focus remains very much on those who are included in Cabinet’s criteria. Immigration New Zealand is working alongside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the New Zealand Defence Force, who in turn are discussing with international partners how to help others leave Afghanistan. Consideration is also being given to short- and longer-term support services for individuals who have recently arrived. We know the situation in Afghanistan is volatile, and I’m expecting advice from officials on what additional support New Zealand can offer, shortly.

💬 Dr James McDowall: Has he met with the Afghan translators waiting outside Parliament for him, and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I don’t meet all the groups that come to Parliament to make their point, but what I would say is that the letters that they have sent me have been received—certainly the ones in the last 24 hours—and their message has been heard. The priority of the Government, as I said in my primary answer, is to assist people who are very much in a similar situation to them when they were allowed to come to New Zealand—those who assisted agencies in Afghanistan and their immediate families. It has been a very challenging situation to evacuate all of those people back as well as New Zealand citizens and residents. As I’ve said, we are currently looking at what other options we can to make sure we can assist those who are also looking to leave Afghanistan.

💬 Dr James McDowall: How is the Minister able to spend 10 minutes sitting in the debating chamber before question time today joking with other MPs while the Afghan translators continue to wait for him outside?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

💬 David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, the Minister has said that his time does not allow him to meet. I think that the question from the member is perfectly in order and reasonable.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the member might be of that view, but what we do not do in this House is question members as to their movements around the buildings on the way to and in the Chamber before question time. It’s been a longstanding convention of the House.

💬 Dr James McDowall: Can the Minister guarantee that action will be taken to expedite the visas of translators’ relatives, and, if so, when?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I’ll point the member to my earlier answer—that the Government is focused on making sure that we can get New Zealand residents and citizens who are in Afghanistan home, and also those who are within the strict Cabinet criteria while the evacuation window was open. We are also considering what other options we might be able to take in order to assist other people who would like to leave Afghanistan. Those decisions have not yet been made.

💬 Dr James McDowall: Does the Minister understand that relatives of Afghan translators who helped Kiwi soldiers are under constant threat of persecution by the Taliban, and what will he do to uphold the principles of kindness this Government has set itself?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The Government takes very seriously its values of kindness, which is why we are making sure that we take a very measured approach to the assistance that we offer those people that we have prioritised. One of those things that we have to make sure that we do, as I said both to select committees and publicly, is that we have to make sure that we have the ability to resettle these people who might have come from Afghanistan in a first-class way. We’re working through some of those issues and we hope to be able to do that to make sure we can help the plight of some of those people still in Afghanistan.

Question No. 10—Women

10. to the Minister for Women: What support is the Government providing for women and girls adversely affected by COVID-19?

As the Minister for Women, I have announced a $2 million community fund to support vulnerable women and girls adversely affected by COVID-19. We know from the last nationwide lockdown that women experienced disproportionately adverse effects, including job losses, loss of income, increased unpaid care work, and additional barriers to those seeking to leave violent and abusive situations. This Government has acted quickly to ensure we take rapid and effective action to reach women during the current lockdown and safeguard their wellbeing.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: Why is this type of community fund needed?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: Last nationwide lockdown, we established the same fund, which allocates funding through established community groups and organisations at grassroots level. All evaluations found that this is a highly effective way to reach vulnerable women, as there is an existing relationship with this cohort. The fund supported 155 organisations and over 10,000 women and their families. While there are other Government supports available to vulnerable New Zealanders, including women, through schemes such as the wage subsidy, we know there are additional gender-based needs—examples include help with leaving an abusive partner, culturally appropriate support networks for migrant women, mental health support for rainbow women, and a lack of access to basic toiletries.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: How will the $2 million be allocated to community providers?

💬 Hon JAN TINETTI: The funding is to support organisations who (1) work to improve outcomes for women and girls, and (2) are seeing an increased demand for services, and/or reduced resources, because of COVID-19. The three objectives of the fund are: to prioritise grassroots investments, making sure funds are spent to improve outcomes for women and where they are needed most; support women, in all their diversity, who face intersectional challenges within their communities, such as women in Māori, Pacific, rural, and migrant communities; and supporting the Government’s priorities, such as ensuring healthy and safe communities, reducing family and sexual violence, and improving child wellbeing. Each organisation can apply for up to $50,000 of funding and applications are currently open until 1 October, and organisations can apply on the Ministry for Women’s website.

Question No. 11—Corrections

11. to the Minister of Corrections: Is he confident that the Department of Corrections’ policies are keeping New Zealanders safe from COVID-19; if so, why?

Yes. As we saw in this recent case, it was Corrections health screening that helped us to identify that there was potential that COVID had spread in the community. While Corrections have strict policies in place to stop the spread of COVID in prisons, this case has identified that there are areas where we can look to create improvements around transportation. While these are outside of the control of Corrections, given bail conditions are set by the courts, I have asked my officials to work with other agencies to see what improvements can be made around transportation. This approach was outlined by the Prime Minister earlier today. I am confident in Corrections’ processes to minimise risks relating to the transmission of COVID-19, though. These include health screening for every person who enters a prison, all prison staff are required to wear masks at all times while on site, and when staff are interacting with prisoners, they are wearing personal protective equipment to prevent transmission. The secure and controlled nature of the prison environment means Corrections are able to quickly isolate prisoners as required, restrict their movements, and identify people who would have been in contact with them if required.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: As corrections Minister, does he think it’s fair that essential workers should be required to show that they have had a COVID-19 test before travelling through an alert level boundary, but a Black Power member recently released from prison should not be required to?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Again, this is an issue around the transportation of prisoners. Corrections doesn’t set those conditions, the judges and the courts set the bail conditions, so he needs to really address his question to the correct Minister.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: As corrections Minister, does he place more trust in prisoners who are being released from prison to travel through an alert level boundary without being tested for COVID-19 than essential workers?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The Minister doesn’t have responsibility for either of those groups.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I was asking whether he thought it was fair or did he have trust. My question was: does he place trust?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, people who’ve been released from prison and essential workers—neither of those groups are the responsibility of this Minister.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The prisoner is still in the care of Corrections staff—still in the purview of the Corrections department.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, no, the member said the person had been released from prison.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: He’s on bail.

💬 SPEAKER: It’s exactly what the member said.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Mr Speaker, we’re getting into a tangle between whether the question is in order or whether the answer should have been given in that way by the Minister. I’m suggesting to you that while that may well have been the answer the Minister could have given, it doesn’t render the question out of order.

💬 Hon Kelvin Davis: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister of Corrections is responsible for people who are in prison. The judges and the courts set the bail conditions. The Minister of Corrections is not responsible for them.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order. In case I can assist, Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: You’re always here to help!

💬 David Seymour: That’s me! He may well have been released from prison, but he was still in the care of Corrections, and surely the Minister’s perception of and the Minister’s attitude towards the behaviour of prisoners and their trustworthiness while under the care of Corrections is something that is very relevant that this House is allowed to ask about. That’s what the question was about: does the Minister trust those prisoners who are under Corrections’ care. His attitude towards prisoners is of great interest to this House.

💬 SPEAKER: And if the question had been asked like that, it would have been in order.

💬 David Seymour: It was asked like that.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m prepared to be generous and let the member rephrase his question so he makes it clear that there is ministerial responsibility. I am being very kind.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, come on!

💬 SPEAKER: Mr Bridges—sorry, is the member trying to fly or—I’ve heard him described as Samson recently.

💬 David Seymour: He was brushing his hair back!

💬 SPEAKER: That’s right—Samson!

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: As the Minister of Corrections, does he place more trust in persons who are in the care of Corrections staff recently released from prison to travel through an alert level boundary without being tested for COVID-19 than essential workers?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I trust the Corrections processes.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: What specific measures, if any, did the Department of Corrections take to ensure the transportation of the prisoner to northern Hauraki would be done safely and appropriately given Auckland’s lockdown status and in light of Corrections deeming him unsuitable for bail?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’ll refer to my primary answer. The case has identified that there are areas where we can look to create improvements around transportation. While these areas are outside of the control of Corrections, given bail conditions are set by the courts, including the transport of prisoners, I’ve asked my officials to work with other agencies to see what improvements can be made around transportation.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: At what point did the Department of Corrections realise the prisoner had stopped at four different locations, including two private addresses, and why wasn’t he arrested for breach of bail, when his bail conditions required him to travel without any unnecessary stops?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: So Corrections and Police jointly manage electronically monitored bail. Corrections assesses a person and their proposed address for electronic—“EM”—bail suitability and carries out the electronic monitoring. Police are responsible for responding to all non-compliance and managing any other bail conditions imposed by the courts. Corrections has no involvement in non-EM bail, though.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Why did Corrections staff allow the prisoner to be picked up by three individuals when his bail conditions stated that a specified family member was to collect him from Mt Eden Corrections Facility, and does this demonstrate a complete failure by Corrections to monitor the prisoner effectively, given they had concerns about him being unsuitable for bail?

💬 Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No.

💬 SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. I call on—[Interruption] Oh, sorry! Angela Roberts—No. 12. I apologise.

Question No. 12—Conservation

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

💬 SPEAKER: The Hon Kiritapu Allan—I doubly apologise.

Mr Speaker! As part of our COVID recovery, on 16 September I announced a package of nine Jobs for Nature projects across Otago and Southland. The projects represent an investment of more than $17 million into nature and the community, and they’re collectively expected to create more than 200 jobs through protecting threatened species, making a well-known lake swimmable, and supporting areas hit by the downturn in international tourism.

💬 Angela Roberts: What projects will be delivered in the Queenstown lakes district?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: As we all know, the Queenstown lakes district has been impacted by the downturn in international tourism as a result of COVID. And the key focus of Jobs for Nature is providing investments into these communities: $4.45 million is being provided to a project to rehabilitate Arrowtown’s Lake Hayes, which aims to make the lake swimmable again by working with community groups to undertake native planting, wetland restoration, predator control, and installation of sediment traps; $2.98 million is being provided to the southern lakes sanctuary project, assisting more than 80 local predator control initiatives across 150,000 hectares of the southern lakes region to protect 23 threatened and at-risk wildlife species from invasive species.

💬 Angela Roberts: What projects will be delivered in Fiordland?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: More good news. A range of projects in Fiordland are receiving funding coming at an important time for another beautiful region for which international tourism is a key part of their local economy. These include bringing the park to the people through trail enhancement: $973,000 for the Fiordland Trails Trust to protect threatened bird species; Tamatea Restoration has received $700,000 for the Pure Salt cruises to develop and use new technologies to eliminate predators within the Tamatea / Dusky Sound region; the Routeburn Dart Wildlife Trust predator trapping project has received $4,116 for additional predator control in the Routeburn, Dart and nearby valleys; and the Big Bay / Awarua ecosystem restoration has received $383,000 to establish a trapping network at Big Bay / Awarua and Waituna Lagoon to help protect vulnerable native birds such as fernbirds, bittern, rail, and kākā.