Thursday, 7 May 2020

THURSDAY, 7 MAY 2020

THURSDAY, 7 MAY 2020

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thursday, 14 May is Budget day. The Minister of Finance will deliver the Budget statement at 2 p.m., following which party leaders will speak to open the Budget debate. I have indicated to the Business Committee that I intend to move urgency to progress a number of bills following that. I expect urgency to extend at least into Friday, 15 May. Should New Zealand remain at COVID alert level 3 or higher, those plans will be reviewed.

Next week, the House will also consider the remaining stages of the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill and the Immigration (COVID-19 Response) Amendment Bill. The Government is also likely to bring forward further legislation relating to New Zealand’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Can the Leader of the House give us an indication if that further legislation is required to give effect to level 2 provisions as announced by the Prime Minister?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): That is likely.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Does that mean that there would be some urgency taken to pass that legislation prior to an expected announcement of going to level 2 next week?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I imagine that any legislation required to move to a lower COVID alert level would be progressed through the House very quickly.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Do we take it, then, that if the decision is made on Monday to move to level 2 at 11.59 p.m. on Wednesday evening, it would be in the two days of House sitting Tuesday and Wednesday that we would see that legislation passed?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): At that point, that’s a hypothetical question, but, of course, the passage of any legislation required to give effect to level 2 and the process for that will be the subject of further discussion.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Just to be clear, can we take it, then, that there will be no decision to go into level 2 without the legislation?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): No, the member can’t take that from my comments.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Perhaps I could make it clearer. If the legislation supporting the moves that have been announced as level 2 conditions is not passed before level 2 is announced, or the start date of level 2, would that be the position? Or do we have to have that legislation passed before level 2 can commence?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Without necessarily getting into the hypothetical situation too much, I would envisage that the legislation is likely to be around the enforcement of conditions at level 2.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the Government’s work to prevent and respond to COVID-19, including the announcement made yesterday by Minister Woods to invest $25 million to speed up the trial and deployment of innovations to help New Zealand’s response to COVID-19. The COVID-19 Innovation Acceleration Fund is aimed at the fast development of new products and services that could help to detect, diagnose, treat, or prevent COVID-19 by supporting research and development, prototyping, and pre-production activities. This global pandemic is hitting every nation hard, and as a Government we are working hard to reduce the impact of COVID-19.

Hon Simon Bridges: Are ANZ economists correct when they estimate that New Zealand’s economy will shrink by 10 percent this year, while Australia’s will fall by less than 5?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said, there’s a range of different economists and, indeed, the Treasury itself has made several different assumptions. We’re unable to pinpoint one because this is not over. What, of course, we can say is New Zealand went in with a stronger position, actually, than Australia. We had lower unemployment, we had lower debt, and we had strong growth. We were well placed then; that positions us well coming out of it.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she agree with the IMF’s estimate that New Zealand’s unemployment rate will rise by twice as much as Australia’s this year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member, I see, is being very selective with the IMF forecast, because, for instance, when you look at their estimates of what unemployment might be in, say, 2021, they’re estimating New Zealand at 6.8 percent and Australia at 8.9 percent—the US at over 9 percent. My point here is that many institutions and economists are forecasting; not all of it will necessarily be accurate, but we went in strong and our intention is to come out as strong as possible.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will Government debt increase by more than 50 percent of GDP as a result of COVID-19?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously I’m not going to speculate on any forecasting that needs to wait until the Budget, but what I again will say is that we were a Government that got debt down to under 20 percent of GDP, which was a better position than what we inherited from the last Government. It’s also, I think, worth mentioning that relative to other OECD nations, New Zealand has very low debt relative to GDP, and, again, that puts us in a good position relative to others going into the shock that this global pandemic has created.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will the Government deficit this year be bigger or smaller than $20 billion?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I’m not going to get into speculation. The member can obviously wait until the Budget.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can she rule out introducing a capital gains tax (CGT) or wealth tax while she is Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve already been asked that question in a stand-up; I’ve already said that I’m not, as Prime Minister, going to bring in a CGT.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can we take it from that answer that she is considering a wealth tax?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can she rule out increasing personal income taxes while she is Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have to say, I find it bizarre that when we’re in a scenario where we are doing everything we can to support and increase the incomes going into families at this one-in-100-year event, the member would start asking questions like that. We spent $10 billion on a wage subsidy to try and make sure that people were well supported through this event. We’ve put in place packages around tax rebates for business. We’ve put in place a small business loan scheme that’s interest free. We are doing everything we can to support New Zealanders at this time. It does come at a cost, and that member is one of those who has argued for more to be spent rather than less.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: So, Prime Minister, can we get it clear that she will not say “No new taxes” and then add 2.5 percent to GST, for example, and then use that money for tax cuts for our mates?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I can confirm that, obviously, the last Government did believe in bringing in tax cuts that would have disproportionately benefited people in this House. You will have seen from decisions made by this Government that, actually, Ministers in Cabinet decided that they would take a pay reduction to support and acknowledge those who, at the moment, are doing it tough.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can she rule out introducing any new taxes or increasing existing taxes to pay for the debt her Government is building up?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve referred in my previous answer, the total focus of this Government is supporting those—particularly workers in industries—that are losing their jobs. That is our singular focus: support for them, recovery for those industries, and making sure New Zealand is in the best possible position going forward, and I’m simply not engaging in political hypotheticals.

Hon Simon Bridges: To be clear, will she not rule out new taxes to pay for the debt accumulating at the current time?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I’m pointing out is that at the moment, we’re doing everything we can to increase the amount of incomes going into households of people who are doing it tough.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can the House take it from those answers there may well be new taxes as a result of the debt that is accumulating today and through Budget 2020?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said, that member should make no assumptions, no hypotheticals, but, as you can see from everything we’ve done, we’re focusing on increasing the incomes going into those lower-middle income earners and supporting us through this incredibly tough time.

Question No. 2—Defence

2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) to the Minister of Defence: What was the New Zealand Defence Force response to the impact of tropical cyclone Harold in the Pacific?

SPEAKER: As I call the Hon Ron Mark, he has indicated to me that this question is longer than would normally be acceptable.

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Within hours of tropical cyclone Harold leaving a path of devastation across Vanuatu, Fiji, and Tonga, the Government stepped up to provide assistance to our Pacific friends in their time of need. Thousands of people have been made homeless, drinking water has been affected, and many people are now relying on aid for food after the cyclone had destroyed crops and their homes. Alongside serious packages of financial support made available from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), Ministers approved the deployment of a range of defence assets to respond to the disaster. Multiple P-3 Orion aerial surveillance flights were conducted over affected areas in Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu, and six C-130 flights were completed to Vanuatu and Fiji to deliver relief supplies.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Minister, how did these flights help the countries affected?

Hon RON MARK: The surveillance flights by No. 5 Squadron’s P-3 Orions were critical, as they quickly gave the Governments of Vanuatu, Fiji, and Tonga high-quality aerial imagery of damage, including in remote areas, enabling them to respond and prioritise aid to where it was most needed. The flights by No. 40 Squadron C-130’s Hercules delivered almost 30 tonnes of much-needed supplies to Vanuatu and Fiji, including tarpaulins, water containers, generators, chainsaw kits, satellite phones, family hygiene supplies, agricultural toolkits, and, in the case of Vanuatu, a privately owned helicopter, to be used in the relief effort.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What other tasks did the air force undertake while in Fiji and Vanuatu?

Hon RON MARK: These missions also supported the massive and unprecedented MFAT global repatriation effort as part of the COVID-19 response, with C-130 flights bringing home 15 New Zealanders from Fiji and 43 New Zealanders from Vanuatu, including six Volunteer Service Abroad staffers who had been working there. In recognition of the global threat posed by COVID-19 and the vulnerability of Pacific Islands to an outbreak, extra precautions were taken to prevent any potential spread. This included air-load teams operating in work bubbles sanitising cargo before it was loaded, and again after it was unloaded, and medical teams being on hand, as well as personal hygiene procedures being carried out by all personnel involved, both here in New Zealand and in Vanuatu and Fiji itself. I’d like to extend the thanks of the coalition Government to the Defence Force personnel who were involved in this response for their professionalism and care, and for demonstrating what Pacific Reset does look like in action, and, particularly, I’d like to note the efforts of No. 230 Squadron, No. 5 Squadron, and No. 40 Squadron.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How extensive have the Defence Force been in using their assets for onshore and offshore humanitarian assistance and advancing New Zealand’s good neighbour footprint?

Hon RON MARK: Well, the entire effort that was undertaken by the Defence Force was done at the same time that they were responding back home, here in New Zealand. It has been noted in my most recent conversation with Lord Ma‘afu, the Minister of Defence for Tonga, that the efforts of our personnel have not gone unnoticed in their hour of need. Vanuatu, Fiji, and Tonga were all very grateful for the work and for the promptness in which the Defence Force responded, and the promptness of the Government’s response to them as well. Thank you.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s actions in response to COVID-19?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly our decision to go hard and go early. That member will have seen today that I gave an outline of what level 2 will mean for New Zealand when we reach there. While this is no way of foreshadowing the decision Cabinet will make on Monday regarding whether or not we will move, it was important to give some context to what it will look like. Ultimately, level 2 is our safer normal—not a return to business as usual but a time to enjoy reconnecting with those we haven’t seen for some time. But we want to make sure that when we make that decision, it is at the right time. Treasury modelling has told us that we are better off, in the longer term, to move down through alerts progressively and not yo-yo. If we think of ourselves as halfway down Everest, I think it’s clear no one wants to hike back up that peak.

Hon Simon Bridges: Has she seen advice to police that states that an isolation campaign by police “is unlikely to meet the high statutory threshold for the exercise of these powers. Standard police powers to stop, search and surveillance must be exercised for their statutory purpose, and may not be used to assist police in the enforcement of the isolation campaign.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have seen final Crown Law advice, and I note the Attorney-General, with the advice from Crown Law, has indicated there are no gaps in the enforcement arrangements that have been used, but, of course, as the member well knows, a section 70 notice was issued to provide additional clarity.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why did police ignore advice they’d received and proceed with an isolation campaign?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I have just said, with advice from Crown Law, the indication, obviously, from the Attorney-General publicly has been that there are no gaps in enforcement, and, again, all of the underpinnings for our enforcement powers are public. The epidemic notice, state of emergency, section 70 notices, even the Cabinet paper on which these powers were based are all in the public domain. With regard to legal advice, the member well knows the position of the Crown. Ultimately, it’s a decision for the Attorney-General, but I would reflect that, when the member was last a Minister, he himself said, “In terms of making legally privileged documents public, no Crown has ever done that.” [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I would like the Prime Minister to say the last sentence she did, because I couldn’t hear her.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The last sentence was a quote from Simon Bridges as Minister, when he said, “In terms of making legally privileged documents public, no Crown has ever done that.”

Rt Hon Winston Peters: So is the Prime Minister saying that this major and fundamental principle of our form of democracy and law, that is, the confidentiality of legal advice—she does not intend to corrode that principle, though others might?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Ultimately, I’ve said that is a decision for the Attorney-General, but I was simply reflecting the position of the member now asking the question when he was in position as a Minister and someone in receipt of legal advice. Again, that was in relation to Pike River, an issue of high degree of public interest. Finally, again, I would point out that, as I’ve said many times, all of the underpinnings for the enforcement regime that was put in place for the alert level framework are publicly available. Ultimately, they, of course, include the section 70 notice, which was used for clarity; the Epidemic Preparedness Act, the law in which it was based; and, of course, the civil defence emergency regime, which is also one of the bases on which enforcement powers are used.

Hon Simon Bridges: In light of her answers just then, why did she release Crown Law legally privileged advice in the public interest on 20 December 2018 in relation to the possible appointment of Wally Haumaha as Police Commissioner, and isn’t the public interest in relation to lockdown restrictions for nearly two months infinitely more important?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I’ve ultimately said this is an issue for the Attorney-General. I do note that he did offer a briefing from the Solicitor-General directly to the member, and all of the underpinnings for this regime are in the public domain.

Hon Simon Bridges: To be clear, does she believe the police isolation campaign after lockdown was lawful?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Isolation campaign—again, these were the provisions that were put in place under the Epidemic Preparedness Act, a piece of legislation designed to help New Zealanders stay safe in a pandemic. I fail to actually understand why the member is so focused on challenging the role of the epidemic Act in keeping New Zealanders safe. In fact, I really struggle to understand what the outcome he’s driving for is here.

Hon Simon Bridges: Has she seen advice to police that “standard stop, search and surveillance powers available to police will not assist it in enforcing the isolation campaign.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I’ve seen the final advice from Crown Law, and, again, as I say, the Attorney-General—and I concur, from the advice I have seen—has also said that there was no gap in enforcement powers.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm that one of the reasons Governments generally don’t release legally privileged advice is because they do not want to undermine the Crown’s position in current prosecutions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That’s exactly right. I would note that some of the last use of enforcement powers were, for instance, for large gatherings—I believe, last weekend—some of which involved gang members, who may indeed challenge the basis of their prosecution, as anyone is able to do, in the courts. I don’t understand why the member would wish to release advice that may potentially be used to undermine that process.

Hon Simon Bridges: When she said yesterday that “The epidemic notices … probably could be more fit for purpose going forward,” was that an admission that valid questions exist around the legality of her lockdown?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: To be clear, is her position that the sub judice rule is so critical for a fair trial that releasing the information being called for by the Opposition is simply demonstrably against the law of this country, against the parliamentary rules of this country, and wrong?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I’ve said, I leave these decisions to the Attorney-General, but I’ve also reflected the previous positions of the member asking the questions—

Hon Member: Getting old, mate—getting way too old.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —with regard to advice to the Crown.

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Sorry, I will stand. I just want to indicate that reflections of that type made in my direction are unacceptable.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will the Prime Minister release the legal advice on the legality of the lockdown?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I have said time and time again, there was no gap in the enforcement powers. The basis for those enforcement powers are already in the public domain. The member is asking for legally privileged documents. That is a question for the Attorney-General, and I’m happy to leave it with him.

Hon Simon Bridges: If there are no gaps in the Government’s legal powers regarding lockdown, why is the Government considering new enforcement measures next week? Wouldn’t they simply be not necessary?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We’ve been very open about this. The Epidemic Preparedness Act is designed for a certain stage in pandemic responses, and, of course, as you move down the alert levels, you do need to have something that’s more specifically designed for the circumstances you’re in front of. You don’t necessarily want to have larger-scale enforcement provisions, and so we can be more tailored, and that’s what the Attorney-General is, obviously, working on.

Hon Simon Bridges: Isn’t it absolutely crystal clear that new laws wouldn’t be required for less stringent levels unless they were required for more stringent ones, and that must be the case?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. That is absolutely not correct.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Isn’t it patently and demonstrably clear that that is the very reverse of the situation being propositioned by the Leader of the Opposition?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Essentially, yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will we be able to deduce from the non-release of legal advice on the legality of the lockdown that there’s very significant problems with its legality?

SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister has no responsibility for the member’s deductions.

Question No. 4—Finance

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): To the Minister of Finance, does he accept that major Government spending decisions—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Both of you—the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition will both keep their mouths shut. Mr Goldsmith, start again.

4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he accept that major Government spending decisions should always be subject to a high level of scrutiny and analysis?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, and they are.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why has Cabinet suspended regulatory impact analysis at a time when the Government is undertaking some of the most significant and consequential spending decisions in living memory?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think the Treasury secretary informed the member at the Finance and Expenditure Committee last week that this is an unprecedented situation. Things are moving at great speed. We had to strike a balance between timely advice and making sure we went through all of the processes. I hasten to add for the member that that particular change applies only to emergency regulations related to COVID-19.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why are independent analysts and economists being prevented from attending the Budget lock-up next Thursday?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I know I can’t bring you—

SPEAKER: Order! That is not an area for this Minister’s responsibility. Just to make it absolutely clear to the member that entry to the building at the moment is something which I control.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Mr Speaker, it’s perfectly within the remit of Treasury to have a lock-up elsewhere, outside of this building.

SPEAKER: Oh, away you go—yep, fair point.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Oh, do you want me to answer the question?

SPEAKER: Sorry, I apologise. When the member said the Budget lock-up, I thought he meant the one that was here.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker, and without drawing you into the debate, the traditional Budget lock-up held in the building is a matter for the Speaker, who is in control of who enters the building. It is a matter for Treasury to decide what rules they would apply in terms of people entering their building.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: But the question was why the independent analysts and economists have been prevented from attending a Budget lock-up.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The reasoning for Parliament and the reasoning for Treasury is around the alert levels that we find ourselves in, the requirements that are there for physical distancing, and the health and safety rules under which the Treasury secretary acts as the employer of Treasury staff.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can he confirm that the Government has received no advice to date from the Ministry of Health and the Director-General of Health as to when New Zealand should move out of the current alert level system, making Budget day planning very, very difficult?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can most definitely confirm that this is a situation where putting both the Budget together and the mechanics of Budget day are among the most challenging that any Government would have faced. We will continue, as the member asking the supplementary question before knows, to have an Opposition lock-up here inside Parliament. We will continue to have a Budget lock-up, and there will be plenty of opportunities for scrutiny among all parts of society on the Budget.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would he seriously contemplate, or even think it’s halfway wise, to do as was just suggested in this House by an Opposition member and postpone the Budget?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely not. It is important for New Zealanders that they see a Government that is able to carry on through this crisis, just as New Zealanders are doing. The Budget will be put before this House, it will be the subject of scrutiny by this House, and all members will have an opportunity to be a part of that.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why does he continue to refuse to release Treasury advice given during the COVID crisis?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise of that question.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Don’t the extraordinary times and the extraordinary sums being spent by his Government demand greater transparency and scrutiny, not less?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The decisions that the Government is making are underneath the scrutiny of both Cabinet Ministers and also Treasury. The spending decisions that Treasury is putting forward and is scrutinising are going through the Cabinet as they are. The member and himself are standing here day after day asking questions, which we are answering. That’s not happening in a lot of other countries around the world. There is an Epidemic Response Committee that has called Ministers and chief executives in a way that we haven’t seen before. There is a high level of scrutiny of what is going on in New Zealand at the moment, as there should be.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Would delaying the Budget, as the Opposition have suggested, increase or decrease the transparency around it?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Quite clearly it would decrease it. Again, if we look across the Tasman, not only is their Budget being delayed; their Parliament is not sitting. So, on this side of the Tasman, we have scrutiny of what we are doing. That is welcomed on this side of the House.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can he possibly deny there is less opportunity for scrutiny of his spending when he has refused to release Treasury advice, he has stopped regulatory impact statements being made, and Treasury has excluded analysts from the Budget lock-up?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is wrong.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What will be the focus of Budget 2020, that he will deliver on 14 May?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Budget 2020 will be delivered in the shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic; we have, therefore, reoriented the Budget from what we had previously planned. The new spending packages that were planned around our five priorities that were announced in the Budget Policy Statement have been reassessed, and unless they are meeting a core cost pressure, we have put them on ice. The focus for Budget 2020 now is boosting and supporting our public services and taking our next steps to recover and rebuild from COVID-19.

Kiritapu Allan: How does Budget 2020 fit with the Government’s wider economic plan to respond to COVID-19?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Our response to COVID-19 has been characterised by moving swiftly, regularly, and pragmatically, and this will continue. Budget 2020 will set our direction for the next stages in our response plan: recovery and rebuild. But the Budget is just one staging post in our fight against COVID-19. There will be further support for the recovery and rebuild after Budget day. Our response to COVID-19 has to happen every day, not just on Budget day. The Budget will be part of a series of ongoing support measures throughout the rest of our COVID response plan.

Kiritapu Allan: What is the Government’s strategy for managing the cost of the economic response to COVID-19?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Of course all the support and rebuilding we’re doing must be paid for. Fortunately, New Zealand’s fiscal position was strong going into the COVID-19 pandemic. We delivered on our plan to reduce net core Crown debt below 20 percent of GDP and achieved $13 billion of operating services in our first two years in office. However, we will be running operating deficits and allowing an equal Crown debt to increase in the short term; this is because that is the responsible thing to do. Right now, investing money to support our people, businesses, and communities to get through this and to rebuild is the most important thing we can do. In time, we will need to return to a more sustainable fiscal path, as we’ve shown we can do, but for now, the rainy day has arrived and our savings for that need to be used.

Question No. 6—Health

6. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Are all Public Health Units (PHUs) contributing contact tracing data to the recently established digital platform for contact tracing; if not, how many PHUs are contributing the data?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): All PHUs are submitting contact tracing data to the National Close Contact Service, and this information is collated to produce national monitoring indicators. All contact tracing delegated to the National Close Contact Service (NCCS) by PHUs is being done through the National Contact Tracing System (NCTS). All PHUs are required to provide information to the ministry for national monitoring, which has enabled the ministry to meet the requirement in Dr Verrall’s report for national end-to-end contact tracing indicators.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question was of whether the PHUs were contributing contact tracing to the digital platform, and there was no reference to the digital platform in that answer.

SPEAKER: I’ll ask the Minister to repeat his answer. I was momentarily distracted.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: All PHUs are submitting contract tracing data to the National Close Contact Service, and this information is collated to produce national monitoring indicators. All contact tracing delegated to the National Close Contact Service by PHUs is being done through the National Contact Tracing System. All PHUs are required to provide information to the ministry for national monitoring, which has enabled the ministry to meet the requirement in Dr Verrall’s report for national end-to-end contact tracing indicators.

SPEAKER: No. I do get Mr Woodhouse’s point now, having listened to that. I think the word “digital” is key to it.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The National Contact Tracing System is the name of the digital system.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I’ll go from there. From what date were all PHUs contributing contact tracing data, given that information released to the Epidemic Response Committee states that data from only nine PHUs was collected as recently as 17 April?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I suspect the member misunderstands how the system is currently operating. That data is going to the National Close Contact Service and then is being collated, and all of the public health units can access the data from the national contact tracing solution. Although, it has to be said, with so few cases being reported now in very few regions, many have actually not needed to access it. The data, of course, speaks for itself—80 percent of close contacts are currently being followed up within two days.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he receive a daily summary table of contact tracing numbers, and, if so, why has that table not been in his daily situation report since 12 April?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: What I am aware of is that all of the most recent data is being published on the ministry’s website.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That’s a very nice answer about the website. My question was: does he receive a daily summary, and, if so, why isn’t it in his situation report? It’s got nothing to do with the website.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’m happy to speak to it, Mr Speaker. It is being regularly updated, that data, and then it is made available on the ministry’s website—the most recent data.

SPEAKER: I’m going to ask the Minister—there’s a very specific first part. I know it’s two legs and he did answer the second part, but the first part is: does he get daily updates?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It is not every day. It is regular, though, and that’s to the member’s point. We are getting regular data and then it is published on the ministry website. It is a completely transparent process.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why was the contact tracing table deleted from his daily situation report from 12 April?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’m not aware of that happening. If the member is aware—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he read his reports?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —that it has been redacted—I’ve checked with my office and my office has confirmed that they have not redacted information from that report. I think the member is mistaken.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: If timely tracing is so important, why does his daily situation report not contain the data on the proportion of contacts successfully traced within 48 hours?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Currently, we’re sitting at 80 percent of close contacts being followed up within two days. It is an extraordinary result considering the historic under-investment in the system. I am provided with the data as it’s collated, and it is very promptly publicly available. I see no need, when it’s publicly available and reported on regularly, for any particular mechanism the member might specify. As a Government, we have invested heavily in contact tracing and public health. We’ve done what no other Government has done before, and that is establish a National Close Contact Service. In March we announced $40 million extra for public health, and a further $55 million was invested in contact tracing in April, and that data continues to speak for itself—80 percent in two days currently followed up, and that is an extraordinary effort when we consider the historic neglect of that service.

Question No. 7—Small Business

7. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister for Small Business: What actions has the Government taken to support small businesses to respond to COVID-19?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Small Business): The Government has taken decisive and considered action to support small businesses through the COVID-19 pandemic. To date, the wage subsidy scheme has paid out more than $10.6 billion to more than 1.7 million workers. Of this, almost $6 billion has gone to small businesses and around 363,000 of their workers. Our $3 billion loss carry-back scheme, put into law last week, will start paying out in the coming days to support viable businesses with cash flow to help meet operating costs. The scheme has had hundreds of applications in the first few days, and this will rise as taxpayers re-estimate their income. These measures are being complemented by the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme, changes to the loss continuity rules, and $29 million for consultancy services that small businesses can access. This week, we launched the business cash-flow tool on Business.govt.nz. In fact, as well as the COVID19.govt.nz website, I would encourage all businesses to take a look at the Business.govt.nz website. All of these measures are designed to keep as many New Zealanders in work as possible and cushion the blow on small businesses.

Paul Eagle: How do the changes to the loss continuity rules help support small businesses to recover from the impact of COVID-19?

Hon STUART NASH: Some small businesses will be looking to raise capital to keep afloat now and to recover in the future. Raising capital, however, may result in a change to the existing shareholder structure. Relaxing the loss continuity rules will ensure companies in this position can carry forward losses to offset income when they return to profit. Being able to carry forward losses makes the business more valuable and attractive to investors. Deloitte, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Chapman Tripp, KPMG, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, the Accountants and Tax Agents Institute of New Zealand, and many more private sector firms and organisations have all welcomed this change. As the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have said, we are constantly monitoring the situation for business and adjusting our support as required.

Paul Eagle: What other support measures provided by the Government will help small businesses with working capital?

Hon STUART NASH: The Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme will help support small to medium enterprises struggling because of a loss of revenue as a result of COVID-19. Inland Revenue will administer the payments and repayments of this scheme to support firms that have been adversely impacted. Applications will be open from 12 May 2020 to 12 June 2020. Eligible businesses and organisations are entitled to a loan of $10,000, plus a further $1,800 per equivalent full-time employee up to a maximum of $100,000. The interest rate will be 3 percent, however interest will not be charged if the loan is fully paid back within one year. It’s a scheme that reflects a targeted and balanced approach to recovery for viable businesses.

Question No. 8—Education

8. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: If the Government announces a move to alert level 2 next week, is he confident that schools and early learning centres have the support they need to open in a safe manner?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes. Today, the Ministry of Education is putting out a special bulletin for early learning in schools on guidance on what level 2 will look like, pending a decision next week. They’re also putting out guidance on level 2 today on managing health safety at schools, guidance for early learning services, guidance for school hostels, and guidance for playgroups. This includes guidance from public health on education.

The key message for schools and centres—or one of the key messages for schools and centres—is that when we make the decision to move levels, we will not be expecting schools to reopen for a greater number of students mid-week. Whenever the decision is made, they’ll open at the beginning of the following week. So if we make a decision to shift to alert level 2 next week, schools and early learning services will have 10 days from now to prepare, and we’ll be continually talking with the sector and its representatives to help them prepare to open at level 2.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Is it mandatory for all schools to ensure a 1 metre indoor rule for adults and children?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: At level 2, no.

Hon Nikki Kaye: So can he confirm: if the 1 metre indoor rule is voluntary, if schools do not feel that that will lead to a safe environment, can they choose not to open?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. Schools should follow public health advice.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he provide additional financial support to schools and early childhood education centres for hand sanitiser, cleaning, and personal protective equipment, given that some schools have said it can cost up to 9,000 a week for hand sanitiser?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have good news for the member. I can confirm that 30,000 litres of hand sanitiser has been purchased by the Ministry of Education and distributed to schools and early learning services already. If she’d like the further breakdown, fifty thousand 300 millilitre bottles have been distributed, sixty thousand 60 millilitre flip bottles have been distributed, and two thousand 5 litre refill packs have been already sent out and paid for by the ministry.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked whether additional financial support would be provided. I didn’t get an answer to that.

SPEAKER: The member did mention a specific product. Question No. 9, David Seymour.

Nicola Willis: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Sorry. I apologise—there’s a member way up the back. Nicola Willis—supplementary question.

Nicola Willis: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will early childhood education services be required to continue with bigger spacing requirements of one child per 3 square metres when we move to alert level 2?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Clear guidance on that is being issued this afternoon, but, generally, no.

Question No. 9—Justice

9. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Justice: Is he satisfied with the operation of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I am satisfied with the policy intent of the Act, because that’s the part of the Act I’m responsible for; the operations of the Act are the responsibility of the police and the courts.

David Seymour: Does he agree with the Hon Simon Power about the policy intent, when the latter said, in his third reading speech for the then Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, that “This will make it easier to strip organised crime groups of the assets and profits that they have obtained from serious criminal [activity].”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes, I do, but I’d rather be guided by the object provisions of the Act, which refer to an Act dealing with those who have unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity that is the mischief to which it is directed.

David Seymour: Would the Minister further say that the purpose is to take only the benefits from that activity, or perhaps all of a person’s assets?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think that in the situation where the police make application for recovery of criminal proceeds, in the end it is a matter for the court to determine what level of proceeds ought to be recovered, and, therefore, which are proceeds relating to the unlawful benefit from significant criminal activity.

Question No. 10—Health

10. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What advice has he had about the findings of the rapid stocktake of PPE distribution?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Our front-line health and disability workers take great care of the public and, in turn, they deserve access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). Due to the unprecedented nature of the pandemic, the Ministry of Health took over and centralised the supply of PPE to DHBs, which in turn are distributing it to community providers in their district. New Zealand has good stocks of PPE, but there have been some reports of community providers not getting the equipment they ordered in a timely way. At my request, the Ministry conducted a rapid stocktake of how distribution from DHBs was working. The Director-General of Health has reported back that based on the information provided, he is confident that all DHBs have appropriate processes in place “to distribute PPE to all their community-based providers, to work closely with providers where there is a difference between provider expectations and supply at a point in time, and resolve any concerns or complaints.” I will continue to seek further assurance on this matter.

Kiritapu Allan: Did the stocktake identify any areas for improvement?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Director-General’s report confirmed there were some issues where provider expectations were not met, but many of these have now been resolved. That gives me confidence the system is now working more efficiently. Four areas have been identified where the Ministry will work with DHBs to improve PPE distribution. They will clarify interpretations of clinical guidance on PPE use, they will streamline decision making, they will ensure timely turnaround of orders, and ensure there are appropriate processes for recording and resolving complaints.

Kiritapu Allan: What further steps are being taken to provide the public assurance that PPE distribution systems are working?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As members will be aware, the Office of the Auditor-General is conducting an independent review of the management of PPE. I welcome that, and look forward to the release of its findings. In the meantime, I have also asked Sir Brian Roche to cast an independent eye over information gathered for the stocktake I requested. Sir Brian will also be able to ask further questions of the Ministry, DHBs, providers, and others as he feels appropriate, and he will advise me directly of his findings.

Question No. 11—Tourism

11. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Tourism: How many jobs have been lost in the tourism sector since the announcement of the wage subsidy scheme?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Tourism): Unemployment statistics released yesterday show employment in the accommodation and food services sector, which includes the tourism sector, went down by more than they would in a typical quarter. There is no doubt the tourism sector has incurred job losses due to the impact of COVID-19. Tourism New Zealand surveyed 10,500 tourism operators about the impact of COVID-19 on their business at the end of April. Results showed a large number accessing Government support measures, with 87 percent having accessed wage support. A high percentage of businesses say they will return to work as demand returns, and I’ve no doubt that the economic package, including the wage subsidies, has helped to save jobs in the industry which may have been lost without our help.

Hon Todd McClay: Is he aware of a tourism industry association survey this week showing two-thirds of all tourism businesses are reducing staff, and reports of up to 200,000 people to be laid off in the tourism sector?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I am aware, and I’ve been informed that the industry is saying that the level 2 travel decision will save thousands of jobs and hundreds of businesses.

Hon Todd McClay: Is he aware that Ngāi Tahu’s Skyline Enterprises, the Heritage Hotel, and others have this week laid off more than a thousand workers in the tourism sector in Rotorua, Queenstown, and other destinations who would have otherwise kept their jobs if the announcement had been earlier or the wage subsidy for the tourism sector had been extended?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I am very aware of the situation of those businesses. They’ve made decisions based on what they think is right for their business, and I’m looking forward to working with them as part of the tourism recovery and the rebuild.

Hon Todd McClay: What does the Minister say to those thousand workers who this week found out they lost their job, when he said earlier he was doing a web seminar to try and save jobs, and that, actually—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The member’s already had two.

Hon Todd McClay: Two?

SPEAKER: Two legs to his question. I’ll let the member start again.

Hon Todd McClay: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What does the Minister say to those thousand workers who lost their jobs this week who would have otherwise kept them had the Government extended the wage scheme for the tourism sector or announced that there would be tourism travel under level 2 earlier this week?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I reject the premise of the question. But, like I said, I’m also looking forward to working with those businesses as they start the rebuild and the recovery of the tourism industry, because the tourism industry does have a future. It’s going to take some time for us to complete that rebuild and that recovery, but things are going to look up from here on in.

Hon Todd McClay: What does he say to the tourism industry association head, Chris Roberts, who said that no other industry has been affected by COVID-19 as seriously, and the current universal support programmes are not sufficient for the tourism sector or those thousand workers that lost their job this week that he’s just told have a brighter future?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I say to Chris Roberts, thank you very much for the feedback today. It was him that actually said the level 2 travel decision will save thousands of jobs and hundreds of businesses.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Would the Minister encourage New Zealanders who typically spend billions of dollars a year on international travel to instead travel locally at home and support local businesses?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: That’s right—I’ve given Tourism New Zealand the mandate to begin work on a domestic tourism marketing campaign to ensure that when New Zealand is safe and when our alert levels are lower, we’ll be able to kick-start the industry.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister, therefore, is it a very wise idea that New Zealanders who want to be tourists should support New Zealand First?

SPEAKER: I don’t think the member missed a valid question.

Question No. 12—Health

12. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Associate Minister of Health: What impact has the COVID-19 lockdown had on new parents?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health): Over 6,000 babies have been born since we went into level 4 lockdown. I want to acknowledge the new parents who have had this global pandemic impact upon their lives at this critical time for their whānau. The impacts will have varied depending on each whānau’s circumstances, but I want to acknowledge that each family and each new parent will have been impacted in some way because of the unprecedented circumstances of COVID-19. I also want to thank midwives and our hospital staff, who have gone the extra mile to try and ensure that new parents have had their needs met during this incredibly difficult time.

Hon Louise Upston: Does she think it is inhumane to give birth alone, and how many women have given birth alone during the lockdown?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: In answer to the first part of the question, I agree with the Prime Minister, who said that no one should have to birth alone.

Hon Louise Upston: Was the Government’s policy that “not all facilities have the ability for people to stay”, as the Prime Minister said on 29 March, or that “no one should give birth alone”, as the Prime Minister stated yesterday?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I’m not aware of any mother having to give birth alone in a DHB or other birthing facility.

Hon Louise Upston: Does she agree that a petition of nearly 2,700 people in support of pregnant women was “largely ignored” by the Government, and, if not, what did she do in response to this petition?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I’m sorry, I’m not aware of which petition the member is referring to.

Appointments

Independent Police Conduct Authority

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That, pursuant to section 5 of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988 and section 32 of the Crown Entities Act 2004, this House recommends to Her Excellency the Governor-General the reappointment of Simon Peter Wallace Murdoch CNZM, and the appointment of Elizabeth Mason Sinclair MNZM, each as a member of the Independent Police Conduct Authority for a term of five years.

The Independent Police Conduct Authority is established by the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988. Its job is to investigate complaints against the police concerning any practice, policy, or procedure of the police. They’re also responsible for investigating any incident involving serious bodily harm or death notified to the authority by the Commissioner of Police. Under section 5 of the Act, there are up to five commissioners appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives, and one member is to be appointed as the chairperson of the authority. That person has to be a judge; that role is full-time. That role is currently occupied by District Court Judge Colin Doherty.

The two members who it is recommended Parliament recommend to the Governor-General for appointment: Simon Murdoch is a longstanding former public servant, and since then has occupied a number of roles in a governance role in the Public Service; and the other is Elizabeth, or Liz, Sinclair, as she’s known, who has over 30 years’ public sector experience, 20 of those in executive leadership roles in large, complex operational agencies. She brings to bear on this role considerable experience and judgment.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Just a few brief comments. The National Opposition does support the appointment of these two persons to the role of the Police Complaints Authority. I think it is an important body, and it is important that the Parliament itself has confidence in the people who hold these particular roles.

I don’t intend to say too much more, other than to—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank God!

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, perhaps I could say a little bit more, just to elucidate a little bit that, in both cases, we all have high respect for the individuals concerned. I have personally worked with Mr Murdoch. I know what an excellent fellow he is and what a genuine State servant he has been over a number of years, where the best interests of New Zealand are very much to the fore in his thinking. I’m sure that being joined by Ms Sinclair will—as they have been a good team for a time now—give us continued confidence that the Police Complaints Authority are doing a good job protecting the interests of New Zealanders.

Motion agreed to.

Chief Ombudsman

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That, pursuant to sections 3(1), 3(4), and 5(1) of the Ombudsmen Act 1975, the House recommend to the Governor-General that Peter Francis Boshier be reappointed as an Ombudsman and as Chief Ombudsman for a term of 5 years, with effect from 10 December 2020.

This is not my appointment. I’m bringing the appointment before the House because it has been the appointment recommended by the Officers of Parliament Committee. This is Parliament’s appointment, quite rightly so. The Ombudsman plays a very important role in scrutinising the actions of the executive part of the Government and on investigating matters brought to him or her by members of the public. It is an incredibly important role within our constitutional framework. The investigation of complaints, in particular, is a very, very significant role.

Peter Boshier was appointed as the Chief Ombudsman in 2015, so he is approaching the end of his first five-year term, and he has agreed to continue in the role. I think it would be fair to say that Judge Boshier has brought a galvanising approach to the Office of the Ombudsman, and one that I think, generally speaking, should be welcomed by the public. One of the big frustrations with the functioning of the Office of the Ombudsman, up until the time he was appointed, was the length of time it would often take to have a complaint investigated and then finally resolved. I remember, as an Opposition member of Parliament, lodging complaints about Official Information Act request denials that sometimes would take up to 18 months before someone would even start to investigate them. Some members have reported that the time frame for that was even longer than that. I can say that Judge Boshier does not tolerate those kinds of tardy time lines, and, actually, I think that as a result of that, compliance with the Official Information Act across Government has improved significantly, and that is a very, very welcome development. So whilst this is not my appointment, it is certainly an appointment that I endorse.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): While it’s interesting to hear the Leader of the House saying it’s not his appointment, I could make the same claim. It’s not my appointment. It’s not my caucus’s appointment. It is the Officers of Parliament Committee’s. But it would be completely wrong to suggest that those who are charged with that responsibility don’t, in fact, consult with their caucuses prior to the appointments being made. So it is appropriate that it does come before the Parliament for its final ratification.

Can I just say, I think it was also—if I may pick up on the comment by the Leader of the House that Judge Boshier in this role has been somewhat of a galvanising character. There are various ways to interpret that. Can I just say that I don’t think any Opposition has ever been overly or completely happy with the way some of their requirements of the Ombudsman have been dealt with. That, unfortunately, is just the nature of the role. I think it is very, very poignant that you point out that under Mr Boshier’s tenure, the way in which these complaints have been dealt with swiftly is something that we’re all very grateful for and would like to see more of. He is a completely independent person, and rightly so. And, accordingly, we support the decision of the Officers of Parliament Committee for the reappointment today.

Motion agreed to.

Auditor-General and Deputy Controller

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That, pursuant to section 11(2) and clause 2(2) of Schedule 3 of the Public Audit Act 2001, the House recommend to the Governor-General that Greg Mark Schollum be reappointed as Deputy Controller and Auditor-General for a term expiring on 30 April 2023, commencing on 28 September 2020.

The Office of the Auditor-General provides independent assurance that public entities are operating and accounting for their performance in keeping with Parliament’s intentions. As with the previous notice of motion, this motion extends the appointment of a senior officer of Parliament, Greg Schollum, who has served with distinction as the Deputy Controller and Auditor-General since he was appointed in 2015, including a period where he was acting as the Acting Controller and Auditor-General, when he led the Office of the Auditor-General I think at what would be fair to say was quite a challenging time. I understand that Mr Schollum’s reappointment for three years was agreed unanimously by the Officers of Parliament Committee with all of the parties in Parliament being consulted on it.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I think that has been a fairly full explanation of the circumstances that surround this appointment. We also concur with the decision of the Officers of Parliament Committee, the reappointment of Mr Schollum, and wish him every success in that role in the years ahead.

Motion agreed to.

Offices of Parliament

Address to Governor-General

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General commending to Her Excellency the alterations to the appropriations and the capital injection for the 2019/20 financial year in respect of Vote Audit.

Supply for Officers of Parliament, including the Auditor-General, is subject to a different process from other Votes. Appropriations have to be specifically approved by the House. By agreeing to this motion, the House is approving an increase in the appropriation of $15 million in the 2019-20 year to allow for the potential increased deficit in the audit and assurance services and a capital injection of $15 million in 2019/20 to fund the potential increased deficit in the audit and assurance services.

These alterations reflect the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on the timing of audit work between 2019-20 and 2020-21 financial years, with most audits experiencing delays as the auditors and public entities shifted to working remotely. The immediate financial impact of the change in audit timing will be reduced revenue in the audit and assurance services revenue dependent appropriation for the 2019-20 financial year. There’s expected to be a larger deficit in this output class for the 2019-20 year. Incurring a larger deficit requires an increase in the audit and assurance services appropriation. Again, I understand that this alteration is made on the recommendation of the Treasury and was supported unanimously by the Officers of Parliament Committee.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): There’s probably, in recent times, never been a more important job than being the auditor of the Government’s accounts—effectively, all the activities that take place in the name of the Government. Effectively, we are seeing at the moment billions of extra dollars being spent necessarily in the economy to keep things afloat as we deal with the COVID-19 fallout. But I think it is totally, then, appropriate that the auditor’s office is well supported and that, while there’s a little bit of to-ing and fro-ing here over some capital commitments and various other things, it is none the less no different to saying that anybody who is doing a job needs to have the tools to do the job, and that job has just got considerably bigger. So we do also support the Officers of Parliament decision for this capital injection.

Motion agreed to.

Appointments

Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I move, That, pursuant to section 157 of the Intelligence and Security Act 2017, this House recommend to Her Excellency the Governor-General the appointment of Brendan John Horsley as the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security for a term of five years.

The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is a statutory office established to provide independent oversight of the intelligence and securities agencies, and those are the SIS and the GCSB. The IGIS, as the role is called in abbreviated form, is responsible for ensuring that security and intelligence agencies carry out their activities lawfully and properly, they have the role to independently investigate complaints about those agencies, and they provide advice about oversight of those agencies to the New Zealand Government and the Intelligence Security Committee of Parliament. As is required by law, the proposed appointment of Mr Horsley has been consulted with that committee.

This role, I think, is pretty well known to the House at the moment as a consequence of the overhaul of those security laws in recent years, which was led by the Hon Chris Finlayson very ably.

Could I, before closing with some of Mr Horsley’s earlier experience, thank the former IGIS, Cheryl Gwyn, for her service—I thought she served the country well in that role before being appointed as a judge to the High Court—and the Deputy IGIS, Madeleine Laracy, who has held that role in an interim sense since July 2019.

Mr Horsley has most recently been the Deputy Solicitor-General in the criminal field at Crown Law from 2014 to 2020. Before that, he was the first national director of the Public Defence Service, from 2011 to 2014. In earlier days, he was at the Commerce Commission, and, before that, he was a Crown prosecutor. So he’s had a wide range of Government service. I’ve had some dealings with him for quite a while, as have other members of this House. I’m sure that he is well equipped to carry out this role, important as it is.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): It is indeed a very important role, and, just to make it clear, we have both the GCSB and the SIS looking after New Zealand’s security, effectively. One of the things that has been a little bit of a concern to some of us in recent times has been the extent to which the office that we are now talking about has almost put itself into a veto role when it comes to the issue of warrants and other such, and sort of a not necessarily retrospective inspection but a prospective approval process for some of the activities that our security services have to engage in. I think that’s unfortunate. I do hope that Mr Horsley has a good look at the operation that he inherits and then is able to refer back to his legislation and to work with the directors of the two security agencies to ensure that they have their own confidence about being able to do the work that they are required to do on behalf of New Zealand, to look after our security.

Sort of interesting, over the last five or six weeks, we’ve heard very little about many of the issues that consumed the world in a security sense just a short time ago. That’s because of the focus that the whole world’s had on fighting the COVID-19 virus. But the many threats, the many dangers, and the many pitfalls that could be out there for New Zealand, not only in a personal security sense but in a commercial security sense as well, still exist. We do have to have active SIS and GCSB operatives looking after our country’s best interests. So while we agree with the appointment of Mr Horsley and see him as being eminently qualified for the job, I do hope that he has a good look at the operations of the inspector-general’s office, with a view to it being a retrospective rather than prospective operation.

Motion agreed to.

Annual Review Debate

In Committee

Debate resumed from 6 May on the Appropriation (2018/19 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): All annual reviews are available for debate, but only specific Ministers have been available each day to respond. The Government has indicated the Ministers available today will be the Rt Hon Winston Peters, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister for State Owned Enterprises, and Minister for Racing; and the Hon Stuart Nash, Minister of Police, Minister of Fisheries, Minister of Revenue, and Minister for Small Business.

I remind members that the House has suspended the four-speech limit for each member during the committee of the whole House to allow improved interaction with the Minister during the debate. I intend to run that as I did yesterday, where it’s a bit like supplementary questions where a member asks a question of a Minister, the Minister’s able to stand and answer that question, and the member then can ask another question so that we get a conversation happening in the House, which was very successful yesterday in particular. The time remaining in this debate is 59 minutes. Obviously, I’m remaining here to keep a safe distance, and the Ministers can remain in their seats.

Kieran McAnulty moved yesterday that progress be reported and the call is now available to him if he so wishes.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Madam Chair, can I just say at the very beginning that COVID-19 has been a significant shock with global ramifications and serious implications for New Zealand’s foreign and trade policy. The challenges brought on by COVID fall heavily on small trading nations like New Zealand, as we depend on stability, predictability, and cooperative solutions to global problems. There will be a recovery, and New Zealand’s strong fiscal position and balance sheet, our positive brand on the international stage, and our enviably low proportion of COVID-19 cases mean that we can be cautiously optimistic that we can emerge earlier and stronger from this crisis.

We have strong democratic institutions and values, an adherence to the rule of law, and we are committed to equality, inclusivity, and accountability. These characteristics are central to our international brand and have underpinned much of our global economic and diplomatic success. But the global landscape will be different, which will challenge how New Zealand engages in the world. Diplomacy will be critical to protecting New Zealand’s interests and values in the world, and we need to keep New Zealand relevant, protect our influence through coalitions of like-minded countries, defend and reinforce shared rules and norms, and be proactive in building and leveraging relationships.

We are well placed through investment made in relationships and institutions in the Pacific, key relationships and regional institutions in the Indo-Pacific region, innovations in international trade architecture, and overseas development aid expenditure. We will need to invest in strong coalitions of countries open to protecting and championing the same norms and values as New Zealand.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s (MFAT) three priorities have remained the same throughout the crisis: first, maintain and sustain our global network of posts offshore so they can help New Zealanders offshore; second, provide advice to the Government on COVID-related foreign policy issues and international developments; and, third, help keep people safe abroad and at home. Since planning began for the first evacuation flight from Wuhan in China in late January, MFAT has been working around the clock with 404 dedicated people working three shifts a day, 24/7 in New Zealand and in posts across the globe to provide consular services, keep air links open for essential freight, and provide information on a daily basis about over 100 countries across the globe.

This last point is important. MFAT’s diplomatic reporting has played a key role in enabling the Government to do the right thing at home by learning from international experience. MFAT has helped us understand what measures others were taking, what is working to flatten the curve, and what isn’t. The numbers involved have been massive since the crisis began. MFAT’s Wellington consular call centre has received over 11,000 inquiries and provided consular support or advice to thousands of New Zealanders in about 150 countries and territories.

At the same time, we encouraged New Zealanders to return home, and around 80,000 New Zealanders answered that call, many thousands being assisted by MFAT. We have also facilitated over 50,000 foreign nationals to depart our shores during the level 4 lockdown and level 3 restrictions. That’s almost 130,000 people moved within New Zealand and to New Zealand in the eye of the COVID storm during mainly lockdown at level 4, and, meanwhile, not imperilling the safety of the New Zealand people. It’s going to be a big year ahead for MFAT as we tackle the global environment defined by COVID-19, but the great news is that MFAT is up for the challenge.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Someone—anyone?

Hon Member: It’s the different format; we just didn’t quite—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): OK.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): It’s actually, Madam Chair, an expression of the diplomatic nature on this side and the courtesies we extend one another. I’d like to thank the Minister of Foreign Affairs, obviously, first and foremost, for the work that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) is doing. Actually, we had a very good briefing in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee today, just giving us some good indications of what they are looking towards in the Pacific.

With MFAT in particular it would be good if the Minister would take some time to talk a little bit more specifically around who we will be working with—in particular, engagement, I would hope, with our traditional allies, including the United States; Australia, of course; and the Pacific; and the likes of the United Kingdom. It’s very clear that crises of this nature across the globe provide an opportunity for geopolitical mischief—I might phrase it as—from different countries. One thing I certainly don’t want to see is our Pacific Island neighbours in particular—but it also applies to New Zealand—in a weaker position which allows us to be, if you will, manipulated to see various assets or forms of support taken away by other foreign powers, which are not in our interests. So I’d be keen for the Minister to elaborate a little bit more about how he sees his ministry working more closely with our traditional allies.

I think it would also be quite helpful to understand, if he can, what this extra support into the Pacific is going to look like. It clearly seems to me that a lot more money and resources is going to be needed. I will acknowledge the Pacific reset has seen more money, and the Minister is welcome to, if you will, contradict or challenge me, but I don’t think that’s going to be enough moving forward. What’s that monetary support going to look like? What’s that structural support going to look like?

We’ve heard as well from officials that there could well be, if you will, democratic challenges developing into the Pacific as well, and that’s going to have implications not only of how this Parliament supports it and MFAT supports it but perhaps too even to our defence forces or our police forces. I know that Police strictly sits outside external affairs, but what sort of thought has been put into that space there? It’s going to have a cost implication.

I might just leave it there. Actually, one last point, and then I’ll sit down and defer. I think, Madam Chair, your idea of the quicker questions is helpful. It would be interesting to know too, Minister, if you can, outside of aid, tell us what it looks like in terms of our agreements. Our committee looked very closely at the implications of Brexit. So our relationship with the UK, our free-trade agreement with the EU—are they continuing positively or are they being put on hold? And, perhaps, if I’m trying to link it to the aid, is there some conversation we can have again with our traditional allies—the likes of the UK—of how we use these trade agreements, obviously, to help each other but also into the Pacific?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I thank the member for his review and also his questions. Going forward, it’s clear that every relationship is important now and no matter where it is, because we’re a trading nation, very dependent upon our trade and our exports, and we’ve got to be fully equipped in the new world, dramatically affected by COVID, to take every advantage where we can and if we can. It means, also, that we’ve got to have more people on the ground. You know, when you look at a place like, for example, the Philippines or, dare I say it, India, and you find that there are one or two people available only for massive populations like that, you come to wonder why it is that we—and without a great deal of examination—have not been as successful as we should have been. I mean, Singapore and Ireland, for example, have 2½ times more people in the field than we have.

There is a price for not making investment in people on the ground, and especially as we seek to now get our relationships in trade going. And with the non-movement of business people by airways to countries, our footprint on the ground now is far more critical. I can tell you that we will be coming up short until we get more people out there, particularly when businessmen can’t get there, and we have to try to do the job for them. So it’s going to be very, very hard.

It also means, though, that there have been dramatic lessons we’ve learnt from COVID-19. The first is the dependence upon one market, one product, and one company. We had already learnt that lesson in the 1970s when the UK went off and joined the EU and left us in the lurch, so to speak. It was a dramatic lesson of what dangers there are in one product and one market or one country as the customer. I know that the UK has spent the rest of the time trying to get out of the EU, and they’re out now, but we missed the boat in learning a lesson then and we are in danger of missing it now unless we realise that our dependence on one product, milk; one company, Fonterra; and one market, China, comes with enormous dangers. You need to diversify, and everyone has always said that in terms of business. So I hope we understand that.

When the Minister asks, therefore, what are our relationships with, say, the United States or other countries, the answer is not to downplay the importance of China or, dare I say it, the Chinese people in any way, shape, or form. They haven’t been around for 3,000 years because they are not a very clever and smart people. But the point is that other relationships were always important, and we had let them go a long way in reverse. Let me tell you that, for example, the work and effort we put in personally—and with others like David Parker and, dare I say it, the Prime Minister—to massively improve our relationship with Japan has paid off. That’s why they stepped up in terms of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and took a serious leadership role and were critical in getting it home. Our relationship has never been better with Japan.

With the United States, we have put in a lot of time. Despite some people’s views about the United States, we have worked extraordinarily hard to get a better relationship because they are the world’s biggest economy and we need, and we are working on, and we are never going to give up seeking to get a start to a free-trade agreement with them. Our message to the Americans has been we’re in a theatre, the blue continent, bigger than any other nation on Earth—not many people and a whole lot of island nations, but it’s an important geostrategic area, and you cannot afford to ignore it. We can do better in this part of the world in helping this neighbourhood if you give us the economic platform to do better by giving us some consideration.

Now, when you take a free-trade deal with, for example, dare I say it, Chile or, dare I say it, Morocco, in the case of the United States, we have to ask them, you know, “What have we done wrong?” And we make it very clear that if you want us to do the right things in terms of international order and spread freedom and peace and the values of our part of the world, then we, you and I, are going to do have to do more together. So we’re never going to give up and we hope to have some measure of success before too long.

When it comes to the Australians, well, again, we’ve worked extraordinarily hard with them because we are two beacons of hope in the Pacific. It’s a huge responsibility and, were it not for us, I’d hate to say what would happen in the future there. So working with Australia has always been a very, very big priority for us. But we’ve got fascinating new help coming in the form of Japan offering help in the Pacific. And, dare I say it, now Indonesia, the biggest Muslim country, has turned to the Pacific, via New Zealand, where they had their huge first international conference here, just a year ago, to look with new eyes at how New Zealand can help. We look with a great degree of calmness and confidence at the modern reformed Indonesian Government and the difference between that Government and past Governments, and I think there’s great hope as well in having that new relationship happening in our part of the world.

But we’ve also spoken to the French, we’ve spoken to the Canadians, we’ve spoken to the EU, and we’ve spoken to the British about putting more effort in our part of the world. And, dare I say it, I think the member, when he said that the official development assistance won’t be enough, he’s quite right. Their problem is, of course, debt. We have to have a good hard look—as I raised with Dominic Raab, the Foreign Minister for the UK, we have to have a good hard look here. It is possible that with countries like New Zealand, Australia, dare I say it, Japan, and the EU, and Canada, and United States, we can look at that debt situation and do something about it, because the outfall of COVID-19 will be devastating for them, and we need to start thinking ahead now together.

With respect to Brexit, I’m glad he raised that, because we should be first off the rank, and we’re doing all we can to be first off the rank and to make sure whatever rank it is, the Aussies don’t leave before us. Thank you.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Can I just say to the Minister of Foreign Affairs right from the outset that the way in which his staff have responded to the various concerns that have gone through electorate offices about New Zealanders stranded overseas—or, for that matter, foreign nationals stranded in the homes of New Zealanders—over the last couple of weeks has been outstanding. I’d hope that he passes that on to them—I’m sure he will. They’ve done a very good job.

It’s been, I think, interesting to listen to the Minister’s speech, because there’s an instant recognition that everything that we’re supposed to be reviewing today—what happened over that 2018/19 year—now changes completely. I was very pleased to hear the way in which the Minister so forthrightly expressed the desire to see that change. What I am interested in, though, is how that’s being manifest at the moment. So while it’s easy to, sort of, say, yes, we’ve got to go and do this and do this and do this, it does take a lot of work, it does take a lot of effort, and it requires that there are people back home here who are focusing in on that. Particularly, I’m interested to know what have been the discussions—albeit electronically or perhaps by telephone or Skype or Zoom or whatever might have been the medium—between the New Zealand Government and the Australian Government on the idea of the trans-Tasman bubble, and to get some sort of sense as to what sort of process has to be gone through before there might be a timeline emerge for that coming.

While we’ve got this, sort of, free exchange that’s going on, I won’t sit down just yet, but just ask what does he see the prospects for the likes of the Realm countries becoming part of that bubble as well, because, quite clearly, as he has just outlined, the threats to their economies are just extraordinary compared to our own.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I want to thank Mr Brownlee for his comments, but he’s right; we should be here talking about 2018 to 2019, but we’re not, because, I suppose, it’s dependent upon the questions, anyway. But the reality is that COVID-19 has changed everything so dramatically, and 3½ weeks ago, when we were considering this—it’s almost four weeks ago now—I asked the foreign affairs ministry if they would start doing some work on the concept of an Australasian bubble, because I could see that the Australian performance, not as clear then, against COVID-19 was paralleling ours, even though the measurements might have been slightly different.

The second thing was knowing, amongst a whole host of other facts, that 55 percent of our tourist population coming into the country hitherto had been from Australia, and the staggering thing was that the second-highest tourism population to Australia was New Zealanders. We could see a chance that, if we could start this back as fast as possible, we might arrest some of the forecasts of doom and gloom for the tourism industry, and as soon as possible. But we also recognise that they are a federal country, with a federal system, and whilst the Canberra message might be one thing, staying on narrative state by state could be different.

So I was very encouraged by the Premier of, for example, Tasmania making a statement about why don’t we restore the utility that we had in the 1990s between New Zealand and Hobart, and as soon as possible, and given that their record is the finest one in Australia for non-COVID cases, it was also one enhanced where we can start somewhere, anyway, and demonstrate to Australia, particularly places like Queensland—where we are so important to them in our tourism industry—that this can be done. If we’re going to go to regional New Zealand, and if we think conceptually that we’re one population in terms of our tack on COVID-19, then inter-region is no different than going interstate, and if it’s interstate, why not inter-country? But we’ve got to think like this is a crisis time, and we’ve got to think of all the utilities to keep people safe, but time is of the essence. Every hour is critical now, and in that sense we’re waiting right now to see—today or tomorrow—what Prime Minister Morrison says. Because it’ll be very interesting what decision he comes to, and whether the federal system may be delaying a lower level of lockdown in Australia than has been forecast.

Having said that, the member is right about the Realm countries. If you look at, for example, Niue and the Cooks, if we can secure not just healthy travel in terms of aviation but also be assured of the maritime security at their borders, then this looks highly likely, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) officials have been working on that as they have been working on with respect to Samoa. Now they’ve been invited also by Fiji’s Attorney-General, their Minister of Trade, to start looking hard at that as well, and they are. So I can’t say what the outcome is, but clearing away the debris of organisation for safety and security is what MFAT is doing. We hope to have an answer; I seriously think we can have an answer in a very short time.

Now, can I just put it in perspective? The other day, when the Warriors got on the plane and went off to Tamworth in Australia, was a great sign that the bubble can, in a different way, work. But when we were moving 130,000 people to or from this country in the eye of the storm of COVID, we did it without imperilling the health of this country, so why can’t we get tourism going? The reality of the matter is any failure in this country will not be due to our lack of ability; it will be due to our lack of commitment to see that we get through this and out the other side, and get back to normalcy as fast as possible.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): That’s very encouraging, I must say, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Yet, I suppose at some point we may even look at areas like Queenstown being considered isolation bubbles, particularly for those crucial months of July through to September. But, look, there’s also been the issue raised of having another look at some of our trading areas. There’s no question at the moment that the trade that we are doing with China and the volumes that are going there are very, very valuable and we’d want to keep that up, but I think the Minister in recent times has talked about a new arrangement with other countries that are part of the Asian bloc. I’m wondering exactly what is the work programme that might see some of that come to fruition, and how do you do that, particularly the engagement with Taiwan, without putting at risk some of the trade we currently have with China?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I thank the member for raising those questions, one of which, of course, is exercising the minds of everybody in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, because, in the end, the moment the face of COVID-19 was known, countries like Singapore and, dare I say it, Korea said, “We need food security. We need to ensure that we have arrangements that will hold up.” Singapore was very serious about that. We had conversations with them, with Korea, and also with countries like, for example, the United Arab Emirates—where, again, there is a country that is actually very modern, very visionary, and that understands the need for food security, and, of course, they’re looking with new eyes at New Zealand because we represent, with our brand, food security.

So it was a dual initiative both on their part and ours. That said, of course, we have to be dependent upon trade and look at every opportunity. We do not, for example, think that we should be hindered from trade with, for example, Taiwan. Why would we be, particularly when their COVID-19 response is the world’s leading response? But, at the same time, you’ve got to have a look at your existing markets whilst trying to develop new ones. But I suppose the lesson for us is, diversification, diversification, diversification—add value here as much as we can and deal with the economies like, for example, Singapore and Korea, that have, as I say, in the COVID crisis, looked at us with new eyes.

It’s an ill wind that doesn’t blow some country or somebody some good, and if there is a benefit from COVID-19, it’s the lessons that they and we are mutually learning.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): I hadn’t intended on taking a call this afternoon, but listening to the Minister of Foreign Affairs just walk through a couple of numbers just prior, if I understand or if I heard correctly, I think I heard that there was the movement of 130,000 people—80,000 of which were New Zealanders, 50,000 of which were foreign nationals—and this all occurred whilst the country was under alert level 4, in what I heard the Minister coin “the eye of the COVID storm”. Noting the work of the ministry at that time, and, I guess, the gravity of both our diplomatic relationships, or the necessity of those diplomatic relationships to enable the travel of those passengers, and the significance of the relationships that he must have relied on, I guess my question is: was the Minister asked to talk through that response to the Epidemic Response Committee, that is charged with undertaking the inquiry into the Government’s COVID-19 response?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I thank the member for her question. Well, I don’t think I was. I’d have to check with my staff, but I have no recollection of any invitation to the Epidemic Response Committee. Mind you, I have to observe that had I been invited over those six weeks, that committee would not have had just only two Māoris turn up in front of it, they’d have had three.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I also just support the comments and acknowledge the Ministers responsible for trade and defence, and their departments and ministries that have responded throughout the COVID-19 state of emergency.

But my question is to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I’m just wondering, we are a trading nation, we are a small island nation down the bottom of the world, so our supply chain is always a challenge for us in terms of being able to remain competitive and connected, and, as would be expected, most trade at the moment is being done on the sea and not by air. I was wondering whether or not the Minister could give a report to the committee in terms of what work and analysis is being done in terms of how much damage is being done to the existing supply chain, in terms of goods coming into the country and exports leaving, and how long it’s going to take us to try and recover back to some normal form of trade; and also, in the long term, how we’re situated in terms of being able to get the goods specially to New Zealand, when you’ve seen, especially with seaborne freight carriers, a consolidation to the mega-ships and the mega-carriers to try and cut costs in what’s an extremely competitive market, and how that’s going to impact and affect New Zealand and us as a nation moving forward.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Can I thank Mr Mitchell for his question. In fact, it’s a fascinating one, because sea transport is the major utility for our trade movements, our cargo movements. When he says, “How much damage has been done?”, we’d all love to know, because it’s a moveable feast, and every day, as other countries change their policies and go to a lower level—or some have gone to a higher level—of lockdown, as it happens every day, it depends on what that export in that country or our export that’s going to that country is doing. I suppose the Minister for Trade and Export Growth and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) are working flat out trying to examine and work out what it all means. But it’s, as I say, a seriously moveable feast, and it depends also, funnily enough, on ensuring that a lot of pre-planning, forward planning, takes place to make sure that shipments that do happen, happen in an organised way and that when they do arrive, they’ll land.

It also depends on serious things like inspections—such as, for example, the apple industry. We do not want inspections when the cargo reaches America. That’s so dangerous. If anything goes wrong, you’ve wasted the whole cargo. We’re doing our best to get the inspections to take place in this country, and if we can change the rules to get the American inspections into this country, then the product going offshore has already been inspected first and we’ll have secured that aspect of the export.

So, again, it’s really critical that anybody out there in the business world who’s got a concern makes contact with MFAT and makes contact with the other departments and lets us know, as happened in the case of the people concerned with the apple and other industries who have made contact. It enables us to ensure that no stone’s left unturned to prepare the way, because, after all, clearing the way for our recovery is the job of Government, and, as I say, the possibility—highly likely—that the Government and the civil service don’t know everything depends on the wise interaction with the commercial community out there and the exporters and importers out there. I invite them to make their concerns known on a regular basis, any concern they have, so that we address their concerns with the greatest of speed.

But, you know, we’re an export-dependent nation here, since 1882. From the first movement of frozen meat from this country, our destiny was set. This has been a terrible upset at the moment, but I believe—sincerely believe, not wishfully—that if we get our response right and reactions right and learn from it every day, even though we all make mistakes, our recovery will be quicker than people think.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, again. A quick question, and it’s really around capacity. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has rightly mentioned the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), and this also applies in Defence amongst other places and Customs—that we need, arguably, more people, be it to support MFAT here or in overseas posts. Does the Minister have any sense of how quickly we can get that capacity?

The nature of the COVID crisis is it’s happening now, and so, for argument’s sake, having the capacity built in a year or two years is, arguably, too late. So to the extent that the Minister is willing or can, how quickly can we have the extra MFAT capacity? When we think in the area of Defence, I know we’ve got the contracts for the P-8s. You’re still discussing the heavy lift capacities. Obviously, some of the frigates are still being upgraded. How quickly can we get those online? Is there any way? Have discussions been had to get that capacity here now? So both for MFAT, and, to the extent the Minister’s willing, the Defence side as well.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): That’s a fascinating question. In an hour and a quarter I’m going to have a paper before the Minister of Finance getting ready to make sure we get our share of the action, so to speak.

Simon O’Connor: Do you want me to proofread it first?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’m happy to show you later on, but not today. But the point is that we’re closing to the Budget next Thursday—it’s the eleventh hour. But you asked a very good question.

One of our problems is that a lot of the countries where we’re trying to get people—take India for example; it’s in lockdown, right? Also, when we had a good, hard look at India, this is this huge economy, population 1.4 billion, and you won’t believe how few people we have in that country. Now, this cannot be, and I suppose our job is to persuade the Minister of Finance—and, dare I say it, others—that you cannot get a trade outcome and result, particularly now, when the business people can’t travel, if you don’t have feet and qualified people on the ground. Me, personally, I’d look around at a lot of retired diplomats who’ve still got enough youth in them, and enough drive, and get them into the field as fast as possible. But I’ve got to wait and see the level of my success or otherwise—whilst being seriously confident, I might add—coming into next Thursday’s Budget.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are you moving to police?

Hon Mark Mitchell: No.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are we still going? OK.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. To the Minister—so can I just firstly congratulate the Minister on his appointment or any involvement he had in appointing his defence Minister, who, of course, is from his own party. It was an astute decision, because his defence Minister immediately picked up the outgoing Government’s defence white paper and capability paper and has been fundamentally implementing that, which, of course, has allowed you to stay in a very strong position in terms of, especially, a focus on the Pacific. And in your opening comments, you referred specifically to aid and support that’s required in the Pacific, which, of course, we support wholeheartedly on this side of the House.

But one thing that has been a little bit concerning in terms of an observation is that the defence Minister that started off with a hiss and a roar in implementing our defence white paper and capability papers is beginning to look a bit shaky around investment into defence state. Of course, you can’t ask 40 squadron to go out and do the work that they do unless, of course, they’re seeing investment into the property and the equipment too, which is being maintained to be able to—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m sorry. I’m sorry to interrupt the member. I was just observing the general spraying around of the disinfectant by the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: And the fastidious attention to detail by the Deputy Leader of the House—absolutely.

Hon Member: He was fogging.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah, ha, ha! So I guess my question to the Minister would be: is he confident—and maybe it’s very good timing in the sense that he just indicated to the House that he’s got a meeting with the finance Minister in an hour. Is he confident that the defence Minister is going to continue to be able to make the investment required into our New Zealand defence forces rather than starting to kick the can down the road, which appears to be that can’s getting kicked a little too much?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): This is a defence question under the guise of foreign affairs.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Well, Madam Chair, you’re right, except that we work so closely together, because it’s a paradox in this country—a lot of people don’t support the Defence Force until there’s a humanitarian crisis. They wonder how it is when you have this disaster in Tonga—we’re over there first. You have a disaster in Vanuatu—we’re there first. All around the Pacific when you have a disaster, our military are there first. Well, they support that, and the answer is, well, you’ve got to support them in other circumstances as well. We have a massive flood down the West Coast—who’s down there? Our armed forces, for goodness sake. I want to say, yes, I did have some say in Ron Mark being the Minister.

The second thing is, he did inherit a defence white paper but he rewrote it, and one of the problems was he saw the defence white paper with $20 billion of expenditure and not $1 assigned. We were alarmed in the extreme and thought this cannot be, and then we looked at property, for example, and realised the defence property had been run down for 20 years, not just National’s fault but the previous Labour Government’s as well—just run down for 20 years. Are we addressing it? Right here, right now.

For example, on Ōhākea’s upgrade—are we addressing that? Yes, right here and right now. So can I just say, we looked at all those things we inherited, but like that fast-food ad in America, where the woman gets up and she looks at the product and says, “Well, where’s the beef?”, that’s what we said when we inherited their white paper and we did something about it.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m just very conscious that I’ve still got people wanting to talk on foreign affairs and we still have the Police Vote yet. We are now in the 20 minutes allocated for Police, unless the Government’s happy to continue, as the Minister did yesterday. With extra time we would need leave to be sought for that to happen.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): Madam Chair, I’m hoping to speak on the foreign affairs issue, not police. I stayed for the debate because I was interested to see if there’d be any discussion about New Zealand’s approach to China, going forward, and I appreciate that there has been discussion around our trading relationships and the importance of trade for New Zealand going out of COVID-19 and how we recover in the future. But, surely, off the back of what we’ve seen, where, effectively, the world is facing mass economic devastation because of a virus that originated in China, the world has to be asking how this happened and what China has done about it, and our approach to China, as a country, cannot just be one of trade.

There are hard questions that need to be asked and answered. When the Australian Foreign Minister talked about an independent review or an inquiry, there were threatening remarks that came her way—came Australia’s way—from the Chinese Government representative in the country. When other countries have asked questions, there have been threatening remarks go their way. The US Secretary of State called, just a few days ago, the Chinese approach to coronavirus as a classic case of communist disinformation. He and his Government are expressing serious concerns. That country has kicked out of their country—kicked out of China—Western journalists who have been attempting—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I just remind the member that this is actually an annual review debate on the 2018-19 financial year and COVID-19. So I appreciate that he mentioned COVID-19, but he does need to actually target a bit more on either the annual review or the response to COVID-19.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, you can take a point of order. I’m telling you what the ruling is and what the debate is, and so you need to actually bring your comments to that subject.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I accept what you’re saying. I did ask at the start if we could hear something from the Minister. I see the Minister is taking notes. I also only get a proportional amount, which is a very short amount of time—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That’s right, but this isn’t a general debate and it isn’t a general free for all. It’s a particular debate, and we’ve organised it in a certain way to give you that opportunity, but it still has to be relevant to what’s in front of the House, and that’s either the annual review for the 2018-19 year, or COVID-19 response.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: Absolutely, Madam Chair, and I’m asking—well, can I continue? I’ll try and fit in with—what I’m trying to ask, because you can look at current operations under this review, is I’m interested to know from the Minister, in current operations, what the Government’s current policy is going to be as our approach to China in the future. Given these questions that the world is asking and given our close trading relationship in the past, are we solely going to be approaching China as a trading nation with a trading relationship, or are we going to join in properly and ask these hard questions?

I did notice some comments in the media by the Minister about this issue days ago. But can he tell the committee quite clearly: will New Zealand be signing up alongside other countries like Australia and the US, our traditional partners, in questioning how economic devastation around the world has taken place as a result of a virus originating from China, where they are not providing real and proper information to the rest of the world?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Thank you. That was exactly as I was asking.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Can I say to Jami-Lee Ross that when this matter first happened, I said from the outset that it’s illogical, it’s inconceivable, for us not to find out what, why, and when this virus emerged, particularly the when it emerged, because the other matter will take inquiry. But, when the first cases happened, what did they do about it? A quarter of a million people have lost their lives, and millions more will also lose their lives, and the whole world’s economy has been set on its head, at a massive loss now to so many economies, and people will be dying as a consequence of famine and starvation unless we can get help to them. It’s absolutely illogical and inconceivable that any country would not want to—in cooperation with the rest of the world, in their effort to defeat COVID-19—find out how it happened in the first place. I’ve made it very clear that that’s what our position is. Maybe it’s not the priority now, because you’re trying to get the COVID-19 plague out of our lives, but there will come a time—and soon—when we need to have that inquiry independently, reliably sourced, and accountable to the rest of the world.

The second thing, of course, is that when you hear certain comments from diplomats—and I heard that comment in Australia, and I was asked on Australian TV what I thought. My response was, well, in a long experience of a relationship with the Chinese Government in Beijing, they have promised me they don’t behave that way—so there’s probably a disconnect between Beijing and what was going on in that country. If you say, “We should be trusted.”, our responsibility is to say, “Yeah, we trust you. We believe you.”, and that’s why, when a thing like that happens—when a local diplomat gets out of line—we’re not going to have our policy determined by that. The people who will determine our foreign policy are the people of this country and, dare I say it, every member of Parliament in this House.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Thank you, Minister. Thank you, members, for the participation in that. We’ll move now to Police.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): The mission of the New Zealand Police is for New Zealand to be the safest country in the world. To enable this, police need to be highly visible in the community, concentrating on areas that are known to cause the most harm to those at risk. Police had the highest level of trust and confidence, in April 2019, since the Citizens’ Satisfaction Survey began, with over 80 percent of people having high or very high trust and confidence in the New Zealand Police service.

Since October 2017, 2,100 new constables have graduated from the Royal New Zealand Police College, more than meeting the 1,800 coalition agreement target. In March 2020, police achieved 10,000 full-time equivalent constables for the first time ever. This means that total numbers, taking into account attrition, have increased by 1,244 since June 2017. For some of these new recruits, their first job could have been to attend the Tasman fires, the March 15 terror attacks, the Whakaari / White Island eruption, and now the response to COVID-19. The 105 number was launched, which has been a pivotal tool during COVID-19 for reporting breaches, and during COVID-19 police have taken an education-first approach, and where necessary they have taken enforcement action, either through warnings or arrests for any serious or persistent breaches.

The last thing I would say is I would like to thank outgoing commissioner, former commissioner Mike Bush, who I think did a fantastic job and has a very strong legacy in the New Zealand Police service. He took over the service at a point where Dame Margaret Bazley had written a report a couple of years earlier that highlighted that Police was a rather dysfunctional organisation with a culture that needed changing, and thanks to former commissioner Mike Bush’s six-year tenure he turned that culture around to the point where Dame Margaret Bazley wrote a follow-up report 10 years later and said that Police had pretty much addressed every single recommendation she’d made 10 years earlier. I would like to thank Mike for his fantastic service and his dedication and his vision for the New Zealand Police service. I’d also like to welcome new police commissioner Andrew Coster, who is a man with energy and vision, presence and drive, and I think he will continue the innovative and positive way and culture, and drive that cultural change that Mike certainly had the New Zealand Police service on.

Finally, I would also just like to say thank you very much to all the men and women of the New Zealand Police service for the job they do to keep us safe 24/7. The vast majority of us have no idea of the work they do, the things they see, and the hours they work to keep us safe, and because of that, I think we are close to achieving the New Zealand Police’s mission of being the safest country. Thank you, Madam Chair.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me actually begin by endorsing what the Minister Stuart Nash just said then about our thanks to the men and women who serve in the New Zealand Police, whether they are uniformed or sworn officers or, indeed, those that support them in the many functions that enable them to do the job of making New Zealand a safer place.

We are time limited—we’ll start with COVID-19, if we may. So my question begins: has the Minister seen reports regarding emails within the New Zealand Police that questioned, at the very early stages of the lockdown—we’re talking the sort of first few days—whether or not police had the lawful powers for the full range of enforcement measures that were put out publicly along with the public conditions of the lockdown?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): I haven’t seen that particular email, though, of course, I’ve heard of it. One thing I would say is, police were very clear to get Crown Law advice on the powers they had, but I would also say that police, I believe, have been very transparent and they published their operational direction. People knew exactly what they were doing because they put it out there, and I think they have taken a very proactive response. One of their mission statements is to deliver a more responsive, community-focused police service, so they haven’t gone out and arrested people and then asked questions later. What they have done is they have spoken to people; they’ve take an educational approach. Where necessary, they’ve issued written warnings, which is a new initiative under the COVID-19 response framework. Where it has been required, they have taken a punitive approach and they have made a number of arrests and sent people forward for prosecution, but, by and large, it is an educational working with the community as opposed to going in there with a really big hammer and, you know, arresting and then asking questions later. So I would like to say that I do believe that their operational response to COVID has been very appropriate to the circumstances within which we find ourselves.

Certainly, in the early stages, where we were all trying to figure out what level 4 meant for all of us, there had been persistent offenders—we acknowledge that—but over 99 percent of Kiwis have bought into the reasons for doing, why we are doing, and behind that. But it also plays into the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s narrative of “be kind”, and I think gone are the days where the police do bang down the door, arrest people, and ask questions later. They’ve flipped that culture around, and they’re working really hard with our communities to actually ensure that people are educated.

When they don’t get it—let’s be honest. Now, there was a guy that was prosecuted because he had been warned six times. That’s when they do need to, you know, bring down the heavy hand of the law on these people. But just to wrap up, I think the police have been very transparent in the operational approach to dealing with COVID-19 issues.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Regrettably, I don’t have the ability to elongate my questions as a punishment for the Minister elongating his answers. Just a couple of points to that—first is his note about the operational guidance being released publicly. Well, to the best of my knowledge, certainly the operational guidance after the health notice on 3 April which clarified conditions and powers was released publicly—to the best of my knowledge the guidance prior to that was not, and certainly wasn’t at the time.

So my questions also go to: has the Minister seen, or is aware of, the content of the advice police received prior to that clarifying health notice of 3 April? Was the police’s approach to education first in any way driven or impacted by a view—which was expressed in an email, even though we haven’t seen the contents—that there were questions about whether they had the lawful authority to enforce fully the conditions that had been given publicly about the lockdown conditions; and how compromised were they, given the public were told that they had to operate under certain conditions and, yet, the police clearly had some reservations as to whether or not they had the lawful power at the time—we’re talking the first few days—to actually enforce to the standard or the set of conditions that were set down?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): As mentioned and, I think, has been traversed in this Chamber, the police did seek Crown Law advice just to make sure they got it right. This situation we find ourselves in is new for everyone, including the New Zealand Police service. That is why, under the direction of Commissioner Mike Bush in the very early days and Andy Coster since then, they have really taken an educational and softly, softly approach to this.

So I think you’ll find in the first couple of days, to which the member alludes, there were no arrests for COVID-19 breaches. It was very much an educational approach as police worked to determine their role in enforcing the level 4 lockdown but also ensuring that New Zealanders knew where they stood, what their obligations were, and the role that police were going to play in policing the whole alert level 4 framework.

Brett Hudson: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just for Marama, we’re just letting that roll; I will make sure you get an opportunity.

Marama Davidson: Sorry, thank you.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Does the Minister Stuart Nash, then—for a view which I’ll specify is not a legal opinion—agree that the threat of an enforcement is in itself coercive on the public? If they believe the power exists, does that itself create some level of coercion upon them? To that extent, then, does he think it appropriate that the public could be allowed to believe that they were subject to a certain set of conditions with enforcement powers to go along with that if, in fact, the full extent of those powers was either unlawful or lawfully questionable?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Everyone I have spoken to, either those in my bubble—you know, my wife and my kids—or those in the community that I’ve spoken to, I understand took their direction not so much from the New Zealand Police but from what the Prime Minister was talking about, was educating, was elucidating every single day around what was expected of Kiwis. I would hesitate to believe that people thought that the risk of not doing this meant that they were going to be thrown into jail or they were going to be prosecuted. I firmly believe that people were under the impression that we were doing this because we needed to do it to keep our country safe, to stop people from dying, as opposed to any other reason.

I am yet to receive, personally—and my office might have so I can’t confirm 100 percent—any sort of feedback that people only complied because they believed the price of non-compliance was prosecution. I do think the reason people complied is because they understood if we complied as a community—in our team of 5 million, as the Prime Minister has talked about—and only if we all complied as a nation, would we get on top of this. I think the expression at the time that we used was flattening the curve, and I think we’ve done that. But I would like to say to the member that certainly I have not had any feedback whatsoever that the reason people complied is due to the threat of prosecution or punitive action on behalf of the New Zealand Police.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Surely, if that were the case, Minister Stuart Nash, then Police or the Government could have been very clear to the public that although they wanted certain things to be done, there was a limit to the lawful power of enforcement at the time, and, that being the case, as you’ve said, everyone would’ve just complied. But if we ended up with a situation where there was a threat of enforcement that the public didn’t know possibly had a questionable legal basis, then we had the potential for them to be operating under a State which is coercing them through threat, at least in part, rather than a lawful basis.

I have another set of questions around COVID, but I’m aware that there’s another member too. I’m also worried, of course, that we will run out of time.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You’ve got seven minutes.

BRETT HUDSON: Well, I’ll just, if I may, briefly then. The community checkpoints, Minister: do you, Minister, think it is appropriate for members of the public to stop traffic on roads that are otherwise open and to require personal information to be disclosed to them?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): What I would say to that is, in the ordinary course of events, no, I do not think that’s appropriate whatsoever. My understanding—and I worked very closely with the communities up on the East Coast, which is obviously Kiri’s electorate—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, actually it’s mine.

Hon STUART NASH: Sorry, it’s where she’s based. It is the Chair’s electorate; I apologise, Madam Chair. It is the Chair’s electorate but it is where Kiritapu Allan is based, and I work closely with all the communities there. The Chair is probably well aware—and I don’t mean to bring you into it, Madam Chair—that there were conversations that were being had with every single stakeholder—from the city council, from the New Zealand Police, from iwi, from the National Emergency Management Agency, from Civil Defence—around these really vulnerable communities. We’re talking about communities which have a high portion of elderly, a high portion of Māori, and of which there was really one road in and one road out. So there was no reason for anyone apart from those who live in that community to traverse these roads under alert level 4.

But what I can say also is that these were not road blocks, and I don’t mean to enter into an argument around semantics, because there is big difference between a checkpoint and a roadblock, and people did not have to stop at these checkpoints. I have been made aware—and it is certainly my understanding—that if people did not want to stop at these checkpoints, then they did not have to stop at these checkpoints. I’m also aware that there’s been a little bit of disingenuous dialogue around what might have happened and what didn’t happen, and when we dig a little bit deeper we find that the truth is a little bit more innocent than maybe the story.

But, certainly, my experience in terms of the checkpoints on the coast is that they were very well run. They were run in conjunction with the police, and they were done to keep our community safe, keeping in mind, as mentioned, that one of the missions of the New Zealand Police service is to deliver a more responsive community focused police service, and obviously the overall mission is to be the safest country.

BRETT HUDSON (National): I thank the Minister of Police for those comments. Of course, as the team of 5 million, we’re all concerned for ourselves, our families, and others in our communities. Those concerns are not limited to specific communities only around the country. There were many more checkpoints than just a few on isolated communities on isolated roads. Northland is a particularly good example of that. But, fundamentally, I agree with the Minister: the roads weren’t closed. But that was my point about otherwise open roads. In that case, prevailing legislation would, for instance, include the Land Transport Act and who is actually lawfully permitted to stop or direct traffic on an open road and who is lawfully permitted to request personal details of occupants of vehicles that have been stopped on an open road. Does he believe that police can delegate those authorised powers to people that hold no special warrant or otherwise official position?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Madam Chair, I think the last thing I’ll say with regard to this topic is I have immense trust—and you’re a former Minister of Police yourself, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Don’t bring me into it.

Hon STUART NASH: I have immense faith in the men and women in the New Zealand Police service, and I know the district commander and the area commanders up north, as well as a lot of them—not all of them, of course—around the country. I know very well the district commander in eastern, and I have immense faith in her ability, and up north his ability, and his area commanders’, to work really closely with communities to ensure that what they end up doing is in the best interests of all the communities. Believe me, I know that if something that was being done harmed the community, or did not have the community buy-in, or was in any way impacting in a way that was not safe, that did not have community buy-in, in any way, then the police would have stepped in and taken appropriate action. But, in this case, I firmly believe—and I have not heard anything to the contrary—that police worked very closely with community members, with key stakeholders, with councils, with elected representatives to keep our communities safe. So I place the faith in the commissioner and his men and women to do the right thing.

BRETT HUDSON (National): I agree, our police do the right thing as best they can and should always do it in a lawful manner. So then, does the Minister have a view that police can or should be able to deem an activity as being lawful when it is not supported under the law of the land and there is no power under that legislation for them to delegate their authority to others?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): I said the last comment I made would be the final one on this, but what I will say is I’ll yet again—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Quickly, because we’re close.

Hon STUART NASH: Yeah. Yet again, I’ll go back to the mission statement: to be the safest country. As mentioned, gone are the days where police run in, bang on the door, arrest everyone, and then ask questions later. Police have a new operating model, a new way of dealing with the communities, and that is working with communities to ensure that everyone is safe, that the law is complied with—I do accept that, Mr Hudson, but in this case, I think that they worked in a really proactive way—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m sorry to interrupt the Minister.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I seek leave to extend this particular part of the debate to enable Marama Davidson to ask the Minister a particular question as indicated to this committee. We have just slightly run out of time.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Is there any objection to that leave? There appears to be none.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Madam Chair—just seeking a bit of guidance. I could just lay it all out, or I could just roll on through different questions. Is there a preference or shall I just go for it?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It’s up to the Minister, really.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: Sure, thank you Madam Chair. Firstly, I want to commend—

Hon Stuart Nash: Just ask questions, and I’ll answer them.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: Sure, COVID-19 focused in particular—can I go first to the armed response teams’ (ART) trials, which I understand finished on Sunday. They did come up through the Epidemic Response Committee, that I’m a part of for the COVID response—communities wanting to ask questions about those through the alert levels 4 and 3 response through the police, and particularly noting, in the review that will now follow, that those ARTs were set up for a particular purpose, especially around responding to events where a significant risk—significant risk was the threshold—is posed to the public or staff, but also supporting execution of pre-planned and high-risk search warrants, high profile public events, etc., as you know.

The question that came through the Epidemic Response Committee was that it appears that the ART use went outside of those official initial guidelines and was also extended into routine policing and traffic stops. The questions that I also have were what is the review going to pick up on in those questions that came from the community, particularly through their anxieties through alert level 4 and 3, I will say? Can I just add on to that that the launched strategy of Te Huringa o Te Tai, which is supposed to be about police and tangata whenua communities working closer together to form better mutual trust—how does that sit in light of the ART trials having been quite focused in predominantly high Māori and Pacific communities as well? That’s my first issue.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you. What I would say to that is that, as the member has correctly elucidated, the armed response team (ART) trial has now completed. It is subject to a thorough evaluation. The new Commissioner of Police, Andrew Coster, has said to me that it will undergo a thorough investigation, and, under section 16 of the Policing Act, that’s actually his role, and I’ll be interested to see what the conclusion of that evaluation is.

One thing I would say, though, in terms of the ART undertaking certain routine policing activities is that at one point there were actually quite a significant number of police who were in self-isolation due to what they had encountered during their routine policing. Because Police is a mobile and very fluid and adaptable organisation, I think what you found is that the ART teams were just doing a number of routine policing tasks simply because there were no other police to do those, so they jumped in where ordinarily they wouldn’t, but due to the number of police in self-isolation they were just called on to undertake day-to-day business-as-usual tasks.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wonder if I could just extend on that for one further point. It—

Rt Hon Trevor Mallard: You’re not allowed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Sought leave—sought leave.

Rt Hon Trevor Mallard: You can’t.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: Carrying on—thoughts from the former police officer and private investigator Tim McKinnel to that extension of armed response teams (ARTs), who said that the very problem with deploying those ARTs is that once they exist, once you pay for them, you want to use them whether they’re necessary or not, and if the Minister has any comments on whether that seems like an extension without social licence of the role of the ARTs.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Police operate under social licence and, as mentioned in my opening comments, I think the direction that former Commissioner Mike Bush took the Police from one where the culture was, you know, dare I say it, an old boys’ club towards where it is now, which is an inclusive organisation—I do fundamentally believe in the 2½ years I have been Minister of Police that the culture of the organisation has changed dramatically, and there are a couple of members in this House who can probably vouch for that cultural change within Police. So one thing I do know about the new Commissioner of Police, Andrew Coster, is that he understands that police operate under a social licence, and they will only be successful—truly successful—when they bring the community along with them.

So again, when it comes to the review and the evaluation of the armed response teams, I have no doubt that Commissioner Coster will undertake a thorough evaluation, but the style and the nature of policing really is up to Commissioner Coster.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): OK, the time for this debate has now expired. The question is, That the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government for the previous financial year be noted.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The question now is, That the reports of committees on annual reviews be noted.

Motion agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 9 and Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Appropriation (2018/19 Confirmation and Validation) Bill

Third Reading

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Appropriation (2018/19 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I seek leave for the House to adjourn.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection? There is none.

The House adjourned at 4.22 p.m.