Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: Ni hao, Mr Speaker. What reports has he received on the resilience of the New Zealand economy to the impacts of COVID-19?

The Government’s science and health - led approach has been reflected in the latest employment figures. Statistics New Zealand reported that seasonally adjusted filled jobs grew 0.7 percent in August compared with a month earlier. The number of jobs is now 3.9 percent above the same time last year. Westpac bank commented, “That strength came despite the country being under a COVID-19 lockdown for the last two weeks of the month”. As we’ve seen on past occasions, the wage subsidy scheme plays an important role in keeping workers attached to their jobs, with the adjustment more likely occurring through reduction in hours worked. We know that the impact of COVID-19 has been uneven and we will continue to work with affected sectors to support them in these uncertain times.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen on the resilience in the jobs market?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government’s plan to secure our recovery has been reflected in New Zealanders’ perceptions of the jobs market. Last week, the quarterly Westpac McDermott Miller Employment Index rose 1.8 points to 105.7 in September, as people felt optimistic about their job prospects despite the lockdown. Confidence was mixed across the country, though, with a solid gain in Auckland and Northland and some declines in more tourism-heavy regions such as Nelson, Marlborough, and the West Coast. Perceptions of current job opportunities rose strongly, with the balance of households now seeing jobs as plentiful. Westpac notes that this survey question has tended to be a useful leading indicator of unemployment, and supports its view that unemployment will actually drop below 4 percent in the coming quarters.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on the Government’s debt-servicing costs as a result of COVID-19?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, I am aware of an alarmist and erroneous report that we are carrying too much debt in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and that our debt-servicing costs are set to overwhelm the Budget. I would like to reassure the House and particularly members on the other side that this is not the case. Under this Government, our net debt is well below what was forecast when COVID struck last year and, indeed, below many of the countries we compare ourselves with in the OECD. Under the careful stewardship of this Government, core Crown finance costs have fallen as a percentage of GDP from 1.5 percent, on average, between 2011 and 2017, to 1 percent from 2018 to 2021, and, in fact, the Treasury forecast that this would fall even further over the next four years. Our debt-servicing costs are set to remain lower than countries like Canada, the UK, and Australia.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: What comfort will that data on jobs be for the 8,067 people who have gone on to jobseeker support since 18 August—the last lockdown—and does he agree that the longer the lockdown goes on, the greater the number of jobs lost will be?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The comfort that those people who have lost their jobs can take is that the last time New Zealand went through a lockdown period, the economy rebounded quickly and decisively, and more people have gone into work and we’ve ended up with unemployment at 4 percent—one of the lowest rates in the OECD. It is always difficult for people when they lose their jobs, but this Government will support them back into work.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Yes, particularly the progress being made on the Government’s reconnecting New Zealand framework for reopening borders and moving to an individualised, risk-based model for quarantine-free travel. In August, we announced a phased approach to reopening the borders, with the aim of establishing new testing and vaccine checking systems in the first quarter of 2022. This week, Cabinet confirmed that from 4 October, Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workers from Vanuatu can begin arriving into New Zealand, and from 12 October, quarantine-free travel for RSE workers from Samoa and Tonga will begin. This will provide much-needed certainty for our growers as they gear up for summer and autumn harvesting. This week, expressions of interest will open for the business self-isolation pilot. The pilot will test the systems and identify areas where further work is required to scale up the approach as we look forward to 2022.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Will Kiwis overseas be able to come home for Christmas under her Government’s border plan?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, as they are already able to do. We have released, in recent weeks, enough rooms for an additional 5,000 individuals from over 100 different countries, and this evening there is another release of well over 3,000 rooms across the October, November, and December period. Unfortunately, at the time this year when we had rooms available—which, if I recall correctly, was around the middle of the year, particularly around June; there were rooms available and vacant—that was not the time when there was high demand. I understand people wish to come home for summer and Christmas, and I encourage those who wish to do so to jump online tonight and to seek some of those more than 3,000 vouchers available.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Of the 30,000 New Zealanders seeking to come home for Christmas, how many of them will be able to do so without having to go through the managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) lottery?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is not how I would frame the MIQ booking system, but we had roughly 12,000 individuals who, up into that period, will be able to access New Zealand in the lead-up to summer. But it is clear that that seems to be where people are generally aiming, because in the last release, the rooms that were the last to go, that took a couple of hours before they were booked, were the most immediate ones, so the ones that were available in September were the last ones to go, and the ones that were available around December and January were amongst the first. So it is clear that there’s really high demand, and the highest demand regions are Australia first and UK second. So it gives you a bit of a sense of where people’s needs are. But when it comes to the self-isolation pilot, we’ll be running that through October through to December. The work has been done so that then, in 2022, once we have more vaccinated New Zealanders, we’ll be in a position to use that more broadly, and we’re also investigating the possibility of shortened isolation periods as well.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Prime Minister seen suggestions that we should both not be picking and choosing who can come back into the country whilst also imposing a greater degree of prioritisation on those who have access to managed isolation spaces?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I have. I believe the member may be referring to a former member of this House, but to be clear, I cannot necessarily attribute that to the strategy of the National Party or not, so I’ll leave that, as a suggestion, where it lies, albeit a contradictory one.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: What is the criteria for her to announce a change to level 2 for Auckland next week?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The same criteria that we’ve used all the way through: taking a very close look at whether or not we have good containment, whether or not we have unlinked cases that suggest we have a wider outbreak that still may not yet have been manifest, and our ability to safely move through the alert levels. One thing I would draw a distinction between: we are not in the same position as Australia who, for instance, are easing restrictions based on vaccines. We do still have an outbreak here in Auckland that means there is not widespread undetected community transmission, and that has enabled us to ease restrictions, but we’ll continue to focus on doing so safely.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: When will she release the most recent health advice that has informed the Cabinet decisions about alert levels during the most recent outbreak?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We actually verbally give a read out on that advice on the day that it’s provided. Dr Bloomfield is always asked what advice he provides, and he provides it. And so, for the last decision—despite, I do recall, the member trying to assert that we took a different decision to the advice that was provided around the alert level change; that was not correct—it is very rare for us to do anything markedly different than the advice that we receive from Health. But, otherwise, my recollection is that, as part of all our proactive releases, the written advice gets released, but, again, as I say, on the day, we often give that verbal report of what we’ve been advised by the director-general.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Why is the rest of the country outside Auckland still in level 2?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because there is an outbreak of Delta in Auckland.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she have a plan to keep Delta in Auckland away from, say, Invercargill that doesn’t involve the South Island being in level 2?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, and, hopefully, it involves that member being regularly tested.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Being what?

💬 SPEAKER: I am not going to ask the Prime Minister to repeat it.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Does she think that the South Island finds that comment from her particularly funny while they’re stuck in level 2 and they haven’t seen COVID-19 for almost a year?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That was plainly a reference to those who have been in Auckland who may be able to travel as an essential worker being regularly tested, because that is part of our regime now—that those who may have the ability to move around other parts of the country, to reduce the risk to those other parts of the country, to have a seven-day testing cycle. So that is one of the measures we have in place, but as we’ve seen with, unfortunately, a case that we did have of someone who was a legitimate freight worker, where we had a case where that individual was found to have travelled into the Bay of Plenty, not every system will capture everything, which is why we continue to have the rest of the country in a cautious state to ensure that, if we do have the emergence of a case, rather than having to put that area, be it Invercargill or anywhere else, into a higher alert level, we give ourselves a better chance to be able to contact trace that without heightened restrictions. So I think most understand why we’re doing that, and if you ask, “Would you rather be in level 2 and be cautious, or run the risk of a case and going into a lockdown?”, I suspect many would opt for that cautious approach.

💬 David Seymour: How frequently was waste water being tested in the Tauranga region under this cautious state? Was it daily, was it weekly, was it—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member has asked his question.

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: So we had a positive on Thursday, 23 September. Prior to that, we had a not detected on Tuesday the 21st.

Question No. 3—COVID-19 Response

3. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What recent announcements have been made on reconnecting New Zealand following COVID-19?

Yesterday, I announced new details of the Government’s self-isolation pilot, part of the reconnecting New Zealanders plan that we announced back in August. We are seeking expressions of interest from up to 150 people to participate in this pilot. It’s aimed at business travellers, allowing them to travel overseas on a short business trip and self-isolate in approved accommodation for 14 days from their return. The pilot will explore a new pathway of entry into New Zealand and it allows the Government to test operational readiness, identify areas where further work is required to scale up this approach, and provide valuable insights into our options for the future. The pilot’s a key step in our phased approach to reopening the border so that New Zealanders can reconnect with the world early next year.

💬 Dr Gaurav Sharma: What other recent announcements have been made regarding self-isolating pilots?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yesterday, the Government announced further details of one-way quarantine-free travel arrangements with Vanuatu, Samoa, and Tonga. Recognised Seasonal Employment scheme (RSE) workers from Vanuatu can begin arriving into New Zealand from 4 October, and Samoan and Tongan workers can start arriving from 12 October, providing much-needed certainty for our growers as they gear up for summer and autumn harvesting. People arriving under this scheme must meet strict health conditions, including a requirement to be vaccinated with at least one dose pre-departure. They must complete a period of self-isolation on arrival and return negative COVID-19 tests at day zero and day five. Employers will be providing the self-isolation facilities. This commencement of quarantine-free travel for RSE workers forms another pilot scheme that will also test systems in preparation for a broader and safe reopening of our borders.

💬 Dr Gaurav Sharma: How do these announcements fit into the Government’s wider plan for reconnecting with the world?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: These two pilots will be critical for reopening our borders, moving to an individualised risk - based model for quarantine-free travel. This individual risk - based approach requires new systems to be set up, including ongoing work on the development of a traveller health declaration system, investigating new testing technology for rapid testing on arrival at airports, and reliable pre-departure testing. Obviously, right now, getting vaccinated is the number one thing everybody can do to be protected against COVID-19, to help accelerate our economic recovery, to remove the need for lockdowns, and to safely allow New Zealand’s borders to begin to reopen.

Question No. 4—Health

4. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his actions, if any, around hospital resources and waiting lists?

Yes, and, in particular, I stand by my action of telling the New Zealand Nurses Organisation conference earlier this month that “In 2015 and 2016, no money whatsoever was spent on building new hospital wards and facilities—not a cent.”

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Why, as he stated in answer to written questions, was a request from Auckland DHB to build negative pressure rooms earlier this year, using $6 million that was underspent on a completed building project, rejected by health officials?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not quite sure what the member is referring to, but funding was made available to DHBs for upgrades of facilities, including creating negative pressure rooms. Many of the DHBs took advantage of that; some did not. I’m not quite sure what, specifically in relation to Auckland DHB, he is referring to, but I have inspected the additional negative pressure spaces that Auckland DHB have created.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Did he receive a request from Auckland DHB to build extra negative pressure rooms?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I, as Minister, don’t receive those requests. Funding was made available, and it is for the ministry, in its engagement with DHBs, following through on the programme agreed to at the end of last year, following last year’s lockdowns, to make hospitals better prepared for treating COVID patients.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: What action has he taken to address the backlog of in-patient procedures caused by the lockdown, and has the Government caught up with the backlog from last year’s lockdown?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Government last year approved $282.5 million over a three-year period to deal with the backlog caused by lockdowns last year. We’ve also approved an additional $90 million in this year’s Budget to continue to assist DHBs with that work. The reality is, lockdowns and COVID outbreaks cause disruption and cause disruption to DHBs and hospitals; that will have continued in the most recent lockdown, and I’m confident that the ministry, in its engagement with DHBs, is closely monitoring what is happening and further assistance will be provided as required.

💬 Dr Shane Reti: Is he confident then that he has done enough to prepare our hospitals for coronavirus?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can go back to what has been done since last year’s lockdowns and outbreaks. Since that time, the Ministry of Health has set up a dedicated group led by Russell Simpson, the CEO of Whanganui DHB, on a considerable programme of preparing our hospitals for future outbreaks and a new regime, as against a highly vaccinated population.

Question No. 5—ACC

5. to the Minister for ACC: Xiexie, Mr Speaker. What recent announcement has she made about improving health and equity outcomes for women?

on behalf of the Minister for ACC: Today, I announce that we’re proposing to amend ACC legislation to cover more injuries experienced by women during childbirth. This change will help up to 18,000 more women per year, who will be able to receive cover for maternal birth injuries. This important change is the first of its kind and a first step towards improving the gender balance, fairness, and equity of the ACC scheme.

💬 Sarah Pallett: Why is this change important?

Eighty-five percent of women in New Zealand experience a form of birthing injury and, of these, 5 percent are severe enough to require ongoing treatment and care. Many birthing injuries—for example, bruising and tearing—share similar features to other physical injuries, such as accidents, that are covered by ACC, so it’s only fair that these injuries are covered too. This list of birthing injuries has been developed and tested with ACC and medical experts, including specialists in obstetrics and gynaecology.

💬 Sarah Pallett: What feedback has she seen on today’s announcement?

The New Zealand College of Midwives have welcomed the change in an announcement saying, “We are very pleased to see that our feedback, along with that from many others in the sector, was taken seriously and ACC’s approach to this category will be reviewed.” And obstetrician and Auckland University lecturer Dr Michelle Wise said, “This enables women to have a whole other source of cover for things like physiotherapy, which is really important to get help to recover and [to minimise] symptoms.”

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. to the Prime Minister: Ni hao. Does she stand by her statement that “Every New Zealander has had an opportunity to be vaccinated now”?

Yes. I went on to say, “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.” The Government is working with DHBs and health providers to increase vaccination rates across all our communities. This weekend, we reached another milestone, with more than 5 million vaccinations administered and 1.8 million New Zealanders being fully vaccinated. That represents nearly 44 percent of our eligible population. In Auckland, 82 percent of the eligible population have now had their first vaccine. I’ve said before, it’s not enough for the country as a whole to have high vaccination rates. We need to ensure a high uptake right across New Zealand. Our plan reconnecting New Zealand is all about building on our vaccine roll-out, though, to connect all New Zealanders to the world in a safe way.

💬 David Seymour: How can she stand by her statement that “Every New Zealander has … an opportunity to be vaccinated now” when those in group 4 have had only four weeks since 1 September and they have to wait six weeks for their second dose?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because at the time, the member was implying that there wasn’t enough vaccine available for someone to access the vaccine today if they would like to, and my response was that that was incorrect. We did have the supply. We have walk-ins, drive-throughs, the ability to be vaccinated today. If the member wished for me to extrapolate—that full vaccination, of course, would take a minimum of a 21-day delay between the first and second dose, and then another 14 days for full efficacy—I would have been happy to expand on that answer.

💬 David Seymour: By what date does the Government consider every New Zealander will have had the chance to be double vaccinated?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, obviously, we now have availability and bookings available up and down the country. For the member’s edification, we also—I see he’s put it up as a new idea—actually already have 867 primary care sites and 325 non-primary care sites, so pharmacies and the like, where vaccines are available. So there are opportunities up and down the country. I think what you can see, though, from the vaccine numbers that we have at the moment is that like many other countries—some reached this point sooner than us—we’ve reached a point now where we now are having conversations with individuals around their, perhaps, reluctance to be vaccinated, and it is taking a bit of that extra effort from those on the ground to work with those who have as yet not accessed a vaccine, even though the availability is there.

💬 David Seymour: Why were approximately half the pharmacies and half the GPs in Auckland still waiting to be on-boarded into the vaccine roll-out two weeks ago—that is, six months after the roll-out started?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: A number have been on-boarded progressively as our supply has increased, but I don’t think there’s any suggestion that people aren’t able to access a vaccine quickly and easily at this point in the programme.

💬 David Seymour: Will the Government consider its vaccine roll-out to be complete when every eligible New Zealander has had an opportunity to have both doses, where 90 percent of eligible New Zealanders have had an opportunity to have or have had both doses, or when 90 percent of eligible people in each ethnic group have had both doses?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We’ve referred to 90-plus. So whilst we haven’t said we have this Government proclamation around a target, we have said that we want “The higher the better”. We’ve talked about 90-plus because, keep in mind, 90-plus of the current eligible population only equates to about 75 percent of New Zealanders, and we have seen in countries with even rates like that that they are continuing to have to use restrictions. We don’t want to use those, which is why the higher that we are in our vaccination rates, the fewer restrictions we see.

I can see the member’s point he’s trying to make. You are trying to make an assertion that once everyone’s had a chance, it then comes down to their personal responsibility. But with vaccination, it is just not going to work like that, because if an individual is vaccinated but they still want to be able to access healthcare, then that implies that we don’t have an overrun health workforce or overrun hospitals. It implies that you won’t have outbreaks somehow, but we know that that won’t be the case. If we have a proportion of New Zealanders who opt out, we will have outbreaks that will lead to restrictions, and that will impinge on everyone’s lives. So it is not a simple equation of “If you’ve just had a chance, then unfortunately game’s up and it’s all over for everyone.” It is not as simple as that. If only the world were that simple.

💬 David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister just give the House and the New Zealand public a straightforward answer to the question: when will she define the vaccine programme or roll-out as being complete?

💬 Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I did at the beginning of my answer. I said very clearly that we’re aiming for above 90 percent, because even that only equates to roughly 75 percent of New Zealanders. The higher we have our rates, the more likely it is that we’ll be able to live without having to have some of those restrictions that have impacted on our daily lives. We’ve also said we want to see good even spread. If you have large pockets of, for instance, young people who are unvaccinated or, indeed, large pockets of towns, you will see heavy impacts in those areas, because you don’t have an even spread of vaccine.

Question No. 7—Finance

7. to the Minister of Finance: What advice has he received, if any, on the economic impact on New Zealand businesses of the alert levels imposed across New Zealand since 18 August?

I’ve received a steady stream of advice from many sources about the economic impact on New Zealand businesses under the alert levels, actually, since March last year but also since 18 August. I would test the Speaker’s patience if I listed each piece of that advice, but to give the member a flavour of what I’ve been receiving: underpinning all of this has been the continued advice that New Zealand’s alert level system has helped us maintain one of the strongest economies in the world throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, with strong economic growth, low unemployment, and lower than expected debt. Just today, Statistics New Zealand released data showing the number of jobs in the economy rose by nearly 16,000, or 0.7 percent, across August. The advice we get continues to back our strategy since the start of COVID-19 that the best economic response is a strong public health response.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he seen reports that the wage subsidy and resurgence support payments do little to help with fixed operating costs associated with running many businesses under Delta alert level 2 or 3?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve seen a range of views expressed about the wage subsidy scheme and the resurgence support programme. What we do know is that the resurgence support programme is particularly focused on fixed costs because it does not in any way have to be linked to wage payments.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: What does he say to members of the accommodation and hospitality sectors who sought meetings with him to explain their plight, only to be passed on to the Minister of Tourism, who told them his diary is too full?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise of the member’s question. I’ve met with representatives of the hospitality industry.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he accept that if over 35,000 businesses who applied for the wage subsidy still hadn’t received it 35 days after New Zealand went into lockdown, there’s a strong likelihood that businesses will close and thousands of New Zealanders will lose their jobs?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think it’s important to note that around 91 percent of applications for the wage subsidy scheme are paid out within the three-day target that has been set. For those businesses who have not been able to have their application processed, there is now a strong programme of outward calling from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and the Inland Revenue Department. As I’ve said in this House before, I strongly urge those who apply for these programmes to make sure that the details that they provide about their business are the same as those that are held by Inland Revenue if they’re applying to MSD. We continue to work with the agencies to do as much as possible to follow up on those cases.

Question No. 8—Health

8. to the Minister of Health: Ni hao, Mr Speaker. What recent announcements has he made on the progress of the Health and Disability System Review reforms?

Last week, my colleague Peeni Henare and I announced the appointments of an outstanding group of people with extensive and wide-ranging governance and health experience to the interim boards for Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority. I was pleased to announce that Rob Campbell has been appointed as the chair of Health New Zealand, and Sharon Shea and Tipa Mahuta as co-chairs of the Māori Health Authority. The board of Health New Zealand will also include the Hon Amy Adams, Cassandra Crowley, the Hon Vui Mark Gosche, Dame Karen Poutasi, Vanessa Stoddart, Dr Curtis Walker, and Sharon Shea. As well as the co-chairs of the Māori Health Authority, the board of that organisation will also comprise Dr Sue Crengle, Dr Mataroria Lyndon, Lady Tureiti Moxon, Fiona Pimm, Awerangi Tamihere, and Dr Chris Tooley.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: What do these announcements mean for the future of the health sector?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: This Government is building a truly national health system, to provide consistent, high-quality services right across the country. This is another step towards fixing the health system so it works for everyone. Health New Zealand will bring together the country’s 20 district health boards, a workforce of about 80,000 people, an annual operating budget of $20 billion, and an asset base of about $24 billion. The Māori Health Authority will work alongside Health New Zealand with a joint role in developing system plans and commissioning for primary and community services, and will commission kaupapa Māori services. The Māori Health Authority will also work alongside the Ministry of Health to develop strategies and policies that work for Māori.

💬 Dr Liz Craig: What do these appointments mean for New Zealanders?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The members of the new boards share a dedication to improve the country’s health and wellbeing, with a strong community focus. I’m confident our new health entities are in the best possible hands to drive this long-overdue transformation. This marks a significant milestone in progress towards a more equitable health system. The future health system that we’re developing will mean that New Zealanders will be able to have equitable access to healthcare, to live longer with the best possible quality of life, no matter who they are or where they live.

Question No. 9—COVID-19 Response

9. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Does he stand by all of the Government’s statements and actions in response to COVID-19?

Yes, in particular my ongoing statement that this Government will continue to improve the COVID-19 response by keeping an open mind to new innovation or advancement that could help in the fight against the virus. We operate a model of continual improvement, which means that as new science and technology comes to light, we incorporate these into our response, and that’s allowed us to keep New Zealanders safe whilst maintaining as many freedoms as possible. Strong control of the virus within New Zealand will ensure that we maintain the economic and social stability, freedoms, and health outcomes that our team of 5 million have earned with our elimination approach.

💬 Chris Bishop: Has he seen the photos of US President Joe Biden receiving his first booster shot in the last 24 hours, and why has New Zealand still not ordered any booster vaccine doses?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That is simply not true—the latter part of the statement is simply not true. We have got available to us a portfolio of vaccines over the next year, and we continue to add to that portfolio.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why did New Zealand only start to record the vaccination status of people entering managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) on August 23 this year?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because that’s when we started to record the vaccination status of people entering MIQ. Up until that point, and even now, it’s still largely an interesting piece of information but it isn’t necessarily telling us a lot. There is still risk associated with those people, including those who have been vaccinated.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Does the Minister stand by his statements on the Government’s purchasing of the Pfizer vaccine in light of the statement by Pfizer that accusations that New Zealand could have paid for earlier access to the vaccine are “incorrect and baseless”?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I have consistently said, New Zealand has never had an option to pay more for doses in order to get access to them earlier. This is not Saudi sheep we’re talking about, and suggestions to the contrary suggest that big pharma has a higher ethical and moral threshold than some of the members opposite.

💬 SPEAKER: I think the member in his final comment went—well, at least by implication, he went too far. The inference I took from it was a lack of moral standing on the part of the Opposition. The member can’t say that. He will withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Further to that answer, how can it be possible that the Minister stands by his statements when Chris Bishop has repeatedly said we could have got access to vaccine by paying for it?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I simply refer everybody to the statements made by Pfizer: New Zealand has never—never—been offered the opportunity to get earlier access to vaccines. Pfizer have been operating a global allocation model to ensure that countries have equitable access to vaccines. They have worked constructively with us to supply vaccines as quickly as they have been able to, and we have also been able to bring extra doses into the country by purchasing them off other countries, and Pfizer have worked with us to help facilitate that.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is he aware of why the Prime Minister’s first phone call with the CEO of Pfizer, Albert Bourla, was not until March 2021 this year, and is he aware of why she didn’t pick up the phone and call the Pfizer CEO in 2020, when we were negotiating the vaccine contracts?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I simply remind that member that the National Party late last year and early this year were demanding to know whether we were going to have access to AstraZeneca vaccines, because at that point that was the vaccine of choice for some of the members opposite, and they were arguing that we hadn’t done enough to secure access to that vaccine. The decision to increase the order for Pfizer was made early this year. Shortly after we made that decision, the Prime Minister made her call to Pfizer to see how quickly we could get those delivered.

💬 Nicole McKee: What actions is the Minister taking through COVID-19 orders to ensure that those caught up in firearms licensing delays are not forced to break the law?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I haven’t taken any particular action with regard to that, but if the member wants to have a conversation about it, then I’m happy to look at it.

Question No. 10—Local Government

10. to the Minister of Local Government: Xiexie, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by her comments on Three Waters reforms that “Pausing the reform discussion will not help to respond to the significant challenges facing councils”; if so, why?

Xiexie, Mr Speaker. Yes, because the case for change is compelling, well understood, and needs to be addressed. Doing nothing is simply not an option. To expect a responsible Government to ignore the evidence would be simply irresponsible. The proposed reforms focus on how this country can most efficiently and effectively deliver an investment of $120 billion to $185 billion over the next 30 years to transform water outcomes for all New Zealanders. Central and local government working together would make sense so taxpayers and ratepayers get the long-term benefits of a significant step change.

💬 Rachel Brooking: What has she done to ensure that the local government sector are well informed and contributing to the Three Waters work programme?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: From the beginning, I’ve worked in good faith to define the nature, scale, and extent of the Three Waters challenge, and, while a complex issue, some councils have been well engaged and others have only recently joined the debate. We’ve engaged on problem definition, which is under-investment in waters infrastructure for at least the last decade. We’ve discovered the debt ceiling borrowing limit is a significant constraint and that on the whole, long-term plans (LTPs) have not funded infrastructure deficits sufficiently to keep up with maintenance, renewals, and growth. That’s why $710 million was invested from the COVID economic recovery fund to enable councils to bring forward maintenance and renewals forecast in their LTPs, supporting local jobs with local businesses. We’ve also worked together on commencing the companion conversation on the future for local government, which, at the request of the sector, is designed to ensure that the role and function of councils remain integral to achieving broader wellbeing outcomes for their communities.

💬 Rachel Brooking: Does she consider that the sector has received enough information to support the proposed Three Waters approach to reform?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes, and it is a challenging set of reforms and challenging to digest. Thirteen Cabinet papers have been proactively released through the three-year period, along with a number of critical reports. Overall, there are well over 100 documents on the Department of Internal Affairs’ website, including a huge range of papers on financial modelling, summaries of the extensive stakeholder engagement, and the overall case for change. Additionally, individual councils have spent their own resources to commission contestable advice, often because they were never in favour of reform or they wanted to remain outside of the solution that sought nationwide benefits for all ratepayer households. Sadly, the cost pressures looming for councils from higher health and environmental standards will mean ratepayers will bear the brunt if the status quo remains. That was never my intention, and the reforms are about a financially sustainable pathway with real benefits for ratepayers.

💬 Rachel Brooking: Does she consider that the sector has received enough time to engage with the community?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Thank you for that question. This is a complex reform process. Sadly, local elected leaders with very good information are asking their community to make a decision based on less information. I’d hoped that by working in partnership with local government, the conversation with the community would focus on key challenges with the current system so they understand why the discussion was under way. This commenced some three years ago. My expectation was to work in partnership with local government, and, to that end, right from the beginning I’ve maintained that a public ownership model that would safeguard against privatisation is the starting point. I’ve also undertaken to bring forward the positive working relationships that councils have with iwi, and we’ve identified ways in which equity and consumer benefits can be achieved through economic regulation. Importantly, we’ve also worked to ensure that there is sound transitional planning for workforce continuity for those in the sector. Sadly, while councils have received this information, the community has not, and we were going to work together to ensure that they did. I’m mindful that a partnership works both ways.

💬 Barbara Kuriger: Will the Minister rule out making Three Waters reforms compulsory for councils; and, if not, why not?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I’ll rule in the fact that the case for change is compelling and well understood. We’ve moved well—[Interruption] should the members wish to hear the answer—past the starting point of not understanding the complexity and the scale of the challenge, to, actually, now the sector understanding that there is a significant challenge with huge costs looming on councils that we need to find a different way. The status quo will not work.

Mr Speaker, point of order. I seek leave to table a letter received from Water New Zealand, the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia, and the Association of Consulting Engineers expressing their continued support for the Three Waters reform.

💬 SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. I apologise for the lateness; the Minister popped in with her own point of order. The last question was not addressed. The question was around compulsion; she answered it with a case for change, and—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. Have a good look at Speaker’s ruling 180/4. It is very clear.

💬 David Seymour: Point of order. This is a matter of enormous public interest. Now, 180/4 notwithstanding, I think it would be good for the House and this Parliament if the Minister could plainly address whether the Government will rule out legislation—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat now. I have warned the member previously for taking up rulings which I have made, which have been clear, and he is being argumentative to the point where he is trying to overturn a long history of Speakers’ rulings. If he wishes to make a change of that sort to the way this Parliament works, I suggest that he makes that suggestion to the Standing Orders Committee, because it is not going to be a ruling that I overturn on the floor of the House. I want to say to Michael Woodhouse, if he continues this argument I will regard him as being deliberately disorderly.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. My point of order had nothing to do with Speaker’s ruling 180/4.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, that might be the member’s opinion; it’s not mine.

Question No. 11—ACC

11. to the Minister for ACC: Fakafetai lasi and xiexie, Mr Speaker. Is she confident the changes to ACC announced today will create comprehensive cover for all injuries resulting from childbirth?

on behalf of the Minister for ACC: As I said in my response to the earlier question, 85 percent of women in New Zealand experience a birth injury and 5 percent of these are severe and require ongoing care. Under current legislation, most of these injuries are not covered by ACC despite sharing similar features to other physical injuries covered as accidents. That’s not fair, and it is why I have worked with ACC and medical experts on a list of birth injuries that will ensure up to 18,000 more women are covered each year. The list is intended to include all acute injuries to a birthing parent that results from the birth process.

💬 Jan Logie: Is she concerned that a definitive list of birth injuries may result in situations where some birth injuries are covered but others are not, for arbitrary reasons?

Indeed, which is why the types of injuries that were covered were carefully considered and advice was sought, including from experts in obstetrics and gynaecology, on the types of injuries that can occur in the birth process. We agree that this is an important area: the matter of who is covered and not covered. As new legislation will be required to bring in these changes, there will be an opportunity to scrutinise this at the select committee.

💬 Jan Logie: Why has she chosen to include uterine prolapse on the list of birth injuries that will now get ACC cover—which we’re grateful for—but not bladder prolapse, for example?

My understanding of the rationale for uterine prolapse is that uterine prolapse is not an injury, it is the result of other injuries that are included on the list and that is why coverage could be received for uterine prolapse. If the member wants further advice on the matter of bladder prolapse, she may need to put that question in writing.

💬 Jan Logie: So can the Minister confirm that she is open to expanding the list or adopting a broader definition or non-exhaustive list if further birth injuries are identified through the select committee process?

We have gone through a thorough process with experts in the area to make this list, and we expect that it will hold up to scrutiny through the select committee process.

💬 Jan Logie: Will she ensure that the changes apply retrospectively so that a new parent who gave birth, say, two months ago, who may still be suffering from birth injuries, will also be eligible for cover and rehabilitation?

As the member will know from her time in Government, the legislation guidelines are clear that the starting point for all legislation is that it should have prospective, not retrospective, effect. Retrospective changes to ACC would make it extremely difficult to predict the volume of claims that would be made to ACC and balance the interest of ACC levy payers. There are exceptions to this rule, but Cabinet’s test for retrospective cover includes things like addressing a previous legal error or addressing a matter that is essential for public safety. While there have been some retrospective changes to ACC to correct errors, new categories of cover have not been created retrospectively, and doing so would create a dangerous precedent.

💬 Jan Logie: Is the Minister comfortable with continuing to deny ACC cover to babies injured during birth when adults and children experiencing disability because of accident are covered?

The changes announced today are about fairness and improving equity and health outcomes for women. Extending cover to injuries suffered by babies during childbirth would mark a significant change to the nature of the cover under the scheme. It would also have an impact on the long-term sustainability of the scheme. Officials have estimated the cost of covering children injured during childbirth to be at least $375 million to $525 million per year. This number is only based on the number of babies who have severe brain injury at birth due to hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, which is just one type of injury suffered during childbirth.

💬 Jan Logie: How will this approach that only intends to cover some physical injury, excluding injuries to pēpē and broader mental health, meet the needs of Māori whānau for holistic support?

The mental health issues caused by an injury that is covered by the scheme would be subject to cover, so that is addressed through the changes that we propose. I think in terms of the wider issues around the mental health of whānau around the time during and after childbirth, we as a Government know that that is an important area of work, and my colleague the Associate Minister of Health has added two items of work to the maternity action plan updated and released today. That includes one particular area of mental trauma after the loss of a child. That will be worked on first by research with those whānau and, secondly, by the development of a bereavement pathway. Secondly, we are doing much wider work in the area of stocktaking maternal mental health services to guide further strengthening of those services.

Question No. 12—Immigration

12. to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions regarding migrant health workers?

Talofa, Mr Speaker. Yes. As I’ve said on a number of occasions, the Government acknowledges that there has been an impact of the closed border on our wider immigration system, and this has caused difficulties for a number of migrants both onshore and offshore. The Government has taken a pragmatic approach to manage these impacts where possible—for example, critical health worker border exceptions, visa extensions for workers onshore, and class exceptions for family reunification for migrant health workers. We are close to giving both the migrant workers and their employers the certainty they require while our border settings remain tight.

💬 Nicola Willis: What is his response to the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, who have written to him warning that nurses are leaving New Zealand because they are “made to feel unwelcome” by an immigration system that keeps them in a permanent state of temporariness?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I would say to that organisation that one of the first actions that the Government did was to make sure we did allow critical health workers into the country to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic by ensuring that there was a border exception for critical health workers, and, as I’ve said in my primary answer, we are very close to giving both migrants and their employers the certainty that they would need around their long-term future here in New Zealand.

💬 Nicola Willis: Has the Minister of Health met with him to seek an immigration solution for addressing New Zealand’s shortage of ICU nurses, given their vital role in our COVID response?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: A number of my ministerial colleagues have expressed issues and challenges that their sectors have. As I have pointed out to a number of questioners from the Opposition, instead of taking a sector by sector approach, the Government is looking at a comprehensive solution to the problems that some of those migrants face.

💬 Nicola Willis: How can he be confident that the critical healthcare worker border exception is addressing ICU nurse shortages when he has admitted that Immigration New Zealand is not collecting data on how many ICU nurses enter New Zealand?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I’m confident that the border exception is meeting the needs in terms of the flow of critical health workers in. I understand that between August of last year and mid-September of this year, close to 7,000 critical health workers and their dependants were able to come into New Zealand to fill some of those positions.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Can he confirm that one of the reasons the Government is having to rely on border exceptions for critical health workers is because in the decade before the Government took office, insufficient attention had been given to health workforce planning and training enough people to fill the jobs that are available?

💬 Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I understand that that member is accurate in his description of the situation.