Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: What action is the Government taking to modernise New Zealand’s research, science, and innovation system?

This morning, Dr Verrall and I launched the Te Ara Paerangi Future Pathways green paper, marking the start of a wide-ranging and collaborative conversation about the future of New Zealand’s research and science system. Our research, science, and innovation system has served us well, especially in its response to COVID-19. Scientists and researchers have been amongst the heroes of the pandemic, but the world is a very different place now to when the system was created in the 1990s. We need to ensure that the great work of our scientists can continue, and we need a modern, future-focused research and science system that is connected, adaptable, resilient, and diverse.

💬 Glen Bennett: How will Te Ara Paerangi incorporate Māori voices?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The 2021 Te Pūtahitanga report showed that little data exists on the scale of investment in research conducted by Māori or for the benefit of Māori. Recent research has shown Māori make up 3 percent of total research staff at Crown research institutes, and 4.8 percent of academic and university staff. We need to do better than this. A modern, future-focused research system must strengthen the role of Māori in and consider how the system achieves outcomes for Māori. We need to embed Te Tiriti across our system, better enabling mātauranga Māori in the interface between mātauranga and other forms of research, and it’s vital that we do more to remove barriers to entry in advancement of Māori as part of a thriving research system.

💬 Glen Bennett: How can people have their say on Te Ara Paerangi?

💬 Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Consultation on Te Ara Paerangi Future Pathways green paper will draw on the collective wisdom, experience, and inspiration of our researchers and research users. We need to gather a broad base of views on the performance of the current system to better understand the issues it faces and the opportunities for the future. For New Zealand’s ongoing success, prosperity, and wellbeing, it’s essential that we get this right. Consultation will be open until March 2022, and there is a number of ways New Zealanders can have their say. More information, including the full green paper, is available on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s website.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: What advice, if any, has he received on the number of business closures and workers laid off as a result of the current lockdown?

I receive a range of advice on the impact of the outbreak and the restrictions on the economy as a whole, including official advice from the Treasury. I also receive informal advice from the many interactions I have with businesses and workers in Auckland and around the country. At an aggregate level, Treasury estimate that at the current alert level settings, around 90 to 95 percent of the economy is operating at normal levels of activity. As I informed the member yesterday, official figures from the Companies Office show liquidations in the period have not been materially different to 2020 and 2019, nor have removals from the Companies Register. In terms of workers, I would note the number of people on a main benefit did increase after the lockdown began. However, it has fallen consistently since then. This week, ANZ have forecast unemployment to fall to 3.8 percent in the September quarter, and—for the benefit of the member—that includes both men and women in that 3.8 figure. I recognise that some businesses and workers are doing it tough, particularly in Auckland, and that’s why the Government has acted swiftly to put in place the economic support that we have to protect businesses, jobs, and livelihoods, with around $4.8 billion being paid out so far since 17 August. Our enhanced business package provides further support to businesses as we move to the new COVID-19 Protection Framework, and I would note that that support has been welcomed by the region’s business leaders.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Has he seen analysis of Companies Office data widely reported in the media showing that there were 9,524 business closures in August, up 140 percent on the 3 months to July?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m aware of the data that the member is reporting, and I’d ask him to use it with some caution in light of the fact that I’m not sure that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment or the Companies Office fully support that data. However, what I can give the member is more up-to-date numbers provided by the Companies Office that the number of company removals recorded by the Companies Office to the end of September was 22,458 for the year. That compares to 22,352 in 2020, and 23,209 in 2019.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Has he seen reports that business closures in Auckland were up almost 14 percent in September compared to last year’s monthly average, and, if so, is he inclined to revisit the answer he gave in response to my question yesterday on business closures?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No; in answer to the second part of the question, no. I’ve just given the member on details on company removals from the Companies Office. I could also inform him that company registrations—i.e., new companies being created, in the year to the end of September 2021—were 50,513, an increase in registrations on both 2020 and 2019.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: Has the Government put any specific support in place to help Auckland small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) get through the Delta outbreak?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely. In addition to the wage subsidy scheme and the Resurgence Support Payment, which are now being paid in the majority to Auckland businesses, we now have the specific support delivered through the regional business partner programme and, in this case, Auckland Unlimited to Auckland businesses. That would be $50 million worth of support for advice and implementation of that advice to support businesses to adapt to the COVID era, and also $10 million to support SMEs with any mental health needs. I want to thank the member who asked the question for his role in that work.

💬 Andrew Bayly: When he said yesterday that since the current lockdown began, liquidations have been roughly equal to the same period as in 2020, was he aware that most companies that closed for good don’t go through formal liquidation processes?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said to the member yesterday, I was using the data that we have available. I’ve given him additional data today around company removals and also around company registrations. I acknowledge this has been a tough period for many businesses in Auckland, but what the Government has done is stepped up and provided support for them. If you just take the wage subsidy scheme, we’re talking 329,153 businesses, in addition to 180,599 self-employed people. This is hard work for people in Auckland. It’s the reason why the Government has stepped up with the support we have.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Did he try to use the formal liquidation figures yesterday to mask the real impact of the current lockdown?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Of course not.

💬 Andrew Bayly: When he said yesterday in the House that the best thing for the country is to stick with the plan, was he referring to the plan to reconnect New Zealand announced 12 August, the Auckland roadmap plan announced 4 October, the COVID Protection Framework on 22 October, or the next plan that comes into place on 29 November?

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Coming from National!

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I was going to say. Coming from a party that has, as has been said in the House before, the attention of a bored cat when it comes to COVID—going in and out, changing their position—

💬 Chris Bishop: Oh, come on!

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Bishop says, “Come on!” Mr Bishop, I can update on yesterday in the House that the National Party’s now had five positions on vaccine certificates in the last few days. The plan I was referring to was indeed the COVID response framework. That is the plan that sees us through to the reconnecting New Zealanders strategy. It’s the plan that’s delivered to New Zealand one of the lowest mortality rates in the world, one of the lowest hospitalisation rates in the world, one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, and one of the highest rates of economic growth. The Government has been focused on saving lives and livelihoods—that is the plan.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Does he now regret that he didn’t act sooner to boost support for hard-pressed Auckland businesses and to save the jobs that they provide?

💬 Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government acted immediately on the outbreak coming into place by putting the wage subsidy scheme in. Throughout that time, we’ve continued to tweak that support in response to Auckland businesses, and we are now in a position where we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, where we continue to provide the support that we do. We have updated our support throughout the last 20 months, and I would note that the latest update to it was received by the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, saying that we had listened and provided a balanced response; by the Employers and Manufacturers Association, who said they were pleased with the support; and by Hospitality New Zealand, who were impressed by the doubling of the Resurgence Support Payment.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the next member, I just want to give a little bit of advice, and that is that when members interject during an answer, they do invite the Minister to go on, in a way, for longer than would normally be allowed, and that’s certainly occurred on that occasion. I would have cut the Minister off quite a lot earlier if there had not been the continuing invitations from the member who was interjecting.

Question No. 3—Agriculture

3. to the Minister of Agriculture: Mālō ni, Mr Speaker. What actions, if any, is he taking to address the possible environmental impact of imported PKE used as supplementary feed in Aotearoa?

on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: I am advised that the Government is concerned about deforestation and is actively engaged in a range of multilateral bodies that promote and share experiences on sustainable forest management. I’m also advised that the Ministry for Primary Industries, through the Sustainable Farming Fund, contributed $415,000 towards a joint project of almost $1 million with Northland Dairy Development Trust to show farmers how they can farm without palm kernel expeller (PKE), and they’re investing in a portfolio of research into establishing evidence for regenerative farming practices.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Is the Minister aware of the recent report from Greenpeace Indonesia Deceased Estate: Illegal palm oil wiping out Indonesia’s national forest, and, if so, does he see continued use of PKE sourced from Indonesia as a risk to the international reputation of New Zealand agriculture?

On behalf of the Minister: I’m aware of the report. I haven’t read it, but the New Zealand Government would not support importation that has led to illegal activity in foreign nations.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Does the Minister agree that New Zealand, as the largest importer of PKE in the world, has a responsibility to ensure PKE used on our farms is not contributing to environmental disruption overseas through habitat loss for endangered species like orang-utan, Sumatran tigers, and elephants, and, if not, why not?

My understanding is that our use of PKE has dropped significantly on New Zealand farms, and also—as mentioned in my answer to the primary question—that we have actually spent close to half a million dollars to work with farmers to reduce their use of PKE.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Does the Minister consider that intensive farming reliant on PKE as supplementary feed and involving large feedlots such as the one recently reported on in Ashburton is consistent with this Government’s aspiration for the agricultural sector in Aotearoa?

On behalf of the Minister: again, I understand that PKE accounts for approximately 6 to 7 percent of total feed consumed by New Zealand dairy cows, and so I wouldn’t say it’s a substantial feed source at all.

💬 Teanau Tuiono: Will the Minister seek further advice on restricting import for use of supplementary feeds like PKE to address the environmental impact of both intensive farming in New Zealand and deforestation overseas, and, if not, why not?

On behalf of the Minister: it’s not on the Government programme. However, markets tend to adjust to consumer expectations. That’s why I prefer Whittaker’s over Cadbury.

Question No. 4—COVID-19 Response

4. to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What recent announcements has he made regarding the managed isolation and quarantine system?

Today, I announced that from 14 November, managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) stays for border arrivals will be halved to seven days, followed by a short period of self-isolation at home and release once somebody has had a negative day 9 test. When the MIQ system was introduced, we didn’t have a vaccine, so every arrival posed a higher level of risk. With most people now fully vaccinated when they arrive in New Zealand, the risk profile of international arrivals has changed, so it’s time to start changing our MIQ settings. Arrivals will be tested at day zero or day one, day three, and day six or seven. A rapid antigen test and the health checks will be carried out on day seven before a person leaves MIQ, and people will get a PCR test on day nine when they are at home and they’ll have to stay at home until the result comes back. This announcement strikes the right balance, managing the current risk from overseas arrivals, while taking a significant step in the Government’s ongoing strategy to carefully reconnect New Zealand with the rest of the world.

💬 Sarah Pallett: What impact will these changes have on MIQ capacity?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The evolution of MIQ will initially free up more than 1,500 rooms per month. These spaces will enable us to do two things. They’ll allow rooms to continue to support the Auckland outbreak, and some additional Managed Isolation Allocation System (MIAS) rooms will be available for release. Modelling for the number of rooms needed for those high-risk community cases isn’t yet conclusive to be able to say for certain exactly how many rooms will be made available through MIAS vouchers for international travellers, but there certainly will be some. It does, however, indicate that the direction that we’re heading in will see fewer restrictions at the border for people coming into New Zealand who are lower risk, such as those who are fully vaccinated and have up-to-date negative COVID-19 test results.

💬 Sarah Pallett: How does today’s announcement fit into the Government’s wider reconnecting New Zealand strategy?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Shortened stays in MIQ were part of our international reconnecting plan that we announced just shortly prior to the current Delta outbreak in Auckland. The second stage of our plan will see New Zealanders move towards having more vaccinated people able to self-isolate at home instead of in MIQ. That option will be made available to increasing numbers of fully vaccinated travellers in the first quarter of 2022. Our priority at this stage is to carefully transition to the new traffic light system first, and bed that in before adding the additional risk of international arrivals immediately entering the community. When the COVID-19 Protection Framework is bedded in, 90 percent of eligible New Zealanders will be fully vaccinated, so we’ll have a higher level of confidence than we do right now of allowing international arrivals to go straight into the community.

Question No. 5—COVID-19 Response

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

Yes. In particular, I stand by our action to shorten managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) stays to seven days, followed by a short period of self-isolation at home, which strikes the right balance between managing risk from overseas arrivals while taking a significant step to reconnecting New Zealand to the rest of the world.

💬 Chris Bishop: Is it correct that a prototype for the travel health pass will be ready by 26 November and why will it only be a prototype on 26 November?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There’s two things the member may be referring to. One is the health certificate, which is used domestically. The other is international travel documentation used for the purposes of leaving and entering New Zealand. One of the reasons that things around the international space are less certain is that an international standard for that has not yet been reached. It is important that whatever system we adopt here in New Zealand is interoperable with systems being adopted by other countries. We are working closely with Australia and the EU in particular around making sure that the system that we’re putting in place is interoperable with their system, because it is in all of our best interests for there to be a good degree of transferability around health passes, vaccination, and testing results for the purposes of international travel.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why do doubly vaccinated, negatively tested Kiwis overseas have to wait until the first quarter of 2022 before they can begin isolating at home after arriving into New Zealand?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We have to recognise, as I said yesterday, our international border operates across the country, not just in Auckland. Outside of Auckland, at the moment, we do not have significant numbers of COVID-19 cases. We are dealing with some very localised and relatively contained outbreaks at the moment. But having travellers arriving straight into New Zealand and able to freely move about the country to isolate at home would significantly increase risk in the current context. That’s not going to be the case for much longer. As we get to the point where we have a significant number of New Zealanders vaccinated—above 90 percent—and we move to the traffic light framework, then the risk profile will be different.

💬 Chris Bishop: Has the Government commissioned a business case looking at the construction of purpose-built managed isolation facilities, and, if so, what are the terms and time lines of this work?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A number of different things have been going on in the MIQ space around what our longer-term capacity needs might be in the MIQ space. Of course, those continue to change, and I would note that if we had commissioned purpose-built MIQ facilities when the member started agitating for that, we could potentially be cutting the ribbon on them right at the point where they’re no longer needed.

💬 Chris Bishop: Point of order. That was a very specific question, which I do not believe was addressed. He just said there was a bunch of work going on. My question was whether or not the Government had commissioned a business case looking at the construction of purpose-built MIQ.

💬 SPEAKER: I think the first part of it was specific enough to be addressed.

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We continue to investigate a range of options. Business cases are being prepared for a variety of different scenarios around the future needs of MIQ.

💬 Chris Bishop: Does New Zealand’s agreement with Pfizer for the COVID-19 vaccine entitle us to order paediatric doses, and have we done so?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The advice that I’ve had is yes—the answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part of the question is Pfizer are certainly—in our discussions with Pfizer, they know that we wish to have access to those vaccines. At this point, we don’t have a confirmed timetable for the delivery of those.

💬 Chris Bishop: So is it correct to say that our contract with Pfizer allows us to order paediatric doses of the Pfizer vaccine, but we haven’t done so yet?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, that would be an overly simplistic way of thinking about things. In an international market for vaccines at the moment, one doesn’t just simply email out an order and say, “Here’s what I want and when I want it.” There is some discussion that is required with the suppliers, who at the moment are facing unprecedented international demand and do have a limited capacity to supply. But the series of agreements that we’ve had with Pfizer have always envisaged that when a paediatric dose was made available or developed, if a paediatric dose was made available, then New Zealand would want to have access to that.

Question No. 6—Health

6. to the Minister of Health: What announcements has he made about improvements at Timaru Hospital?

On Friday last week, I visited Timaru Hospital, where I announced the next stage of improvements to child and maternity facilities. The improvements are part of the South Canterbury hospital’s four-year refurbishment project and will create a new hub for children’s and women’s care on a single floor within the hospital. This next stage will include a new transitional care unit. This project has been enabled by $2 million in funding from the Government, provided in the New Zealand Upgrade Programme’s health infrastructure package from January 2020.

💬 Jo Luxton: What outcomes is the Minister expecting from the improvements at Timaru Hospital?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The refurbishment of maternity, paediatrics, and a new transitional care unit will improve access to healthcare, bringing services closer to home for many families, and provide a better working environment for the staff to deliver greater care for mums and babies. The new purpose-built transitional care unit will mean pre-term babies that are born at 34 weeks will not have to be transferred to Canterbury District Health Board and that the women of South Canterbury can remain in their homes and community.

💬 Jo Luxton: When can we expect these improvements to Timaru Hospital?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: This portion of the project is part of a full hospital refurbishment and maintenance programme over the next three to five years. Construction began on the child and maternity improvements in May 2021, and will see an additional birthing room and assessment unit built and will allow the ward to provide facilities for a range of birthing experiences, including those requiring extra medical assistance. These improvements are on track to be completed by August 2022.

Question No. 7—COVID-19 Response

7. to the Minister for COVID19 Response: Does he stand by his statement that “It’s going to reach the stage where cases in the community will present a bigger risk to us than cases coming across the border, who are effectively in the position of ending up being close contacts rather than actual cases”?

Yes, and I note that while this is currently the case in Auckland, Kiwis returning home from overseas continue to pose a risk to other regions around New Zealand that are COVID-free at this point. It’s worth reiterating that the reason the Government has border measures in place at the moment is to protect all New Zealanders. Managed isolation and quarantine has, and continues to do that. The Government will continue to take a science- and facts-based approach to reducing barriers for returning Kiwis coming from abroad while maintaining safety here at home. One of the purposes of the announcements that I made today was to signal the work currently under way to find safe pathways for vaccinated travellers to enter New Zealand in greater numbers.

Brooke van Velden: Why should a double-vaccinated New Zealander currently overseas carrying a negative pre-departure test result not be allowed to self-isolate when hundreds of positive COVID-19 cases in New Zealand currently are?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because all of those cases are currently restricted to Auckland. We don’t intend to restrict international arrivals into New Zealand to only Auckland.

Brooke van Velden: Would it not be safer to allow overseas New Zealanders who are double vaccinated and tested negative to self-isolate in Auckland than it is to allow positive cases of COVID-19 to self-isolate in Auckland, as is current Government policy?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated, the Government does not intend to restrict international arrivals into New Zealand to only the Auckland region.

Brooke van Velden: Is the reason the Government won’t allow New Zealanders overseas who are vaccinated to come home and self-isolate because the Government does not trust them?

💬 Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No—absolutely not. In fact, I think all New Zealanders want to see us able to reconnect with the people we care about from around the world. I acknowledge that no one wants to see border restrictions in place any longer than they need to be. My message to all New Zealanders is that they have a role to play here. The sooner we get to those higher rates of vaccination, the sooner the risk across the country is lower and the sooner we will be able to see more people coming into the country.

Question No. 8—Local Government

8. to the Minister of Local Government: What alternative models, if any, did officials consider, and why were they not accepted as possible solutions, to address the level of underinvestment in Three Waters infrastructure?

The Government has been investigating options for addressing the significant challenges facing councils in delivering three waters services for four years, using the best of international and local expertise. We’ve robustly tested the options, with oversight and guidance of a joint central local government steering committee. This includes assessing options such as central government funding for the status quo; sector-led, shared-service delivery and regional models; introducing a national centralised fund similar to the New Zealand Transport Agency - type model; and relying on regulatory reform alone. None of these models adequately achieved the Government’s rationale for reform, which is safe, reliable drinking water; better environmental performance of waste-water and stormwater services; efficient, sustainable, resilient, and accountable multi-regional water and sewerage services, making it affordable for future generations; balance sheet separation; and leveraging the advantage of scale for asset management and waters infrastructure investment. In terms of how many entities is best, the Water Industry Commission for Scotland assessed 30 different aggregation scenarios, ranging from one to 16 entities. For example, we did consider a regional model based on regional council boundaries. This option, however, would have perpetuated significant cost variations across the country, including disadvantaging rural regions.

Tāmati Coffey: Is scale the sole determinant of a successful solution to the three waters challenge in the New Zealand context?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: No. Scale is important for improving the financing capacity of water entities for achieving improvements and operating in capital efficiency and for helping to make the cost of infrastructure upgrades in small communities affordable. However, the full benefits of reform cannot be achieved by scale alone. The ability of new water service entities to perform effectively and efficiently also requires effective, professional, independent governance arrangements and the ability to attract and retain appropriately skilled management and workforce; the establishment of an economic and consumer protection regulation; clear, ongoing national policy direction for the three waters sector, aligning Te Mana o te Wai aspirations and water services entities with access to the necessary finance to make the required investments over time. The model that we’ve settled upon as a Government will deliver on these goals whilst striking a balance on scale, which delivers increased efficiencies while keeping the entities responsive.

Tāmati Coffey: Why was the council-controlled organisations (CCO) model an unviable option for addressing three waters?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The CCO model was considered by the Department of Internal Affairs, but was ruled out for a number of reasons. CCOs are unlikely to be viewed as sufficiently separate from local government to achieve balance sheet separation from councils. As such, they would continue to be constrained in their ability to borrow to fund the infrastructure deficit, in much the same way as Watercare is currently limited in its ability to borrow due to debt constraints faced by Auckland Council. This is a key reason why the household water charges in Auckland are proposed to double over the next few years, as increased investment needs to be paid for through water charges rather than being funded with debt and paid for over the lifetime of the assets. Establishing CCOs requires the agreement of all councils, with each required to engage separately with its constituents. This would take time and create uncertainty. Wellington Water provides a good example of how different councils’ views on priorities and charging has limited its ability to plan and invest strategically across the whole network.

Tāmati Coffey: Has she seen any evidence to support claims that the Government’s preferred model is inconsistent with the Public Finance Act?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I’ve not received any advice to indicate the Government’s preferred model is inconsistent with the Public Finance Act. Treasury has been regularly consulted as the reform processes unfolded and have not raised any concerns to this end. The reforms will create entities that are structurally separated from local councils and the New Zealand Government, have financial and operational autonomy, and borrow in their own right. As such, there would be no explicit liability for the debt of the water services entities recorded on the Crown’s or the local authorities’ balance sheets. The Government has not committed to providing a Crown guarantee to the water service entities. However, it has agreed to make available to water service entities a liquidity facility, accessible under certain conditions on similar terms to the liquidity facility enjoyed by the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA). Standard and Poor’s advise there would be no changes to their credit ratings or outlooks for the New Zealand sovereign or the LGFA under the proposed reform scenarios.

Question No. 9—Local Government

9. to the Minister of Local Government: What is her response to the many criticisms of her announcement that the Three Waters reforms will be mandated, amalgamating council water assets into four new water entities?

I continue to stress the whole reason for these reforms are two decades of under-investment in waters infrastructure. Increased drinking water and environmental standards and constrained council balance sheets means councils will not be able to respond with forecast costs of waters infrastructure investment estimated to be between $120 billion to $185 billion over the next 30 years. Ultimately, ratepayers will suffer if these issues are not resolved. I’ve not seen any alternative put forward by the member’s party that would deliver safe drinking water, ensure value for money from the estimated $180 billion investment needed over 30 years, and keep our beaches swimmable.

💬 Nicola Willis: Has she seen the front page of today’s Wairarapa Times-Age—[Holds up newspaper headlining with the quote “A deceitful, lying pack of bastards”]—and, if so, does she think her approach to three waters reform has built trust and goodwill with local government?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I’ve seen a number of comments from a number of elected officials which I, frankly, believe are biased and shameful. Much of the information is making claims that are simply not true or accurate in relation to these reforms.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does she think it was biased and shameful of Auckland Mayor Phil Goff to say that Aucklanders would have little benefit from these reforms and would only have a minority voice on an oversight committee?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Aucklanders are already facing within the next couple of years a doubling of their water bills under the existing system, and under the existing system Auckland is faced with a constrained balance sheet where Watercare has to defer investment into waters infrastructure. The mayor knows it; that member may not. However, the truth remains: Auckland’s still gets advantage from being a part of these reforms.

💬 Nicola Willis: Does she think it was biased and shameful for Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel to say the reforms have “robbed communities of a voice”, and, if so, why?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Communities have had the opportunity to have a say through their councils on this issue, and over the last four years I have been engaged with councils, through their executive, through zone meetings, to ensure that they have good line of sight and understanding of what the problem is that we’re trying to fix. Under the current system, most ratepayers only have the long-term plan to have a say on anything that’s happening in their council in so far as water infrastructure investment, once in a triennium. What they will have in this process is an opportunity to continue to engage through the joint working group that I have established and through the parliamentary process now that will legislate an outcome that will ensure that all communities will benefit.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Why didn’t the Minister take the easy option of doing nothing to rectify the decades of underinvestment in New Zealand’s water assets?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Because members on that side of the House did it and we got nowhere, and that led to a frail system. Unfortunately, I’m not the kind of Minister that will kick the can down the road on a hard issue. It’s important to address the substantial challenges facing local government of deferred investment in water’s infrastructure. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. There is now too much interjection. While this is a contentious matter as to the method of sorting it, it’s also a serious matter, as members in Wellington and the Hawke’s Bay know well, and I want to hear the answers. Has the Minister finished? The Hon Dr Megan Woods.

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: Have those decades of doing nothing, including from members from the opposite side of the House, contributed—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s just sort of took her own—

💬 Matt Doocey: What an embarrassment.

💬 SPEAKER: Who said that? Well, when I am making a ruling, describing me in that way is totally inappropriate. The member will stand, withdraw and apologise.

💬 Matt Doocey: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. While the request was entirely appropriate, I don’t think it would be fair to say that the—there was no use of the second person, and it shouldn’t be implied that the comment was directed at the Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I was on my feet when the comment was made. That is the only assumption that can be taken from it, and the member is lucky to be in the House.

💬 Nicola Willis: What is her answer to Waimate Mayor Craig Rowley, who says that under her Government’s model his council would be paid only $2 million for $10 million worth of assets, and how is that not theft?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Members need to be aware—and I; it may be remiss of not having clarified it—that councils will not lose control of their assets. They will continue to own their assets alongside a group of other councils under the water service entities. But let’s be very clear: when assets transfer to these water service entities, so does debt and liability. So, in order to get a full picture of what we are talking about here, we must understand that it is about assets, debt, and liability transferring to the water service entities so we can have a more cohesive, financially sustainable method of investing in waters infrastructure, because there are serious long-term challenges.

💬 Nicola Willis: Will ratepayers be able to vote out decision makers on water entities if they don’t deliver, and, if not, how will these decision makers be accountable to local communities?

💬 Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Under the current system, ratepayers do that every three years. Under the system that I’m promoting, there is an opportunity for ratepayers to have a greater say in the benefits to them as consumers through consumer panels and economic regulation, and I think, ultimately, what ratepayers want to know is that the quality of the services that they are receiving is such that they can rely on clean water coming out of the taps; ensuring that dirty water doesn’t go into streams, lakes, and harbours; and ensuring that we have a world-class waters infrastructure network that can underpin housing, regional economic development—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. Nicola Willis will apologise to the House. She knows what she did was out of order then.

💬 Nicola Willis: I withdraw and apologise.

Question No. 10—Emergency Management

10. to the Minister for Emergency Management: What reports has she seen on the New Zealand ShakeOut national earthquake drill and tsunami hikoi?

This morning, the annual ShakeOut national earthquake drill and tsunami event took place at 9.30 a.m. I was delighted to join the enthusiastic students of Thorndon primary school for the drill earlier today, and it was great to see colleagues here on the parliamentary precinct get involved as well. I’ve seen a report that over 660,000 participants from across the country joined us in practising the ShakeOut drill, and the lifesaving actions of drop, cover, and hold, and long or strong, get gone.

💬 Rachel Brooking: Why is it so important that we practise these actions?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: All of New Zealand is at risk of earthquakes, and all of our coastline is at risk of tsunamis. We can’t predict when one will happen or where we will be, but we can protect ourselves and our whānau by practising what to do. In addition to the destructive Christchurch and Kaikōura earthquakes, most recently, on 5 March this year, New Zealand experienced three tsunamis in one morning. ShakeOut aims to make the drop, cover, hold action seem second nature, while giving us a chance to practise our tsunami evacuation routes. It’s also not too late to give it a go. You can try the drill with your whānau at a time that suits you in the next two weeks, to be included in the numbers participating—or even in the House right now, sir.

💬 SPEAKER: I’m tempted to put the member under her desk now.

💬 Rachel Brooking: What else can Kiwis do to be prepared for emergencies such as earthquakes or tsunamis?

💬 Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Aside from knowing the potentially lifesaving actions of drop, cover, hold, and long or strong, get gone, the most important thing that we can do is to have a chat with our whānau, our mates, our flatmates, and make a plan. Think about what you’ll do if you’re separated, if you have no power or water, if you’re stuck at home or have to evacuate, who might need your help, and who can help you. Also, it’s important to factor in COVID-19 to your preparedness plans. So make sure you have masks, hand sanitiser in your grab bag, and if you have to evacuate, make sure you exercise physical distancing as much as possible.

Question No. 11—Health

11. to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied that spending $486 million to restructure the health system is better value for money than using it to respond to frontline health workers’ concerns that there is insufficient capacity in public hospitals to manage COVID-19?

Yes. I’m satisfied that this investment over a period of four years is value for money alongside the other Budget 2021 announcements for health, which included $2.7 billion for front-line funding, $516 million for digital and IT infrastructure, $200 million extra for Pharmac, and $100 million to improve road and air ambulances. No one wants to continue with a health system that offers inconsistent services across the country seeing some New Zealanders missing out and that sees growing inequity of access and outcomes. The reality is there is a cost to change. The Budget 2021 allocation to fund this much-needed change includes around $126 million for the Māori Health Authority to expand and improve front-line services.

💬 Matt Doocey: Is he comfortable with 1,000 surgeries a week being cancelled, and, if not, why has he spent the last year focusing on the disruptive health restructure instead of increasing hospital capacity?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I have indicated, this Government has put record funding into the health system. So, by way of comparison, we are, this financial year alone, spending $7.6 billion more per year on health than in the final year of the previous Government. The previous Government increased spending in health over the full term of its Government—nine years—by $3.2 billion. The previous Government spent, roughly, $1 billion on capital expenditure in health during the full term of its Government. This Government now has a build programme worth $6 billion under way, with a further nearly half a million dollars in IT. The member will remember the graph; the graph tells the story. That party in Government underfunds health.

💬 Matt Doocey: What is his response to ICU specialist Dr Paul Young, who, as Stuff recently reported, “went on the public record to call BS on the minister’s [ICU] numbers.”?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I refer that member to the answer to the question I gave to his colleague last week, and that is that Dr Young either misunderstood or misinterpreted what I had said. So this Government, since last year, in response to the pandemic, has worked with DHBs to ensure that they can release additional ICU or high dependency unit (HDU) capacity, or ICU- or HDU-level care, for people who need it. So whereas before the pandemic, there were, roughly, 243 ICU beds—that is to say, beds in a designated ICU ward—actually, there are other beds in other parts of hospitals such as in post-operative recovery that can be converted immediately into ICU- or HDU-level care, and that increases ICU- or HDU-level care to somewhere between 320 and 340 beds across the nation.

💬 Matt Doocey: So how many severe COVID cases do our hospitals have capacity to handle without having to reduce services elsewhere?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I’ve just said, the hospitals can increase their total ICU- and HDU-level care capacity to between 320 and 340 beds. They can, by deferring or delaying or cancelling other hospital-level care, increase that to up to 550 beds. That is the advice of DHBs to the Ministry of Health, and that has also been overseen by intensive care specialists who have accepted that it is possible to make those conversions to increase that capacity to provide the care that is needed for those who need it in response to COVID-19.

💬 Matt Doocey: In light of that response of an awareness of delaying planned care, why is the Minister continuing with a restructure in the middle of a pandemic?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The country has seen what has happened to our health system largely because of successive years of underfunding by the previous Government—successive years of underfunding by the previous Government—operational funding and capital funding, and after a review by the health and disability system review and by the Waitangi Tribunal that says we have extraordinary levels of inequity, New Zealanders want change. As I get around the hospital network, as I get around the health sector, everybody is saying to me, “Can we just get on with the change? This is the stuff we need.” If you have a look and see how DHBs are behaving now in response to the pandemic, collaborating with each other in a way they have not before, drawing on the resources of others from right across the country to assist in the epicentre of the outbreak—which is Auckland at the moment—already senior clinicians and senior health leaders are starting to think as if they are part of a nationwide system, which is what we want.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister confirm that DHBs have a longstanding practice of, where necessary, rescheduling planned care where there is a surge in demand for ICU such as in winter, when there can be a surge in demand for ICU as a result of influenza?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes, I can confirm the standard hospital planning is to accept that there are seasonal fluctuations in demand, and so the extent of planned care for, particularly, the winter months is always reduced in anticipation of people coming in with seasonal infections such as flu, such as RSV and what have you—as we’ve seen this year—and DHBs are continuing to do that. But I am confident that with the planning that DHBs have done, with the support of the Ministry of Health, our hospital system is in good shape to respond to the COVID pandemic but also, as a response to the $282,500 million that the Government put into hospitals last year specifically for planned care catch-up, that they will be able to, over time, catch up the care that many patients have experienced a further delay in.

💬 Matt Doocey: Why does the Minister refuse to name one health outcome that will be improved in the first year of this restructure?

💬 Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I’m not quite sure what the member is referring to. I’ve never failed to state that we will see greater equity of access to healthcare and health outcomes than we are seeing at present. But the combination of Health New Zealand operating a nationwide health system in conjunction with the Māori Health Authority, with its ability to commission services, and with both to cooperate with each other, will significantly improve access to healthcare and significantly improve health outcomes. The reality is New Zealanders are waiting and have waited far too long for it, and don’t want to wait much longer.