Wednesday, 2 September 2020

WEDNESDAY, 2 SEPTEMBER 2020

WEDNESDAY, 2 SEPTEMBER 2020

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Speaker’s Rulings

Oral Questions—Number of Legs to a Question

SPEAKER: Members, last year I issued a ruling by email on the application of the convention that a question may only have two legs. Since this matter still arises frequently, I thought it would be useful putting this ruling on the parliamentary record and therefore making it available through Speakers’ Rulings.

Members are supposed to ask a single question. Questions that attempt to ask two or more questions disguised as one are out of order—Speakers’ ruling 165/3. Where I consider that a question has more than two legs, I invite members to choose the two they wish to retain in the question. My general rule of thumb is that if an element of a question could be answered separately, then it is a separate question. The question asking whether a Minister stands by all of his or her statements, policies, and actions can be answered separately about standing by statements, standing by policies, and standing by actions. That is, in effect, three questions in one. I have asked members and I ask members to limit themselves to asking two legs only—for example, statements and policies.

Added to the end of many primary questions that ask whether a Minister will do something is the question “if not, why not?” That is a distinct question and must be answered separately from the main part of the question. If a question ends with “if not, why not?”, then it must only have one preceding leg. There is precedent for this approach. In 1998, Speaker Kidd ruled that the question “Is he proposing to convene a meeting of the multiparty accord on superannuation; if so, when, and if not, why not?” was not in order. I intend to resume that approach. A question that asks “If so, when, and if not, why not?” as a second leg is not in order.

Privilege

Misrepresentation—Reply to a Written Question

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the beginning of the House yesterday, you gave your ruling around a question of misrepresentation of a particular Facebook ad that had been put forward, and you did say in that that you would have been inclined to find a question of privilege, and then you ran through a series of reasons for why you didn’t want to take that forward. One of those reasons—and I’m quoting you here—is “I have been assured that the material has been removed from social media,”. It’s clear that was not true at the time at which you said that, and I just wonder if the assurance you were given was, in fact, misleading and may, in fact, give rise to a further question of privilege, and to what extent was it influential on your decision not to consider this a matter of privilege.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): There was one site where it remained. We have located that. It’s been dealt with, and it is taken down.

SPEAKER: OK, and it’s not surprising that I am aware of the fact, because people did copy me in to a number of Facebook posts and Twitter indications that Mr Simeon Brown had kept the matter up after the assurance was given. I just wanted to make it very clear to Mr Robertson that I would prefer him to take more care with his language, because if one took a strict interpretation of what he’d said, one might interpret that I was deliberately misleading the House. I certainly was not. I had had an assurance, even though that assurance was mainly correct but not absolutely correct, and I don’t propose to take the matter any further.

Privilege

Statement Made by the Hon Tracey Martin—Not Referred

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise a separate issue related to privilege, of which I have written to you today about a statement made by Minister Tracey Martin last week, which was misleading, and I am seeking—

SPEAKER: No, no. Order! Order! If the member had raised a matter of privilege with me, then it would be inappropriate for her to raise it in the House before I had ruled on it. The member has not raised a matter of privilege with me. I have had two letters from the member; reading both of them—and I stand to be corrected—no matter of privilege has been raised, and if it had been raised it would have been ruled out as being out of time. The member should know with her experience that matters where members disagree on answers can be matters of privilege if raised in a proper way, as long as the member gives an indication that a statement was deliberately misleading. If it is a matter of correction, or the member disagrees with a statement, then that is not a matter of privilege, and there are lots and lots of precedents for that. I can remember a very wise speaker from Clutha-Southland—I think—Sir Robin Gray, who made it very, very clear that he did not have the jurisdiction to intervene in disagreements between members on matters of fact.

Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, no. The member’s trying my patience. She’s written me two letters; I’ve looked at those letters, and she’s either out of time or she’s wrong—one or the other.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement, “We will continue to be your single source of truth”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I stand by my statement in its entirety. Some weeks ago, I was asked about rumours and speculation that had emerged across social media on COVID-19 that could have caused harm to New Zealanders. My full quote reads, “I’ve been watching for some days—and this is not unique to New Zealand—that, in the midst of what is a global issue, as you would expect, there are a number of rumours that circulate. I am present on social media; I see it myself. I cannot go round and individually dismiss every single rumour I see, as tempted as I might be. So, instead, I want to send a clear message to the New Zealand public: we will share with you the most up-to-date information daily. You can trust us as a source of that information. You can also trust the Director-General of Health and the Ministry of Health. For that information, do feel free to visit at any time—to clarify any rumour you may hear—the covid19.govt.nz website. Otherwise, dismiss anything else. We will continue to be your single source of truth. We’ll provide information frequently. We will share everything we can. Everything else you see—a grain of salt.”

Hon Judith Collins: Was her Government the “single source of truth” when it announced it would build 16,000 KiwiBuild homes in the first three years of the programme?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I stand proudly on this Government’s record of building houses, and I stand proudly on the fact that we have always been very open when a programme that we had proceeded with hadn’t achieved what we expected. That does not, however, diminish the 5,000 housing places that we very proudly have helped achieve whilst in Government, and that is all in addressing the housing crisis we inherited.

Hon Judith Collins: Well, then, does she realise that none of those Housing New Zealand or Kāinga Ora houses are actually part of the 16,000—the mere 16,000—KiwiBuild homes that have actually been built—that she said she was going to have built?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In my answer, I gave a very clear view on the different elements of our housing programme, which includes public housing, transitional housing, Housing First, and, of course, support for first-home buyers.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she think that the Labour leader, Jacinda Ardern, was being New Zealanders’ single source of truth when she said a future Labour Government would start building light rail to Mount Roskill straight away and complete it by 2021?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Can I just say I do not agree with the member’s conflation of my statement around providing information to New Zealanders via daily updates alongside the Director-General of Health and via the COVID-19 website in contradiction to some of the harmful rumours, speculation, and conspiracy theories online as being the same thing that the member is now trying to state. However, I’ve also openly, in this House, many times, answered her questions on transport.

Hon Grant Robertson: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No. First of all, I’ve been reflecting on this and I’ve been reflecting on the relationship between the primary question and the supplementary questions and the authentication provided, which was expanded on, I think, by the Prime Minister. This quote—the “we” in this—actually refers not in some royal “we” sense but to statements made by the Director-General of Health or someone acting in his capacity and the Prime Minister or the Minister of Health or another Minister acting in their capacity in the COVID areas. For this to continue, the supplementaries have got to be related to that.

Hon Judith Collins: Was her Government being the single source of truth when it told New Zealanders there would be “regular health check and asymptomatic testing of all border-facing workers” when, nine weeks later, it was revealed two-thirds of those workers had never had a test?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, we did agree as a Cabinet that in our testing strategy there would be testing of asymptomatic border workers. That had started with pop-ups at the airport in July on multiple occasions, but we have been very open about the fact that it wasn’t as comprehensive or scaled up as quickly as Cabinet had desired. That is why, of course, we have put in place additional supports in the Ministry of Health to ensure the roll-out of that. We are now in our second sweep of border workers at the ports, at the airport, and in our managed isolation facilities, and it is important to note that alongside those sweeps we as yet have not identified the source of the resurgence we’ve seen in Auckland.

Hon Judith Collins: Was her Government the single source of truth when it mistakenly told 700,000 Aucklanders to get a COVID-19 test and then failed to proactively correct the record?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I refute the last part of the member’s question. We did seek to proactively correct that information when it was identified—

Hon Louise Upston: When? How much longer? How much later?

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —and, as I said in the House yesterday and as I said publicly on Sunday, a mistake was made. That has been corrected, and, again, I apologise to any New Zealander who had any anxiety as a result of that incorrect information.

SPEAKER: Sorry, I’m just going to remind the Hon Louise Upston that when she interjects she does come through her leader’s microphone, which extensively amplifies her already adequate voice.

Hon Judith Collins: If her Government is our single source of truth on this, why did she tell me last week that port workers were going through “a blanket second wave” of COVID-19 testing, when it has now been revealed that, two weeks after the first round of testing, only 200 out of 10,000 port workers have received a second test?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Firstly, I continue to refute the way the member is using my quote, and, again, as I have said, that reference was made to information sourced from the Government and those officials who are a part of the COVID-19 response. So I will say that again. On front-line workers, we did say that once we completed that first sweep—and for the port, that was not completed until the latter half of that period of time—we then started that second sweep again. There’s a few more days left of that testing to be undertaken. The latest report I have, as at Wednesday at 10.30 a.m., is that for the Port of Auckland that’s roughly 277 workers, and for the Port of Tauranga, 132. The Port of Tauranga continues with their testing; so they’ll be running for a few more days. But that is in accordance with the two-week additional turn-around for that second sweep.

Hon Judith Collins: Was her Deputy Prime Minister speaking the truth when he said today, of the COVID-19 response, “We haven’t done as well as we could have done. We let our guard down”—

SPEAKER: Order! There are two things here. One is a reflection on a member of the House. The second is the question of whether the Deputy Prime Minister made any comments at all. I think the leader of a party did, and that is not the responsibility of the Prime Minister.

Hon Judith Collins: Is the Rt Hon Winston Peters correct, then, when he says of the COVID-19 response, “We haven’t done as well as we could have done. We let our guard down. Too many things fell through the gaps, or the hole, rather, that was left by the bureaucracy. The fact of the matter is that the Labour Ministers”—

SPEAKER: Order! The member now has four supplementary questions. If the member had listened carefully to my ruling, she would’ve limited herself to two.

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t think that’s the only issue with that question. It doesn’t relate to the primary question.

SPEAKER: I think there has been some discussion of testing as part of the exchange since, and seeing as I’m in a generous mood, I’ll allow the Prime Minister to answer.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, I actually stand proudly on the record of New Zealanders and their response to COVID-19, and this is a response that would not have seen New Zealand having one of the lowest death rates relative to other countries, some of the highest testing rates, some of the highest compliance, and just today some of the highest compliance with technology solutions as well—we should all be proud of the efforts of New Zealanders in this global pandemic, because, whilst it surges globally, we have continued to take a process of elimination that puts us in the best position to protect New Zealanders’ health, and the best position for our economy to recover. I for one am very proud of that.

Question No. 2—Social Development

2. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Social Development: Has she seen any reports on the likely effect of the end of the winter energy payment period on 1 October on poverty in New Zealand?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Yes. Recently I have seen the Child Poverty Action Group’s report Sheltering our children from COVID-19 fallout. The report highlights the impacts of the decrease in incomes for main benefit recipients when the winter energy payment ends on 1 October. I would point out that the policy intent of the winter energy payment is to support people to meet additional energy costs over the winter period, and given the additional time spent in their homes over winter this year due to COVID-19, people would have seen energy costs increase. If beneficiaries and superannuitants find they need support once the winter energy payment ends, I would encourage them to contact the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to discuss what assistance they may be eligible for. There is a range of ways MSD may be able to help.

Marama Davidson: Would extending the winter energy payment as an additional COVID-19 relief measure, as recommended by the Child Poverty Action Group, help meet this Government’s child poverty targets?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There is a range of measures that have been put in place to assist us with meeting our child poverty targets. These include the Families Package, our free and healthy school lunch programme, expanding free and low-cost doctors visits for children under 14, and introducing a school donation scheme to reduce education costs for parents. The figures that Statistics New Zealand released earlier this year showed that we were already making progress in seven out of nine child poverty indicators. The COVID context will have an impact on this, but we will continue to monitor and assess the situation closely and remain committed to addressing child poverty. What I do think is important to keep in mind is that, actually, the majority of those who receive the winter energy payment do not have children and many are, in fact, superannuitants.

Marama Davidson: Does she stand by her statement that “those on lower incomes generally spend any extra money on household items that keep their families well, and so doubling the winter energy payment will act as an immediate stimulus in local economies.”?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes. That was also part of our rationale for increasing benefits by $25 a week for all main benefit recipients. The doubling of the winter energy payment had a twofold effect: one being the economic stimulus impact, and it also provided financial support to beneficiary and superannuitant households with increased energy costs—particularly important during this COVID period, because of the restrictions and conditions that were in place.

Marama Davidson: Does she agree that additional income support is needed to ensure everyone can live in dignity when facing personal setbacks and as part of the broader economic shock caused by COVID-19?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’ve never shied away from saying that there is more to do to address income adequacy in the welfare system, but it is important to note that we have already made a number of enduring changes, including lifting all main benefits by $25, indexing main benefits to wages, removing punitive sanctions that impact on children, and increasing the amount you can earn whilst on benefit. If I only refer to sole parents on benefit, under this Government, 85,000 sole parents on benefit are actually better off, on average, by $101 per week, and that isn’t including the winter energy payment.

Marama Davidson: Does she think additional financial support for the unprecedented numbers of people newly out of work, and those already receiving a main benefit, is exactly the sort of thing that should be funded from the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There is a range of measures that this Government has committed to funding from the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund; additional financial support for the people newly out of work and those receiving a main benefit are two that have been a priority. We saw this with the early shift to increase benefits and double the winter energy payment. Following that, we introduced the temporary job loss cover payment and have implemented other relevant measures—for example, debt management support. I do want to make the point that, as pointed out in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report, employment also remains a key pillar within our welfare system, and the vast majority of those on benefit also want support to work. That is why we have also heavily invested in expanding employment support and upskilling and training opportunities.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister of Finance: Is he comfortable with the processes and deliberations that have led to the stimulatory package of initiatives the Government has promised to confront the effects of COVID-19 on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context of needing to respond swiftly to a one-in-100-year shock caused by a global pandemic.

Hon Judith Collins: Does he have any advice on why the Prime Minister said yesterday that she was comfortable with the processes that led to funding the Green School when she said it “ticked all the boxes” and was “seen so favourably by the Crown infrastructure process”, when Treasury said even if the school had the necessary regulatory approvals, which it presently hasn’t, “we do not recommend funding for this school”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’ll be because Crown Infrastructure Partners rated the project highly and short-listed it from a list of 1,900 applications that they received.

Hon Judith Collins: Does he know if James Shaw, as the associate finance Minister, discussed the Green School with the Prime Minister at any time before the shovel-ready infrastructure package was signed off; if so, how did he learn about that?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I’m not aware of that.

Hon Judith Collins: Did the Prime Minister tell him if she’d met with Green School co-founder Rachel Perrett to discuss the future of education in New Plymouth in 2019?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.

SPEAKER: Question No. 4—

Hon Judith Collins: No, no—

SPEAKER: Sorry.

Hon Judith Collins: Sorry. Does he know if Green School co-founders Rachel and Michael Perrett met with the Prime Minister or communicated with her about the school on any other occasion?

SPEAKER: No, I think we’re now getting to the point of knowledge of areas outside the Minister’s responsibility.

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Of course, the question was transferred by the Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: Well, the member needs to, when that occurs, either adjust the nature of the primary question or take a slightly different approach to the supplementaries.

Hon Judith Collins: Did he raise James Shaw’s advocacy for the Green School with the Prime Minister before Mr Shaw issued his email ultimatum to Ministers; if so, what did the Prime Minister say?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. Mr Shaw’s advocacy of the project is well and truly on the record. Perhaps I can put it this way for the member: a coalition Government’s a little bit like a marriage; you can’t always control what your partner does or says.

Hon Judith Collins: Well, perhaps he could then ask whether or not he can control his Associate Minister of Finance.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said to the member, a coalition Government is a little bit like a marriage. I’ve known Minister Shaw for not quite 41 years, and I respect him and I can’t control everything he says or does.

Hon Judith Collins: Why did he not raise the issue of Mr Shaw’s emailed ultimatum with the Prime Minister?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because in a coalition Government there are always strong views held by different parties, and I’m perfectly capable of doing my job as Minister of Finance.

Hon Judith Collins: Then, why didn’t he?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because on this side of the House, we have a coalition Government that’s passed more legislation than any Government that’s come before us and that’s achieved thousands of good outcomes for New Zealanders by making sure that we work together and that we compromise. Minister Shaw is responsible for the words that he used; I’m responsible for being the Minister of Finance in a Government that I am extremely proud of.

Question No. 4—Health

4. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions around the coronavirus response?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Dr Shane Reti: How does he reconcile his statement on 20 August regarding the Rydges maintenance man that “The virus had been passed on when the two were in the same lift at separate times, but minutes apart.” with statements in the House the day before that all the investigations to date, including CCTV, indicated they were not in the same communal space?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The exact trail of events there may not ever be fully known, because there was not CCTV—I understand that there was not CCTV footage in the lift. So there are a number of different scenarios, but we may not know the exact outcome of that ever.

Dr Shane Reti: When he said, around 15 August, that the Government was misled around the level of testing of border staff, has he determined how that happened and what actions has he taken?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m not sure that I ever would have used the word “misled”. Certainly, the picture that we were given was not a completely accurate one.

Dr Shane Reti: Does he agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ review of his actions, this morning, that testing wasn’t going on and that the Labour Ministers are the only ones in charge?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): This morning, Statistics New Zealand released international trade data for the June quarter, showing export prices hit a new high in quarter two this year. The Export Price Index rose 2.4 percent in the June 2020 quarter to its highest level since the series began, following a 0.2 percent fall in the March quarter. Import prices fell slightly by 0.1 percent, boosting the merchandise terms of trade to a new high of 2.5 percent. New Zealand’s overall export prices were boosted by dairy, forestry products, and kiwifruit. This is yet more data that shows the continued resilience of Kiwi exports, despite the global impacts of COVID-19, emphasising their importance in our recovery from this one-in-100-year shock.

Greg O’Connor: What reports has he seen on the construction sector in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yesterday, Statistics New Zealand released building consent data for July, showing the number of new homes consented remains historically high after a fall during alert level 4 in April. In July, 3,391 homes were consented, meaning over 10,000 were consented across May, June, and July—the largest three-month rolling total since the 1970s. The number of consents issued in the July year was 37,585, which is near the 45-year high recorded in February 2020. Westpac economists said that the continued strength in consent issuance points to a solid pipeline of construction activity through the back half of 2020 and early 2021. Alongside exporters, the construction sector will also play a critical role in growing our economy and providing jobs as we recover from COVID-19, while also increasing housing supply. It’s encouraging to see data which shows ongoing high levels of investment in the sector and some certainty for the sector out to early next year.

Greg O’Connor: What support has the Government provided to the construction sector through the COVID-19 pandemic?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has provided consistent and stable economic support throughout this pandemic. We’ve helped cushion the blow to the construction sector through the wage subsidy, which has injected $1.7 billion into construction firms, supporting 269,000 jobs. Recognising the critical role of construction in New Zealand’s economic recovery, we’re also providing a significant boost to the sector through the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund, including the $1.6 billion Trades and Apprenticeships Training Package, $3 billion for shovel-ready projects, the funding to enable Kāinga Ora to deliver a further 8,000 homes, the additional $56 million for the Warmer Kiwi Homes initiative, and $246 million investing in railways and supporting infrastructure.

Question No. 6—Health

6. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: What progress has he made around the testing of border workers and returnees for coronavirus?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): Strong border controls are one of our key protections against COVID-19. Day three and day 12 testing—[Pauses to drink water]—too much talking—has been in place for returnees for some time. Mandatory testing is required for all workers at managed isolation and quarantine facilities, as well as higher-risk workers at the ports of Auckland and Tauranga and the Auckland International Airport. In the three weeks starting 12 August, 15,010 tests from people staying in managed isolation have been processed, 579 tests from people staying in quarantine have been processed, 5,136 tests from staff at airports and 4,160 from staff at seaports have been processed, and 4,597 tests from staff working at managed isolation and quarantine facilities have been processed. That’s a total of almost 30,000 tests—I need to make these answers shorter. Can I also, though, remind the House that testing is far from the only control measure at our borders.

Dr Shane Reti: How many people on flight AI1320, that arrived in New Zealand on 23 August, have tested positive for coronavirus at day three, given the ministry’s media release five days after the flight arrived, describing seven people from the flight who had tested positive?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Can I get the member to repeat the question again?

SPEAKER: Yeah, and I’m trying to link that very specific question to the general question.

Dr Shane Reti: How many people on flight AI1320, that arrived in New Zealand on 23 August, have tested positive for coronavirus at day three, given the ministry’s media release five days after the flight arrived, describing seven people from the flight who had tested positive at day three?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That’s a very specific question that I think, in the context of the primary question, I am not prepared to answer—I don’t have the information to answer.

Dr Shane Reti: Can he guarantee that the second round of port staff testing will be completed by Sunday and that he won’t extend the deadline?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’ve not been asked to extend the deadline yet.

Dr Shane Reti: How many adults in managed isolation from 8 June to 18 July have not had a day three test, given there’s now a week from when the substance of this question was asked as a primary in this House?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As the member is aware, they have been working their way back, as I explained yesterday, through what was a manual record—so it wasn’t recorded in a database. They’ve been working their way back. It shows that back to I think it was about 18 July we got to yesterday, 95 percent of people had had a day three test.

Dr Shane Reti: Does he not know how many adults had not been tested at day three from 8 June to 18 July?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I’ve said, we have not been recording that information in one central place, so work is under way to compile as much of that information as possible. The key protection that we have in place, though, is that nobody would have left managed isolation without a day 12 negative test.

Dr Shane Reti: When he said, in the House this time last week, that the numbers simply don’t support the claim that thousands of people had not been tested at day three since 8 June, now that he knows some of the numbers, is his answer still correct?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, because as I’ve said, the data that’s been compiled so far suggests that 95 percent of people did get a day three test. There are only a couple of hundred people who haven’t, and, of course, within that will be children, there’ll be people who for some medical reason could not be tested at day three, or for some other—transit passengers. People who didn’t actually stay in the country long enough to get a day three test will be within those numbers.

Question No. 7—Finance

7. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by the decision-making process for funds allocated from the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, particularly given the context of needing to respond swiftly and in real time to a one-in-100-year economic shock caused by a global pandemic.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he answered yes yesterday to the question “Is he satisfied that adequate due diligence and judgment were applied by Ministers to the Government’s decision to grant $11.7 million to the Green School?”, was he saying Ministers got the judgment right in allocating money to the school?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has been recorded already in the House today, the project received a very high rating from Crown Infrastructure Partners in the process that they went through in whittling down the projects from 1,900 to 800. The process from there involved Ministers putting forward their views. The public record is very clear now on what occurred.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is his associate finance Minister wrong to be apologising for this decision, in his view?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s entirely a matter for the Associate Minister of Finance.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Was he advised of the email from a Green Party staff member to ministerial offices, including his own, relating to the $3 billion shovel-ready fund, as reported on Newshub last night, which said, “Minister Shaw won’t sign this briefing until the Green School in Taranaki is incorporated.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Clearly, that email was received by my office. The final signatures were put on the final elements of that programme. One thing I would note is that that email, I believe, was sent around about 7 August, as the member said. Projects were being announced from 1 July.

Michael Wood: Does he think that the decision-making processes in relation to this fund compare well to other decision-making processes, such as building a sheep farm in the middle of the Arabian Desert?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Indeed, there has always been examples—

SPEAKER: No—no.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree that when his colleague Chris Hipkins says the Green School funding was one of the Green Party’s “ ‘wins’, if you like, from the shovel-ready projects”, it risks giving the impression that the $3 billion fund is another slush fund to be allocated to the various governing parties for political purposes?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I don’t. As I’ve said, there were 1,900 applications for this particular fund. Crown Infrastructure Partners whittled those down to just over 800. Ministers then went through a process to come up with a little bit over 150 projects. It was given a very high rating by Crown Infrastructure Partners.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: With the scale of Government spending now, isn’t it more important than ever to demonstrate to New Zealand that decisions are made on the basis of need and effectiveness rather than wins for Government parties?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We stand by the record of this Government in helping businesses and households through a one-in-100-year shock. We have been consistent in our advocacy for that. There are others who have flip-flopped. There are others who want to cut $80 billion worth of spending out of our public services. I stand behind our record—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Another lie.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —of responding to this pandemic.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise, and he’s very lucky to stay here with that deliberately offensive remark.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the fact that the House rises today and that the remedies that are available to members when a misleading statement has been made to the House are somewhat closed off, what would you suggest that I do, given the offence I took at the remark by Mr Robertson?

SPEAKER: That gives me very broad scope, Mr Brownlee, but I think I won’t give you that sort of advice.

Question No. 8—Earthquake Commission

8. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What recent announcements has he made about the Government’s response to the Public Inquiry into the Earthquake Commission?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): On Monday, I joined my colleague the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration, in Christchurch, to announce the Government’s response to the Public Inquiry into the Earthquake Commission [EQC], which was delivered by Dame Silvia Cartwright in April. The Government is accepting, accepting in principle, or further working on each of the inquiry’s recommendations, and is committed to a programme of actions, including the modernisation of the Earthquake Commission Act, putting in place a more people-centred claims system, and clarifying EQC’s role in any future natural disaster. This week marks 10 years since the earthquake centred at Darfield. The Government has continued its commitment to overhaul the Earthquake Commission to ensure people will never have to relive the trauma that thousands went through in the past decade.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What were the findings of the inquiry?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The report found that the EQC was woefully ill prepared and under-equipped to deal with the influx of claims and repairs of damaged properties that followed the Canterbury earthquakes. Dame Silvia said it was a mistake to have EQC do this. It led to perverse outcomes that persist to this day, such as botched repairs that frequently fail to fix all the damage to a property. Dame Silvia also highlighted her grave concern for the quality of the housing stock in Christchurch as a result of these botched repairs, which have left homes vulnerable to future earthquake damage. The report also found mechanisms for dispute resolution were sorely lacking and homeowners were subject to complex insurance claim processes without adequate support. Dame Silvia’s report recommended a suite of changes, including greater clarity around EQC’s role, a review of the Act and the EQC cap—all of which are being considered as part of the Government’s response.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What progress has this Government made to address some of the issues facing Canterbury quake victims?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government took action before waiting for the findings of this report. Dispute resolution has been significantly improved with the establishment of the Greater Christchurch Claims Resolution Service and the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal. EQC claimants now have a case manager looking after their claims, and the Claimants Reference Group has helped the EQC become more claimant-focused. We’ve set aside $300 million to fix issues with on-sold over-cap homes, and we’ve made good progress in settling EQC claims. In May 2018, EQC had more than 3,000 claims outstanding; 98 percent of those claims have now been resolved. This Government cares about the people of Canterbury and making sure they get the support they need to get on with their lives.

Question No. 9—Finance

9. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Associate Minister of Finance: Was the Green School included in the indicative package of over 150 projects agreed to in principle by Ministers at the Cabinet Economic Development Committee meeting on 24 June, and what occurred between that meeting and 7 August that led his office to write to other Ministers and the Treasury stating, “Minister Shaw won’t sign this briefing until the Green School in Taranaki is incorporated”?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Associate Minister of Finance): The premise of the question is inaccurate. The Cabinet Economic Development Committee did not agree a list of projects on 24 June. The committee noted a list and authorised the Minister of Finance, Minister for Infrastructure, and Associate Ministers of Finance to make final decisions about the projects on that list.

Nicola Willis: Why did he reject the advice of Treasury officials doing due diligence on the Green School project who said it should not proceed?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! That doesn’t relate to the primary question.

Nicola Willis: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, you can make a point of order, but—

Nicola Willis: The primary question that I’ve asked relates specifically to advice that he provided to Treasury and others, and my supplementary question relates to advice from Treasury officials.

SPEAKER: Well, the advice was coming the other way. It’s not advice that this Minister’s office gave to Treasury; the member was quoting advice that went to the Minister—it’s quite different.

Nicola Willis: What occurred when he received advice from Treasury officials that said it should not proceed?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, I received a range of advice about the project and there were a number of projects moving on and off that list during that period of time.

Nicola Willis: Is it true that he gave consideration to a funding model that would have involved the Crown taking an ownership stake in the Green School?

Hon JAMES SHAW: No.

Nicola Willis: Did he receive additional information in the lead-up to 7 August that led him to advocate so strongly for the Green School project, despite the serious concerns shared with him by officials and Minister Hipkins?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, other than the advice I received initially, no.

Nicola Willis: Did he test the claim that the Green School could grow its roll to 250 students because of growing demand from parents, and was the advice crystal clear?

Hon JAMES SHAW: I’m not personally responsible for the due diligence process.

Nicola Willis: Is he satisfied with the robustness of the due diligence process that was applied to this funding bid?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Every project that ended up on the list had to go through a due diligence process, and a number of projects failed to achieve that outcome. If the due diligence process had said very clearly that the project was not shovel-ready and not able to proceed, then it wouldn’t have proceeded.

Question No. 10—Employment

10. Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Minister of Employment: What primary announcements has he made about assisting rangatahi into employment or training?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Last week, I announced over $7.2 million in funding to expand some of our community-led He Poutama Rangatahi (HPR) employment programmes across the Hawke’s Bay, Ngati Porou, Ruatōria, and Eastern Bay of Plenty aimed at rangatahi—young people—not engaged in education, employment, or training. We’re investing in a variety of services to help these young people find their feet in the world of work and education. Access to employment and training makes a real difference for young people who aren’t currently earning or learning. It also delivers benefits for the entire community. We know our young people can be hardest hit by economic downturns, and we’re committed to ensuring groups with historically poor outcomes are not left behind as we recover from the impacts of COVID-19.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: How would the new funding assist more rangatahi into employment training or training?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The programmes that have secured an extension to their funding have a proven track record of delivering successful HPR programmes—for example, in Hastings the youth connector programme has already supported 143 rangatahi into employment, training, or further education and has received funding to help a further 180 rangatahi to reach their potential. We’re having some great work down there done by the Hastings mayor. In the Bay of Plenty, the exploration, activation, and thrive programme in Ōpōtiki has helped more than 70 rangatahi into employment and training and now has funding to work with a further 90 rangatahi. In Ruatōria, the Ka Hao te Rangatahi programme has already helped 10 rangatahi into employment or training in biodiversity enhancement and erosion mitigation, and they’ve been funded for a further 12 positions. In total, this new funding combined will assist more than 800 disengaged young people.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: How will He Poutama Rangatahi assist young people impacted by COVID-19?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Since the start of HPR in 2018, more than 4,500 young people have re-engaged through these programmes, with more than 1,803 already moving into employment or training, and 87 percent of all participants are Māori or Pasifika young people. As part of Budget 2020, a further $120 million was set aside to expand the programme, particularly into our urban areas of South and West Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch. The communities and people we work with are not only already facing complex issues; they’re also amongst those most likely to be adversely affected by COVID-19 and the resulting recession. Our HPR programmes are flexible and agile and work alongside communities and people to find what will work for them in the new environment. In summary, I want to thank all our contract providers who are supporting our young people to engage in work or training, and I want to thank particularly our Māori caucus, our Māori Minister, and this wonderful Government that has done so well over the last three years.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

This is a Government whose legacy is one of broken promises, promises made so easily during the 2017 election campaign—so easily made, and so easily forgotten. I remember these promises. “This government will remove the Auckland urban growth boundary”—that was the Speech from the Throne, and what happened to it? It has not removed the Auckland urban growth boundary.

“New Zealanders deserve a home of their own.”, said Miss Ardern. “They should not have to pay extraordinary amounts of money to get one. And we have already acted.” Well, that was KiwiBuild, and look how well they acted. They acted, they acted, and they actually never did anything—that’s the problem. They’re acting at being in Government. Out of 16,000 homes that should have been delivered by this month, after three long years we’ve got over 500 out of 16,000. New Zealanders were promised 100,000 homes and they have not got any chance of having that delivered.

Miss Ardern said that there would be an “Ending [of] homelessness—everyone having a home.” She said, “the mass Housing New Zealand sell-off ends.” What’s happened? The Government has sold $30 million worth of State housing while it’s been in Government. [Interruption] And they may well moan—they may well moan.

We know how difficult it is for the Government when we see Grant Robertson and co. coming after our families—boy, do we see that. We would never do that, and it’s a disgrace that a Minister of Finance wants to excuse his oversight of $11.7 million of hard-earned taxpayer money going to something called a Green School which has never actually been registered as a school. The only thing we can see is, clearly, Miss Ardern met with at least one of the owners of that school—$11.7 million—and just down the road at Marfell Community School, they’ve got rotten buildings, kids with nothing. That Minister of Finance signed it off because his Associate Minister of Finance said that he wasn’t going to sign off the shovel-ready projects until he got his way. Well, what’s the point of a Minister of Finance who does this?

This election is going to be about those broken promises. Miss Ardern told the country she didn’t need to have policies. Didn’t want policies—it’s all going to be about COVID-19. Then she said, “Don’t you, National Party, politicise COVID-19.” Well, it wasn’t me saying it’s all about COVID-19. No, it was she who said that. She also promised they were going to reduce child poverty by at least 10 percent, and what’s actually happened in that time? Well, it’s gone up by six out of the nine indicators used for child poverty, despite three long years of a Labour-led Government.

We’ve got the truth today from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who has come out and told us that, actually, the Government dropped the ball. They messed up in those months between the first lockdown and the second lockdown.

That second lockdown is currently costing 400 New Zealanders their jobs. Not every week, not every month, but every day 400 New Zealanders are losing their jobs while that Government spent months working out how they could do their shovel-ready projects and waited months to start announcing them, and, actually, it turns out it was Associate Minister of Finance James Shaw who was holding them up. That means jobs were lost in that time. That means contractors couldn’t go ahead with their projects. That means councils couldn’t be certain about the work they had, and, in that time, people lost their jobs. Businesses failed and people lost their jobs—400 people every day—because that Government couldn’t keep the borders safe.

You need a single border agency. We need a safe agency. We need COVID apps. We need a COVID card or Bluetooth-type technology, and we’ve seen Sam Morgan coming out and saying he’s given up on this Government. They don’t know how to get anything done, and that’s the issue—they don’t know how to get anything done.

I know New Zealand First now wants to distance themselves, and good on them for doing that. A bit late in the piece, but good on them for doing it, because what we know is it doesn’t matter what these people promise and it doesn’t matter what they say, the reality is they can’t organise anything.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): We’ve just had question time before this general debate session, and I asked a question about what will happen to those families who are due to lose the winter energy payment on 1 October. It was a winter energy payment that had been doubled, which was a necessary move which also understood that before COVID there were already far too many people struggling in this country that did not necessarily need to be, and in light of the extra hardships created through COVID and through lockdown, the Government needed to step up to its responsibility of making sure we are taking care of everyone. My question in question time just now was about asking whether or not we as a Government would consider extending that winter energy payment. Unfortunately, that is not going to be the case.

I wanted to talk about why the Greens have been very clear in successive terms of Parliament, and certainly in this Government term, as to why it’s necessary, and actually indefensible, to not increase the income of the lowest-income households in this country. We already knew before COVID that an unacceptable amount of people, of families with children, were struggling to live a life with any sort of decency or with any sort of dignity and that we were entrenching generations of poverty by keeping people in these hardship situations. We know that this impact has seen successive Governments having to face worsening housing inequality and worsening housing challenges, worsening child poverty, and worsening hardship for families.

We all know that the impacts of just financial and housing challenges have got extra and cumulative hardships that go into the health, education, and justice areas, and many more areas, of people’s lives. So I wanted to take the opportunity today to again join with the community voices who have been very clear. For example, right here in Porirua, I think it was just last week, I welcomed Porirua mayor, Anita Baker, urging party leaders to use the election campaign to outline plans to address the persistent and growing scourge of poverty in New Zealand, especially as it affects children. I welcomed the voice of my local Manurewa High School principal, Pete Jones, bringing to light the situation of students having to leave school, especially following lockdown and COVID-19, to help parents to make sure that there is enough income to support their families. It’s not just about parents losing their jobs, but it is about parents on low-wage incomes as well, and losing income and jobs.

I want to join voices like Aorere College head girl, Aigagalefili Fepulea’i Tapua’i, who also has been part of the many community voices bringing to light this unnecessary struggle. I wanted to again put on record that the Greens have announced a fully detailed and costed poverty action plan that would actually lift families out of poverty in this country.

But it involves political bravery from all political parties represented in this House and from those who are hoping to come into this House to actually believe that everybody deserves an income of decency and of a dignified life. That’s why, while I welcome the fantastic, positive changes that have been made in this Government—for example, extending family support and child benefit payments—the bravery is needed to extend that support to people out of work, and that is what the Greens’ guaranteed minimum income is proposing to do. That has been a politically courageous step that has needed to be seen for a very long time, and we are here, as the Green Party, highlighting and championing that step that everybody not in full-time paid work should have an income that they can rely on and that it should be livable, because people are doing their best. In this country, we have enough for everyone to be living dignified lives, and I am proud to be a co-leader of a party that is putting up that plan. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We’ve recently seen holes in the border and I believe our engagement has helped correct this. I want to add to the list of things that the leader has just identified as also being useful to add to the coronavirus response and I want to identify five other gaps that could be improved. I’m calling these “five in five” because I believe these five proposals could also be completed in five days and, in so doing, would lift our collective bar. They’re not big, structural policy announcements like our border protection agency proposal, which will have deep linkages across all of Government. These are more simple and seek to make it easier for New Zealanders to be tested and to follow the best current health advice. If we make things easy for people, they’re more likely to do it. These five proposals talk to how we can better understand and then target our resources to a more effective and efficient response.

The first proposal is retest people for genomics within 24 hours of every positive case. The problem we’re trying to solve here is that only 50 percent of samples have been genomically sequenced. Genomic testing is clearly important for identifying linkages and the heritage of the virus, but we’ve only been able to sequence 50 percent. As the Minister said to me in written question 15645, the methodology used in some diagnostic laboratories means there is sometimes no residual sample to be sent to the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. Furthermore, often samples are taken for the specific purpose of a positive or a negative coronavirus swab test, but a different technique of sampling and processing may be required for genomic sequencing. I’m proposing that every positive test be resampled within 24 hours for the purposes of genomic sequencing.

The second proposal is to require a negative coronavirus test turn-around time of 48 hours. The problem we’re trying to solve here is the days that people are waiting for a negative test result—and we’ve all heard from people who have used up their sick leave over this period of time. We say the positive test needs to be reported in 24 hours. That’s correct—that’s the most important. But the negative has some consequences already, and I want to suggest that we tighten that up with a measurable target of 80 percent of negative tests reported in 48 hours.

The third proposal is to require a recording of people who have been declined tests to be recorded in the National Contact Tracing Solution. The Minister replied in written question 15638 that “the National Contact Tracing Solution does not record if a person was declined a test.” This is important because we may have people who turn up for testing who’ve failed the case definition, but subsequently test positive. What this would do is if we could record in the database those people, we might be able to better fine-tune our case definition and more accurately pick them up.

The fourth proposal is to make day three managed isolation testing compulsory. The problem we’re clearly trying to resolve here is that the sooner we identify positive cases who have crossed our border, the more effective and safe our response is. We have canvassed this regularly in the past week or so and we simply believe that day three testing in managed isolation should be compulsory.

The fifth and final proposal is to use the COVID-19 app to generate a QR code that displays information at every user interaction with the coronavirus response. The problem we’re trying to solve here is the time-consuming task of identifying people at each interaction with the coronavirus response. The COVID-19 app is a scanner of QR codes, but imagine if it was also a displayer of QR codes—that is, the app could also present information. As it is currently, the app’s a data pool. It pulls in location information of what is being scanned, but imagine if it could also push data.

A use case: a person has symptoms and needs to be tested. They have installed the COVID-19 app, which has all their registration information, including, more recently, National Health Index number and ethnicity. They go to the testing station and the app generates a QR code that has their registration information. Exactly like the Air New Zealand check-in, the app generates a QR code, which the person simply presents to the tester, who scans it in with the same handheld scanners that we see at the New Zealand boarding positions. Can we imagine how much quicker the system could respond with what the user chooses to share? With the information in the system, one could reasonably expect more efficient and effective contact tracing.

In closing, we’re in the middle of a second spike and we need to move quickly. I would encourage the Government to consider what I’ve called these “five in five” proposals in the spirit that they’re given, as suggestions to raise our collective bar and protect us all. Thank you.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to take this occasion of the last time I’ll speak in the House in this Parliament to make an acknowledgment of the sentencing that occurred in Christchurch of the terrorist responsible for the mosque attacks. I want to acknowledge a group of people that I’ve had the privilege of becoming friends with over the last 18 months who, collectively, have rejected hatred and have rejected retribution. Instead, they’ve embraced love and they’ve embraced unity, and over the last few days, I’ve spoken to them. I’ve sensed a sense of relief, a sense of some kind of closure of this part of the chapter of the journey that they’re on, but also a pride in this community in having the courage to look that terrorist in the eye and to tell him what impact he has had on their lives.

I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge another group of people, and they are the workers who are working at our border. The border is constantly coming under attack politically from the Opposition, and it is getting a lot of discussion in the media. But it is not a machine; it is not a computer. The border is hundreds of thousands of people who are working tirelessly every day to collectively protect us all, and I do want to acknowledge them and the hard work they are doing. This front line of the cleaners, of the maintenance staff, of the cooks, of the hotel porters—these are the people keeping each and every one of us safe, and I want to say thank you to them.

Under our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, we have a world-leading health response that has put people first. Not only has this protected our health but it has also set us up for a strong economic recovery. Obviously, our current focus is getting the current resurgence under control. We need to hunt out that virus and we need to stamp it out. We’ve done it before when we’ve collectively worked together. We on this side of the House—the Government—have the faith in the people of New Zealand that we can do it again, and I want to thank everyone who has been part of that.

It was interesting to hear from the health spokesperson from the National Party the five-point plan. This idea of continuous improvement and of continuous innovation around how it is that we approach this tricky, tricky virus has been one that our Government has embraced since the very beginning. I think we do need to celebrate some of the things we’re doing. To hear the health spokesperson saying we only have 50 percent of genomic sequencing—yes, we can do more, and we are working to do more, but let’s celebrate for a moment. We have one of the highest rates of genomic sequencing of samples in the world, and our epidemiologists have tools that no other countries have at that scale to be able to track and stamp out this virus. So, instead of criticising, let’s actually celebrate some of the advances that we have made in this country and that our scientists have really put their collective effort behind.

But it is with sadness that I look across the House and I see a National Party that is desperate and that is disorganised. They’ve set debt targets that mean tens of billions of dollars’ worth of cuts to health in a time of a global pandemic, and to education. We have Paul Goldsmith announcing it we have Judith Collins un-announcing it, and, again, today, un-announcing it all over again.

Hon Willie Jackson: It’s a shambles.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It is absolutely shambolic—my colleague the Hon Willie Jackson is absolutely right. It is a shambles. There is no consistency from the National Party. They want the borders open, they want to bring in international students, they want to establish a bubble with China, close down the borders the next day—there is no consistency. What this time demands is a group of people to form a Government that have a plan and stick to it. That is what we have seen from our Government, and that has involved putting people first. It is with sadness, because I think we all know this is not a response we would have seen under John Key or Bill English. We would have seen a plan.

But I am proud that we are a Government that has chosen to invest in people as a way through this. As the Minister of Housing, I look with pride on the fact that we have invested in housing as a way to get us through this current economic downturn and that we are going to take this opportunity to make sure we provide warm, dry houses for people, because this is what the people of New Zealand deserve.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, that was very ironic: a Government that’s always telling New Zealanders to be kind, but when they get their chance in the House, they pour bile over the Opposition that’s doing their job and trying to do its best for this country to have the opportunity for New Zealanders to get the best outcomes in a time when the country is facing a jobs crisis.

In the last figures of the week to 21 August, the country had 2,717 people, I believe, join the unemployment benefit. They had lost their jobs, and since March, there’s been about 75,000 New Zealanders go on to benefits. That’s 75,000 households where somebody’s lost their job. They’re having to adjust to less income and the trauma of losing their job. This is a really difficult time for many New Zealanders, and we’re also, at the same time, seeing continued pressure on rental house prices, a lot of it due to the regulations that have been passed by this Government narrowing the supply of rental houses. They watch and they see the fiasco that was KiwiBuild, that has delivered fewer houses than the Prime Minister has stopped being built at Ihumātao by her ill-advised adventure there, which we still haven’t heard the answer to. Grant Robertson was supposed to have had fixed that.

Here we are. We know that New Zealand First, in their inimitable way, have stopped anything happening there, but the landowner at Ihumātao hasn’t been able to do anything with their land for more than a year now, the houses haven’t been built, and it’s just another element of the story of this Government: big on rhetoric, big on talk, and very slow on delivery.

So there’s a lack of jobs, there’s a lack of housing rental stock, and we’ve got a slowing economy. Now, at lot of that is due to the COVID crisis that we’re seeing around the world, but it is an undisputable fact that the economy was slowing before COVID came in. It is also an undisputable fact that this Government inherited colossal surpluses from the previous National Government and, within two years, have burnt through the lot and were projecting a deficit before the COVID-19 crisis came along. They were already projecting a deficit, and now we’ve got colossal deficits and we’ll be looking at debt going up perhaps $140 billion.

We’ll wait and see what the PREFU—the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update—from the Treasury says as to whether that debt will be higher. Certainly, that debt has been made worse by the yo-yoing back into lockdown that we’ve all experienced over the last few weeks.

Look, nobody has complete control over a virus, of course, and of course there’s always the risk of the virus getting in, but the critical thing is for a Government to do everything it can to reduce the risk of that happening and to be swift in their response. All New Zealanders were shocked to learn that the testing wasn’t being done at the border facilities, and that gave us a greater risk of the virus getting back and getting out into the community. We’ve seen, time and time again, the gap between the rhetoric and the reality. We’ve seen the Minister standing up saying that “We are the single source of truth.” at conferences, and that has not been borne out, as we’ve seen, with all sorts of muddles around testing all over Auckland over the weekend.

Then, today, we’ve had this issue of the quality of the spending, because the Government has got the firehose out. It’s spending as much as it possibly can, borrowing $1.3 billion a week, on average, for the rest of the year, and some of that spending is required. Of course, at a time of crisis like this, we do increase Government spending in order to stimulate demand and to help people get through a difficult time, but everyone wants to know that this money is being spent based on need and efficiently, and what we’ve seen over this saga with the Green School has shocked many of us. What we’ve seen, as it appears from the emails that were published on Newshub last night, is that the Associate Minister of Finance Mr Shaw said, “I’m not going to sign off on these projects unless you include my project.”, and then we had Minister Hipkins saying, “Oh well, yes, that was the Greens getting a win from this fund.”

So that perfectly encapsulates how this Government works. It gets a big sum of money—a $3 billion fund; it’s the second $3 billion slush fund—and it says, “OK, coalition partners, here’s some for the Greens, here’s some for New Zealand First, here’s some for Labour. Here are your wins, and we’ll divide it up, depending on which Government party gets the win.” And then they have the temerity and the guile to come out and say, “There’s no politics in COVID—no, none whatsoever.”, and yet the decisions made about this Government’s spending have been based on divvying up that money for political purposes. That, I think, is something that is going to be emerging over the next few days, and it will be of great concern to New Zealanders at a time when we’ve lost so many jobs already.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Well, that’s another shocking speech from a shocking Opposition. The sad thing, I think, in what we’ve seen over the last few weeks—although Dr Shane Reti has been very much trying to save them—and what we’ll see in the next coming weeks is “Dirty Politics Two”. Sadly, that’s what we’re seeing. The ugliness of the campaign is apparent for everyone to see. We see it on social media. We hear it in terms of the backstabbing. We hear the tone. I do a bit of Facebook, and when I talk about Judith and Jacinda, there is only one winner.

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon Member: Second names.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Second names—absolutely, sir. Judith Collins and Jacinda Ardern—there is only one winner. Our supporters, they love the compassion and the kindness and they hate the ugliness, and, despite the desperate efforts of Dr Reti, nothing has improved for them in the last few weeks. Just look at the polls.

I want to salute our leadership team today, run by “Chippy”, or Minister Hipkins, over here, who’s done a fantastic job; Dr Megan Woods; Grant Robertson; of course, our leader Jacinda Ardern; and Peeni Henare, who’s running the Māori leadership side for us in terms of health. We are so humbled by their leadership. They’ve done so many things so well.

Over 44,000 people—44,000 people—have come across the borders, and, yes, we’ve had one or two mistakes, but it’s only one or two mistakes. They can be proud of this: 10,000 tests a day—that’s what Mr Hipkins is talking about now. Ten thousand tests a day—just brilliant. All border and managed isolation workers are being tested. Managed isolation and quarantine facility workers are being tested. We’re doing the business. We’ve had the odd mistake, but that’s life. We don’t have to go hysterical. We don’t have to go crazy, like some of the media have. You know, the world is not going to fall apart because one or two people escape from the facilities.

Hon Member: What!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Now, we know—one or two people. Forty-four thousand have gone through. South Auckland and West Auckland—here’s a South Auckland leader over here. Carmel Sepuloni is a West Auckland leader—we’re not stressed; we’re not traumatised because of what happened the other day. We come from the area—we come from the area. The Prime Minister did the right thing and gave an apology—well done to the Prime Minister, but we in our communities were happy to line up and go and get tested.

In fact, for some of our leaders, they thought it was one of the best mistakes that ever happened in South Auckland and West Auckland. The Samoan crew, the Māori crew—we thought it was great that our people lined up and went and got tested. We didn’t need an apology. The only apology we wanted was from the National Party. It’s the National Party who needs to apologise to South Auckland and West Auckland for the trauma that has been caused there for years and years and years. They are sick and tired of the ugliness, of the insensitivity. They’re sick and tired of the under-resourcing.

Hon Member: Oh, he’s restarting The Alliance—Alliance party leader.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We know what happened in health. You apologise to South Auckland and—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —West Auckland for Middlemore Hospital. You apologise for what’s happened—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —in terms of the under-resourcing, in terms of our health build, where people have to line up to be served at the hospital, where we have sewage coming through the walls of Middlemore Hospital. That’s what’s happening in health in South Auckland. We’ve got a mental health system that’s broken because of nine years of National. Apologise to our people in South Auckland and West Auckland—a mental health system that’s been broken.

We have poverty at an extreme that was started by the National Government, and we’ve tried to pick it up. Jacinda Ardern has done the business in terms of putting the frameworks in place. We have a housing crisis that was never acknowledged by the National Party—nine years of trauma; nine years of families missing out in terms of housing and in terms of health—and we have an education system, as the Minister knows, that was so underfunded and so under-resourced that it was just a joke.

This is where the apology should go to. It should go to the people of South Auckland and West Auckland and this country, who have had to recover over the last three years, and they’ve only recovered because of the work of this Government and the record investment that we’re putting in in all those key areas—in all those key areas. Māoridom: under-resourced, underfunded. Pasifika: underfunded, under-resourced. Why? Because of a useless, rotten National Government that was there for nine years—nine years too long. Keep staying with us, and we’ll do the business next time too. Kia ora tātou.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): That was a speech that suggests the Government’s approach is “Put your head in the sand and it will all be OK.”, because what the Hon Willie Jackson said is that when the Prime Minister’s website—because the Prime Minister is responsible for the Government—said that 700,000 people in Auckland had to rush out and get tested, and then she got angry about it because it wasn’t correct, it didn’t matter. What Willie Jackson just said was that if a few people with coronavirus get out of quarantine and wander around the country hugging people, it doesn’t matter. What he would have said, I’m sure, if he’d had a little more time at his disposal, is that if the Government says everybody at the border who works at the border will be tested and everybody that comes into the country will have a day three test, it will happen.

But, actually, what Willie Jackson really is saying is that it doesn’t matter, and therein lies the problem, because, Willie Jackson, if there is an apology that is needed in this House today, it’s to the 400 people that have been losing their jobs every single day since your Government put Auckland back into lockdown—400 people a day losing their jobs—because it wasn’t necessary. If your Government was doing its job properly and not making excuses, then we would have been on top of the virus. It wouldn’t have got back over the border. The Government wouldn’t be standing there and saying, “We don’t know how it got back in.”, and they would be giving an assurance to every single person in Auckland and every single person around the country that they were doing their job properly, that they were on top of this, and that there would not be a need to yo-yo in and out of lockdown again.

So those 400 people every single day that lost their jobs are the ones that deserve the apology, not the rant we just had from the Hon Willie Jackson about something that happened in his imagination when he was on the radio up to nine years ago. That means nothing at all to those people that were locked down.

What the apology should be today, the Hon Willie Jackson, is to the travel agents in New Zealand that have been working since early this year without any remuneration at all. The Government could have solved that many, many months ago if they had intervened and said to the agencies that said that they weren’t able to charge when they were getting the money back that there was a way forward. Actually, there’s $2 billion overseas that’s owed to New Zealanders that these travel agents are trying to get back, and the Government now, three weeks later, after saying they would address it with them, still hasn’t come to a conclusion. I’m sure we’ll get an announcement before the election, but, Willie Jackson, it will be too late for the travel agents in Auckland that went back into lockdown and are losing their businesses, and for the people that are losing their jobs, and it will be too late for all of the other travel agents around the country that are losing their businesses because the Government didn’t do its job properly during lockdown and after lockdown to work out who it was that would need support and would need help.

Grant Robertson, during the first lockdown, said to the pandemic committee that he was weeks away from sorting something out between commercial landlords and commercial tenants, and we are still waiting. Now, there is the opportunity to have some sort of mediation, and when my office got in touch with the Minister’s office to find out when, they said, “We haven’t been able to appoint the service yet. We hope it’s some time in the future.” Well, in Auckland today, there are businesses that have more debt because this Government didn’t do its job properly and put Auckland back into lockdown, who may not be able to pay their rent or can’t pay their rent. They are still waiting, many, many months later, for Grant Robertson to actually focus on what’s important, which is keeping businesses in business, keeping people in jobs, and not just spending taxpayer money but actually doing their job properly.

I feel for the travel agents, who have been crying out for support and attention, and all they get from the Minister of Tourism is that, actually, they are the ones responsible and they’re not being reasonable. Well, I’ll tell you what’s reasonable: they want to keep working, they want to keep people in jobs, and they want to get those refunds, and, so far, absolutely nothing from this Government. When they announce it, I say to every travel agent in this country: whatever the Government does, it won’t be enough; it’ll just get you by to get the money back, and then you’ll end up closing up, because they haven’t got a plan and, quite frankly, they don’t care.

You know, we’ve got $11.7 million spent on a school that’s not even a school, and I think the Green Party should be just as ashamed as Willie Jackson and every other Government member and Government Minister. When someone stands in this House and says, “What about a winter energy payment?”, $11.7 million would have been almost 2,700 winter energy payments for hard-working New Zealanders.

Kiwis did what they were asked. They sacrificed. It is about time that the Government did what they said they would for them and started actually helping them.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): I’ll respond to the Hon Todd McClay, the previous speaker, simply by saying that the heart of any economy is its people, and our best economic response is keeping people safe and alive. If we were to follow that example there, we would be expecting many, many more people infected with COVID-19 and many more people dying, but that’s not the case. I just want to say to him that on the ground—not in these halls here, but on the ground—people appreciate that there is a wage subsidy that’s available for them and appreciate the food parcels that are being delivered to the many health providers and community organisations on the ground through the machinery of all of Government.

In times like this, leadership is important, and we all know the leadership that is coming from this Government. We all agree it’s been strong, it’s been decisive, and it’s been compassionate. It’s been in a global pandemic, which affects all four corners of the world including our own precious Aotearoa New Zealand. It’s leadership from all sides that we require, not the kind of leadership who presents arguments for the sake of trying to find criticism. They need to present more suggestions that may be useful to our overall approach.

I want to acknowledge the leadership that’s on the ground, the leadership not just from politicians like myself but the leadership coming from our Government agencies—leadership coming from the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, for example, who have, in the past several weeks, been working closely to bring together the all-of-Government approach with the Ministry of Health, the district health board, the National Emergency Management Agency, and all the Pacific providers in making sure that they are talking and engaging with our communities in Auckland.

We’ve learnt lessons from last time that we were in lockdown levels 4 and 3, and we’re now able to use those lessons won to make sure that information is available for all parts of our society, and languages have been critically important for Māori, for Pasifika, and for the Asian communities. Presenting our safety messages in those particular languages has helped people to be informed, to be educated, and, therefore, to provide the leadership that they need to provide for their families, for their church organisations, and for the community. I think we need to remember that they are looking to us for decisive, confident, and compassionate leadership, and often what they’re hearing is bickering—bickering coming from politicians—not just from that side of the House but also the wannabe politicians outside of this arena. That’s not being helpful, because a lot of misinformation is out there, and, therefore, that one source of truth coming from our clinicians and our scientists, delivered by the Minister of Health and our Prime Minister, is important to keep people safe.

I want to say to our Pacific providers—there are a number of them, and I hesitate to name one because I might forget the rest of them. But those providers on the ground have been nimble, they have acted, and they’ve learnt the lesson from the previous time so that they’re able to get the work happening on the ground. It’s been wonderful to observe how those health providers have been engaging with different church leaders here, and I want to acknowledge the diverse Pacific leadership, our church leadership, not just in Auckland but right across New Zealand. COVID-19 gave us Zoom, all that technology, and other platforms online to be able to share how people were feeling on the ground and to provide those important insights to help officials be able to respond, and respond we have been able to do.

There are no perfect answers in this because we’re dealing with a virus, a virus that has claimed 848,255 lives globally. Over 25 million globally have been infected. If you look at the stats in America, in Canada, in the UK, in India, and across the Ditch to Melbourne, we are very fortunate that our going hard, going fast, and going early, and eliminating the virus, with all of us playing our part, has been important. Otherwise, we could be facing much, much worse.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): On Monday, I sat in a school principal’s office at Waitara Central School with Vickie, the principal there. When I asked Vickie how the school was going, her eyes welled up with tears. What Vickie couldn’t understand was why she was being asked to lead a school with black mould in the ceiling while up the road, the Green School had received a grant of $11.7 million. Her question was how could this happen, and who was deciding that this was the thing that needed it most.

Then, I went up the road and, together with our leader, Judith Collins, I visited Kealy from Marfell Community School. Kealy had written to Jacinda Ardern, raising her heartfelt concern at this Government’s priorities. She wanted to know why this Labour - Green - New Zealand First Government had decided to give the Green School $11.7 million, and she simply asked that we pass on to Ministers this really simple message. She had been told the reason the Green School qualified was because they were shovel-ready, and what Kealy said was, “We are shovel-ready too.”

These questions are the questions that New Zealanders are asking up and down the country, because Kiwis are smart. They know that right now it’s appropriate for the Government to be investing in infrastructure projects that will create intergenerational assets and that will create jobs. But Kiwis are smart enough also to know that Governments have choices about which projects they invest in. Government have choices about how they prioritise investment—

Marama Davidson: Also smart enough to remember National gutting their public education.

NICOLA WILLIS: —and Governments are signing cheques, Marama Davidson, in our names and they are signing cheques in the names of our children, and the co-leader of the Green Party, Minister James Shaw, chose to sign a cheque for $11.7 million for the Green School. That was his priority, and that, by the consensus of the Ministers who allowed that to occur, is the priority of this Government.

What it gives us is a window into the decision-making process of this Government, because what we all hope as taxpayers is that the Government has fair processes, robust processes, and consistent processes about how our money is allocated. But it turns out that, actually, it’s not about what’s best for the community—is it? It turns out that it’s about who can win the political arm-wrestle, because this is how it actually played out.

A list of projects went up to a Cabinet committee and due diligence was promised. It was promised that they would be examined. It was announced a week later that all of this would happen, and then, in late July, the New Zealand Treasury raised red flags about one of those projects. It said that the Green School wasn’t even registered as a school yet, and Treasury said that even if it was registered as a school, it would have serious concerns about funding the project. Then we learnt that the Minister of Education said, “Well, I’ve got concerns about it, too.” So what happened next? Did Ministers sit down and say, “How can we be careful stewards of taxpayers’ money? Are we really confident that we should invest this $11.7 million?” No. What happened next was disgusting.

What happened next was that the Associate Minister of Finance James Shaw sent an email to his ministerial colleagues saying that he would not sign off on any of the job-creating projects unless the Green School was signed off, and that was the time when you would have expected other Ministers to say, “Actually, this isn’t about you. It’s not about the Green Party; it’s actually meant to be about what’s best for New Zealand.” But, instead, what we’ve learnt this week is that it is about politics with this Government, because who won that debate? Who won that ultimatum? Who won that stand-off? The Green Party did. Politics won, the Green School won, and New Zealand taxpayers lost, and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Otirā ngā mema katoa o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. As is custom in our culture, acknowledging recent losses within whānau throughout the electorate I represent of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, I do want to mention the sad passing of Huhana Rokx, of Kiri Kaa, and, of course, Manu Hiri Vercoe, née Huata.

I mention these māreikuras, as we call them, because of their tireless work that they have done for their people and the way that they held themselves in terms of integrity and honesty. They could be absolutely sharp where needed and supported in other times. But most of all, I mention them because they always put people first, and that’s exactly what we’re seeing from this side of the House, under the leadership of the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern and the Government, in responding to something that no one—no one—would have anticipated that we would be experiencing in 2020. I mention them because we on this side of the House have listened to the calls of the New Zealand people by putting them first.

I come from an electorate that is far removed from Tāmaki-makau-rau, but we still have a lot of whānau based there. I want to acknowledge those iwi groups throughout my electorate who have responded and who haven’t waited for any guidance, and who have treated this pandemic, this COVID-19, seriously. I want to mention people like Toitū Tairāwhiti, Rongomaiwahine, Tamatea / Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, Tīhei Kahungunu, Ko Wairarapa Tēnei, and Kōkiri Marae here in the Hutt Valley. These groups I have met since our original lockdown and subsequently, and they are doing a fantastic job within their communities in ensuring that they have hubs set up, ensuring that they are reaching out to our kaumātuas—over-65s—but they are doing it with a Government that is enabling them to do that. They are not telling them what to do; they are enabling them to do that by the policies and decisions that we have made consistently since the original lockdown.

The daily updates that the Prime Minister and Dr Ashley Bloomfield have provided give great comfort to the people that I represent—particularly our elderly—and that goes in terms of the resurgence that we have now all experienced. Like I said, we have whānau in Tāmaki-makau-rau, even though the people I represent come from the mighty East Coast. But they do acknowledge and, as an electorate MP, I want to acknowledge those often faceless officials, because, as an electorate MP, I am often getting requests for people to get out of Tāmaki to attend tangihanga. I want to acknowledge those faceless officials in the departments in our COVID-19 health response team, who are always at the end of a phone call to enable, as much as possible, life to continue and for Māori to exercise their tikanga practice of farewelling people in this unprecedented and unusual time.

I want to acknowledge the maraes who, on their own initiative, closed their maraes and put in COVID-19 regulations. To this day, in the tangi I attended just last week, there was a big tracking at the front of the marae, ensuring that social distancing, even though they were trying to manage a large tangi where you’re only allowed 100 there, and people respected the decisions of the marae. It’s happening all up and down my electorate, and I want to acknowledge the marae leaders for ensuring that our people are safe while still trying to practise our cultural practices.

But this is a Government that I come back to that puts our people first. I am proud to be part of that and part of the Jacinda-led Government that—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: —is making decisions to ensure that our people are kept safe, and that we can acknowledge. I want to acknowledge our Māori caucus Ministers, particularly Peeni Henare, our Associate Minister of Health, who supports all our ministerial colleagues doing an absolute stellar job in informing and communicating on a regular basis to all people throughout Aotearoa. Ultimately, as members of the 5 million team, we will beat this pandemic if we come together and ensure that people are put first, as we have seen by our leader, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, once again, we’re almost at the end of this 52nd Parliament in this strange year that we call 2020. I just want to pick up on a couple of things this afternoon. One of the previous speakers on the Government side of the House talked about bickering. Now, if questioning is bickering, then we have a problem, because sometimes more questions should be asked, because that’s how we help ourselves to not make mistakes. So if questions are considered bickering, then we have a real problem with the Government of the day. I have got a longstanding statement that was told to me many, many years ago, which says “Feedback is the breakfast of champions”, and if questions are going to be considered bickering and feedback is not going to be accepted, then the current Government is never going to be a team of champions.

What I will say, reflective of these last three years of Government, is that there have been so many broken promises. We just have to name KiwiBuild and light rail, for a start. The list goes on and on and on, and we keep hearing about “It’s a one-in-100-year event.” Look, COVID is very serious and none of us want to downplay COVID, but this was a failing Government before COVID. It’s been a Government with no delivery, no plan, and no policy. So of course when we leave here we’re going into a COVID election, because if this Government calls it a COVID election, it means “Focus on COVID.” There’s still no plan, we hear there’s no policy, so then there’s no story to tell. So then how on earth do you measure, how on earth do you question, and how on earth do you ask about delivery when there’s no plan because of a Government and parties within the Government that will not put up a plan to be measured against?

All that has happened in the last three years of this Government is that they’ve made it harder for employers, they’ve made it harder for landlords, they have made it harder for tourism operators, they have made it harder for travel agents—as mentioned before—and they have made it harder for small business. For a very long time, we had the farmers in this country actually living in a state where—you know, everyone talks about the whole mental health around New Zealand, but sometimes people often forget that farmers are people too.

Recently, this Government has made it harder for Auckland. We get a lot of feedback about us wanting to make the borders safer so that we can potentially open the borders up to international students. Well, actually, we’re an island. We have a lot of water around us, but we’re a trading nation. Ultimately, at some point in the future, we have to be able to bring ourselves back to living within this world again, other than just for goods and services that pass across the borders, and to do that, we have to make sure that the borders are completely safe.

In the last week, this Government and all of the parties that make it up have made it harder for schools to understand their decisions, because for some people, staying in power is more important—

SPEAKER: Order!

BARBARA KURIGER: —than making the right decisions.

We also, on the subject of mental health—mental health is brought up: $1.9 billion in Budget 2019 for mental health. We’ve seen very little of that delivered. It took two years to get to that point, and now I think we’ve got something like $30 million or $40 million delivered. So it’s very easy to make a promise, but it seems in this Government it is much harder to make delivery of those promises. So we get everything in big numbers: a hundred thousand houses, a billion trees—all of these big promises—and $1.9 billion into mental health. Where is it? Where is the delivery? All of these promises—where are they landing on the ground? Because the people that I represent don’t see them. This has been a failed Government, and at the end of the 52nd Parliament, I look forward to coming back in, in Government, after the election. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I have a strange sense of déjà vu, standing for the last time in the 52nd Parliament. Although I have a suspicion, though I am the last speaker in this general debate, I won’t get the last word of the 52nd Parliament, if history is any judge to go by.

But I do think that this last debate of this session of Parliament does clearly highlight the contrast between the parties on this side of the House and the members opposite: the parties on this side of the House, who are focused on uniting New Zealanders in a common cause, which is fighting against COVID-19, and a party on the other side that want to divide New Zealanders. A Government on this side of the House that believes in having an active role for Government in rebuilding New Zealand, rebuilding the economy after one of the greatest economic shocks that we have seen in any of our lifetimes, versus a party on the other side of the House that wants to cut billions of dollars in Government spending. But, most importantly of all, what we see on this side of the House is a Government and a leadership that is dealing with an unprecedented series of events with honesty and with candour and being upfront with New Zealanders, and what they see on the other side of the House, which is a set of vile, nasty personal attacks that are being promoted by members of the National Party.

If the best thing the National Party supporters can do is come up with photos of the Prime Minister superimposed into PornHub images and think that that’s an acceptable thing to be spread on social media, then that explains everything about the predicament that they find themselves in. And when the Leader of the Opposition is asked about that, rather than laughing that off, she should condemn it in the strongest possible terms, because if that’s the lack of leadership that she’s willing to show New Zealanders when it comes to the most vile, nasty stuff I have seen in my time in this House, then she has no place in claiming to be someone who should be aspiring to be the leader of this country.

Vile, nasty attacks are all they’ve got because, when it comes to their recent track record on COVID-19, every time they’ve made a judgment, they’ve got it wrong. Remember, their most recent declaration around lockdowns is that we should aspire to be like Melbourne—we should have neighbourhood lockdowns like they did in Melbourne, rather than regional lockdowns. That’s their current policy as of today. That would put us in exactly the same boat as Melbourne—six weeks of level 4 lockdown—because the neighbourhood lockdown that the National Party are now promoting was a failed approach.

They still, as of today, have a policy of bringing international students back into New Zealand and letting the universities host them in their accommodation. That’s their policy as of today—not changed—and we know that that would be a huge risk. Let’s remember, we needed a trans-Tasman bubble with urgency. We needed to reopen the border with China with urgency. We needed to be more like Sweden, more like Singapore, or more like South Korea. Every judgment the National Party have made when it comes to the COVID-19 response, they have been wrong.

Then we’ve seen in the House today the faux outrage about money being given to a private school, bearing in mind the National Party are champions of private schools. Now, if they were talking about the rotting, filthy state of some private school buildings and were standing up and apologising for that, I would give them a little bit of credit. We inherited a legacy where for 10 years they invested very little in upgrading our schools, and, actually, they’d have more credibility in saying they wanted to do something about that if they weren’t saying that the answer was more public-private partnerships (PPPs), which is their approach. So they are railing against funding for a private school and then saying they want to privatise the management of all school property in the form of PPPs—but don’t use the PPP language anymore. Call it an alliance, and pretend that it’s something else when we know what it is. If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —it’s probably a duck, and the National Party know that.

Then, of course, existing National Party policy, as of today, is to bring back charter schools. That is the National Party policy, a policy that saw kids learning in shipping containers—learning in shipping containers—and that’s the policy that the National Party wants to bring back.

The contrast in this election could not be clearer: a party with a positive vision for New Zealand, one that wants to bring people together, versus a party that has no new ideas and that can simply peddle in fear and misinformation and personal attacks. It’s a very clear contrast. Bring on the election.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Speaker’s Statements

Adjournment Acknowledgments and Privileges Committee Report

SPEAKER: I’m going to make two very brief comments before I go, and the first is to correct an omission last time we had this sort of discussion, when I did not properly thank the Clerk’s Office and the Parliamentary Service for the work that they do, and, in particular, Andie Lindsay, for the way that she is the glue that holds that system together.

I also do want to place on the record that I have now read the report of the Privileges Committee, to indicate that it is my intention to take up with the organisations responsible their continued hosting of material which the Privileges Committee has found should not be hosted, and to reiterate the request to the individuals who have made those postings to take them down.

With all of that, I declare the House adjourned.

The House adjourned at 3.51 p.m.